2013-05-31

Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since the topic is witness protection, I am wondering about the relevance of oil sands and bus manufacturers in Quebec. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In terms of the content of the member's speech, obviously, all members are required to be relevant to the matter that is before the House, and I would urge the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca to do this.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.
[Interjection]
Mr. Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, I was segueing, because as I mentioned, I was a defence attorney in Fort McMurray and I was talking about some of the people I worked with while I was a defence attorney and the fact that the NDP would vote against the jobs those people worked in when I was a defence attorney and dealt with cases such as this in the past.
I know they might not want to hear it and they might want to shut down debate on critical issues such as this. I know they do not want their constituents to find out they went down to Washington and joined in with some people down there to, frankly, protest Canadian jobs. I know they do not want us to talk about that. 
However, as a result of the oil sands and what we are producing there, in a very environmentally sustainable way, we have accomplished the best banking system in the world. We have the best economy in the G8 and the G20. We are looking great as a country right now, not only because our laws are fantastic. The Conservative government has brought in some great laws that are tough on criminals, that do not stand up for victims, as does the NDP. I was on the justice committee for a long period of time and I saw time and time again that the NDP members would stand up and vote against our legislation to be tough on criminals. 
The NDP uses the excuse that there is not enough money, but we have heard differently. I read two quotes today from a very reputable person with the RCMP that it does not need any more money. They talked a bit about and criticized the admissibility part and that there were not enough people being admitted. Well, we dealt with that in the legislation. 
The truth is that the NDP members want to change the channel from what is happening: the NDP speaking against the economy and costing Canadians jobs. We are going to keep Canadians safe, as we would with this legislation, and we are going to continue to make sure the economy grows strong and stays strong. 
[Interjection]
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, my colleague was talking about the fact that the RCMP claimed to have enough money. 
This is all well and good, but in the end, we heard local, municipal and provincial police forces express concern about the lack of funding to handle the growing demand for witness protection. 
What does the hon. member think of the witnesses who expressed these concerns? The RCMP might be doing just fine, but the provinces and municipalities also have to be taken into account. This is where real leadership comes in.
[Interjection]
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, the member is right that it is true leadership. That is why, when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities identified $123 billion in infrastructure investments that were necessary in this country, this federal government responded immediately. We responded with $45 billion of economic investment, along with our partners in the provincial and territorial governments and the municipalities. We doubled the gas tax and made it permanent. Now it increases every few years automatically. The NDP voted against all of those actions, every single one of them, and not just one budget, not just two, but far more. It will continue to vote against all the great measures we bring forward, and it is shameful. I wish New Democrats would stop doing that.
Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what the members opposite keep talking about is funding for municipal and provincial programs. I want to remind the member that places such as British Columbia do not choose to have those kinds of programs. If the federal government starts giving money to certain provinces and not others, that is to the detriment of everyone. What we do have is a national program anyone can access and be referred to on a case-by-case basis.
The hon. member certainly supported many things on the justice committee. He has done an excellent job. I would like him to point out some of the positive aspects so that people at home watching the debate will understand that this piece of legislation is important, particularly in working with the provinces. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.
[Interjection]
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, we always work with our partners, because there is only one taxpayer, and that taxpayer funds all of the services we provide with their money. That is the difference in philosophy. We bring in these laws because we know that we can make people safer. We do not do it with the chequebook as the only barrier to entry.
To get to the point that member raised, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan said this:
 These changes will help strengthen our criminal justice system by providing greater protection for witnesses. We support the proposed improvements to the Witness Protection Program Act as yet another step in making our communities safer. 
If members do not believe me, they can believe him. Clearly, this is a situation where the facts speak for themselves.
 This is going to be a great piece of legislation to keep witnesses safe, which will ultimately get the information to the courts to convict and send the people to jail who deserve it.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I may be the last to speak about this bill tonight.
I listened attentively to the previous speaker, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and I thought the beginning of his discourse was quite interesting. The last part of it I think it may have been the late hour and he may have forgot that the bill we were debating was Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act, not the bill that supports bus industries in the country. I am not exactly sure where he was going. Be that as it may, it is quite important that members try to avoid being dragged under the bus, so let us try to focus on the bill at hand.
The bill has a number of elements that are quite appropriate. There are three key issues.
 We expand eligibility criteria for informants and witnesses, an absolutely critical element. We found in the past that there were a number of people who wished to have admission to this program and were simply refused access. We heard over the course of the debate on the bill that we currently had over 800 people who were under the witness protection program, but this year only 30 were accepted. That is out of a total of 108 who made an application.
The proposed bill will increase access to the witness protection program, and that is an important step, 30 is simply unacceptable. We need to go further. We have to continue to expand this program. The bill will go a long way to doing that, but the problem is the bill will also increase costs. I know the members from the government side seem to think that this is not an important issue, but I guarantee the municipalities and provinces are getting very tired of having to fund the mandates that are being passed, in record speed, in the House of Commons. We are not having proper time to debate these issues. I would like to remind the House that time allocation was forced on this bill after only two speakers at second reading. That has to be a record.
We need time to look at the costs that these programs will bring forward and we need to talk to the provinces and the municipalities on how we can partner with them to pay for those costs.
 I want to raise a couple of quotes that were mentioned today.
 First, I want to start with the minister, who made it very clear that he did not seem to care much about costs. According to the minister:
 It is important to note that it is not anticipated that there would be any need for additional funding to accommodate this change. The program is currently funded by the RCMP from existing operational resources, and that will remain the same under Bill C-51. 
That is wonderful, except the problem with that is we know a lot of the costs are downloaded onto the municipalities and the provinces. Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, talked about how when it had a difficulty and it had to search the services of the RCMP, the costs of this program were downloaded. As Micki Ruth indicated at the committee level, currently when a municipality did make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime was federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP would take over and would charge the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford.
Even the RCMP has acknowledged that increased costs of this nature can impede an investigation. This is a serious problem. We are bringing forward changes which are going to increase costs to those who can least afford it. The government has to think about the repercussions of its actions, and it so heck-bent on bringing changes forward in record time that we are not having the proper debate on how we are going to deal with the costs that are downloaded.
Nevertheless, we do have a lot of important issues that are going to be addressed in the bill. Again, the expanded criteria eligibility is very important. Co-operation with the provinces in designating legislation, which is going to be reflected in federal legislation, is very important, as are the funding criteria and all of these things we need to be move forward with. The bill could do with a little improvement, but it is a good step in the right direction.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I desperately would have liked to have risen when the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca was speaking just to provide one quick correction about the oil sands. Actually, it is at 43 years, not at 44. Suncor celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2010, and we are only at 2013.
In response to the hon. member's comment about our fighting against Canadian jobs, that is actually what this government has been doing in advocating for Keystone. We are flushing 40,000 Canadian jobs into the U.S. market instead of having them here.
I will go back to the bill. As we have mentioned before, the resources are lacking for municipal and provincial police forces to ensure that they are able to provide adequate witness protection.
This is particularly relevant in areas like Scarborough Southwest, where often crimes are happening in neighbourhoods where the witnesses themselves live. Perhaps the member could comment on the difficulty of actually getting people to come forward when their neighbours might be the ones committing the crimes. That is why they might need additional resources to get into the witness protection program and move out of those areas. Those might not be borne by the federal government.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important point. The bill actually addresses this issue in significant ways. It is very important, if we are to address the issue of gangs, gang warfare and terrorist organizations, to know that these people are under a lot of pressure not to come forward and testify. They are under a lot of pressure not to come to the police to assist and become informants, essentially.
We also have the problem of informants, working in very difficult circumstances, who need all the support we can possibly afford them. It is very important that the bill addresses those issues, and I think the bill is actually taking steps in the right direction.
I would like to underline especially the fact that the emergency protection criteria in the bill have been extended. That is an important step as well. We have gone from a 90-day period for people to consider whether they are prepared to enter witness protection to now, in emergency situations, having 180 days, which is a significant improvement to the bill.
That is what the Liberal Party brought forward so many years ago that needed a lot of--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.
Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like to hear what he thinks about the comments made by Commissioner Micki Ruth, who testified in committee on March 7, 2013. She is a member of the Policing and Justice Committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. She said:
 Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended. 

[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think that we need to seriously consider Micki Ruth's comments. In committee we repeatedly heard that a lot of witnesses were very worried because the bill did not do enough.
I want to get back to the issue of funding. The bill does not provide for the funding that will be needed if the House decides to pass it. 
I also want to point out that Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, was not the only one who expressed this point of view. Alok Mukherjee had this to say about Toronto:
 Our conclusion has been that there needs to be more funding available than currently is the case. Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. 
We have to ask ourselves: if we pass a bill and the people who are supposed to benefit from it cannot because there are not enough resources, then does the bill truly respond to a need? The bill ought to be improved, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 12:22 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday May 22, 2013, the division stands deferred until Monday June 3, 2013, at the expiry of time provided for oral questions.
Combating Counterfeit Products ActHon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):  moved that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have to say at this hour I am usually here on my own, just with your, so I am delighted to have so many guests. I am honoured today to rise and introduce C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, at second reading. 
Last year our government welcomed the final passage and coming into force of the Copyright Modernization Act, which gave new rights and new tools for copyright owners and users, giving them the certainty and tools they need to fully engage in the online world. As part of the overall balance of the bill, the copyright modernization act introduced specific provisions to deal with the issue of online piracy. 
With the combating counterfeit products act, we would be taking the next step in putting in place the legislative changes that are needed to deal with counterfeiting and piracy in the physical marketplace and at our borders. This bill would protect Canadians from harmful counterfeit products. It would help our creative businesses and workers, and law enforcement and border officers confront the increasing threat of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. It would also bring Canada's laws in line with international standards.
Before describing the various features of this bill, please allow me to clarify what counterfeiting and piracy mean in the context of the--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please.
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, my apologies. When I speak of counterfeit trademark goods, I am referring to knock-off goods--
My apologies. I am referring to knock-off goods that are distributed on a commercial scale and that closely resemble the legitimate goods, but that bear an unauthorized trademark--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to get a little caught up at this hour. I know that when even the whip is laughing at my comments, I have a definitely reached a new low in the House of Commons. 
I am glad that you are staying straight-faced, Mr. Speaker. I will stay concentrating on you. 
It is easy to associate counterfeit goods with designer clothes, watches and so on, similar to what was being spoken about in the lobby by the member for Mississauga South earlier this evening. The reality is that counterfeit goods extend well beyond luxury goods. They are found in nearly all types of commercial and industrial products, from shampoo to smart phones, from industrial ball bearings to brake pads--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. If the parliamentary secretary is unable to proceed, would she prefer to cede the floor to another member? 
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I will proceed.
 Today they are more pervasive and more difficult to detect and, in this sense, much more problematic. Consumers may even unwittingly purchase a good that they assume to be legitimate, but which contains counterfeit components. We owe it hard-working Canadian families to prevent exposure to such products.
Copyright piracy is the making of illegal copies without consent of copyright holders and their subsequent commercial distribution. We know from our stakeholders, that copyright piracy is increasingly moving online.
The issue of copyright piracy in the physical marketplace is far from resolved, when we think of CDs, DVDs or software being offered for sale in stores and in other markets.
Commercial counterfeiting and piracy are growing issues in Canada and around the world. As with illicit activities, the scope of counterfeiting and piracy is difficult to track and measure. 
However, this is what we do know. The RCMP investigated over 4,500 cases of IP crimes in Canada between 2005 and 2012. In 2005, the RCMP seized over $7 million worth of counterfeit and pirated goods. In 2012, this number had grown to $38 million, a fivefold increase.
Canada is not alone. Other developed countries are signalling a rise in the prevalence of counterfeit and pirated goods in the marketplace.
This increase in the value of seizures in Canada is also consistent with what we have heard from Canadian businesses. They have been telling us for years now that counterfeiting and piracy have an impact on innovation and economic growth across the country.
Over the last six years, organizations such as the Canadian Intellectual Property Council and the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network have issued reports calling for legislative changes to deal with counterfeiting and piracy. Most recently, we heard the same calls from several witnesses at a study before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. 
The measures proposed in the bill are crucial if we are to keep creating high-tech jobs in the future.
Businesses have been overwhelmingly vocal in their support of the bill. For example, Mr. Kevin Spreekmeester, vice-president of global marketing at Canada Goose Inc. and co-chair of the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, said, on March 1:
 Canadians have long been victims to the illicit counterfeit trade and the new measures announced today should be welcome news for consumers, businesses and retailers alike. 
Mr. Jayson Myers, president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers &amp; Exporters, explained that counterfeiting:
 —has been a longstanding priority issue for manufacturers...[they] punish legitimate businesses. They are a drain on our economy and on jobs – and they put the health, safety and environment of every Canadian at risk... 
Counterfeiting and piracy hurt our economy. However, beyond their economic impact, there are serious criminality and health and safety issues that we simply cannot overlook.
 The commercial production and distribution of counterfeit and pirated goods has been associated with organized crime. This is just another line of business for them and it may help them fund other types of activities, such as drug smuggling and illegal firearm sales.
As for health and safety, there are numerous examples of counterfeit goods that could expose Canadians to danger. Think of the counterfeit batteries or car parts, medicines or baby food.
In 2005, 11% of counterfeiting and piracy cases examined by the RCMP involved harmful products. In 2012, this number grew to 30%.
I would also like to take a moment to speak about one of the particular issues that illustrates the growing threat posed by these goods.
In July 2012, Canada Border Services Agency officers referred a shipment to the RCMP for investigation. This shipment contained 476 counterfeit wheel bearings, with a commercial value of $45,000, which were to be used by the Canadian mining industry.
What this illustrates is the fact that these goods have not been subjected to Canadian safety standards and may cause harm as a result. Who knows whether these pieces of equipment would have actually functioned to the standard of levels that we expect in Canadian equipment.
With the new provisions in this bill, we will start to get a fuller picture of the threat that commercial counterfeiting and piracy pose to the Canadian economy and to address it within Canada and at its borders.
Now that I have described the scope of this issue and the very tangible consequences of counterfeiting and piracy for businesses, consumers and the economy, let me turn to a description of the key elements of Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, and of how this bill would help in the fight against commercial counterfeiting and piracy.
To confront this, we must give new authorities to border officers to enable them to act when they encounter commercial counterfeit or pirated goods at the border. We must also give rights holders the tools they need to stop counterfeiting and piracy before these illegal goods can enter the Canadian market and undermine their brand and their work. Third, we must give law enforcement the tools it needs to pursue those who gain commercially from this illegal activity.
With respect to the bill itself, let me expand. First, the bill would strengthen Canada's intellectual property rights enforcement regime at the border. Currently, border officers are not allowed to search for and detain counterfeit and pirated goods without a court order obtained by the trademark or copyright owner, which has proven to be onerous for businesses overall.
Bill C-56 introduces a process that would allow rights holders to submit to the CBSA a request for assistance, which would enable border officers to share information with rights holders regarding suspect commercial shipments.
The request for assistance would allow rights holders to record details about their trademark or copyright at the border, and to provide contact information. It would also contain practical information about how to identify legitimate versus counterfeit or pirated goods. The request for assistance would be an effective tool to enable rights holders to defend their private rights in civil court.
Let me be clear. Bill C-56 would not allow border officers to seize goods for copyright or trademark infringement. It would provide the authority for border officers to temporarily detain goods suspected of being counterfeit or pirated, and then provide limited information to rights holders regarding those detained goods.
This information could only be used to determined if the goods were counterfeit or pirated, or to assist the rights holders in pursuing remedies in the courts. The courts would remain the only competent authority to determine whether goods detained at the border infringed intellectual property rights and to apply appropriate remedies.
The bill would also amend the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act to allow border officers to temporarily detain shipments suspected of containing commercial counterfeit and pirated goods. Border officers would be able to act either following a request for assistance or on their own initiative.
With these new measures at the border, we would only target commercial counterfeiting and piracy. There would be a personal use exemption, which means we would not be searching individual travellers possessing personal use quantities.
The bill would provide a specific exception at the border for individual consumers importing goods intended for personal use, as part of their personal baggage.
Goods that were made legitimately in the country where they were produced would be excluded from the new border measures.
With this bill, we would send a clear message. We understand the threats that counterfeiting and piracy represent for our businesses, for the economy and for the health and safety of Canadians, and we are acting accordingly.
Our government has been clear. Our focus remains on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. Counterfeiting and piracy directly threaten each of these. With the provisions in the combating counterfeit products act, our government would be taking action to curb the presence of these illegal goods in our country and at our borders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time for government orders has expired. When this matter returns before the House, the hon. parliamentary secretary will have seven minutes remaining.

Adjournment Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved. 
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House in the middle of the night to address a subject that is extremely important to the people of Limoilou. In fact, this Sunday, June 2, many concerned citizens will be taking part in a demonstration on the streets of Limoilou to show their concern about this problem and their desire to come up with a solution. I will be joining them.
Before going any further and asking the Minister of Transport  my question, I want to provide some context. On March 7, 2012, in the House, the Minister of Transport and his Conservative colleagues voted against a motion calling on the federal government to actively support the Port of Québec so that it could go ahead with renovations and upgrades of obsolete equipment that was falling into disrepair. 
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the Minister of Transport and his colleagues voted against the motion, which echoed CEO Mario Girard's heartfelt appeal. It is rather ironic that in his last reply to the question that I asked him in the House, the Minister of Transport said, unfortunately for Mr. Girard, that he had absolute confidence in the CEO of the Port of Québec and also in the chair of the board of directors, Mr. Éric Dupont.
 The Minister of Transport is all talk and has done nothing tangible to support the port authorities and help them face the challenges posed by the decrepit state of the Port of Québec and the renovations required.
There is a clear, logical progression between the motion I moved in the House nearly two years ago in support of the Port of Quebec and the problem that surfaced last fall regarding nickel dust contamination. The Minister of Transport, after mocking the elected representative of the people of Beauport—Limoilou, who brought proof of this highly unusual situation to the House of Commons, scoffed at this legitimate issue. 
Since then, Quebec's minister for sustainable development, the environment and parks has clearly established that it was the Port of Quebec that caused the contamination, and the public health director clearly stated that it was a serious health issue that affected nearly 20% of the people in Limoilou.
How can the Minister of Transport show such disrespect for the people of Beauport—Limoilou and disregard their concerns?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I am pleased to outline Transport Canada's efforts on the file related to the presence of dust in the Limoilou area.
First, I believe it is important to mention that we are working in close co-operation with the Quebec Port Authority, which is responsible for administering, managing and operating on a stand-alone basis the infrastructure under its responsibility. To date, Transport Canada has been pleased with the Quebec Port Authority's collaboration in the identification of the potential sources of dust emissions in the Limoilou area and in implementing measures for monitoring the types and quantities of air emissions associated with the port operations.
As part of the member for Beauport—Limoilou's area, the Quebec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks has determined, in a report published on April 15, the high source of concentration of nickel in the air is due to the transfer of mineral ore by Arrimage du St-Laurent, an affiliate of Arrimage du Québec. Following the tabling of the report, and to follow up on the notice of non-conformity sent by the MDDEFP, Arrimage du St-Laurent presented, during a press conference held on May 2, the corrective measures they will be putting in place to rectify the circumstance.
Besides a full review of its operations, the installation of sprinklers, the implementation of washing stations and the relocation of access routes, many other measures have also been planned by the company. The Quebec Port Authority will work in collaboration with all its lessees to limit the impact of the port activities on the community moving forward. It is co-operating in the implementation of measures put in place by Arrimage du St-Laurent.
In light of the recent developments, I am confident and satisfied with the efforts being made by the Quebec Port Authority to further the region's economic development while ensuring the quality of life of residents in the beautiful Quebec City area and the quality of the environment.
I will end by asking the member for Beauport—Limoilou to exercise caution in interpreting the data from the Direction régionale de santé publique. The member is aware that a multitude of factors must be considered when trying to determine the reasons for the health status differences between different areas within a specific region.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I was almost prepared to cry victory when I got confirmation of what I have been saying for months and months, as I passed on what the public or some particularly health conscious individuals had observed.
Unfortunately, I did not learn anything new. The fact that the Port of Québec is the biggest nickel transshipment terminal in North America and one of the biggest in the world does not seem to have been taken into account. These are huge facilities.
I believe that the Port of Québec and Arrimage du St-Laurent are going to make an effort. In fact, I had the opportunity to speak with the CEO. Of course, I was told and reassured that measures had been put in place. However, does the government really believe that this problem is going to magically disappear without government assistance?
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, Transport Canada is monitoring this file closely. Furthermore, I believe that the collaborative efforts of the different stakeholders demonstrate the importance accorded to identifying the potential source of nickel emissions. Once again, I invite the member for Beauport—Limoilou to exercise caution with respect to interpreting the data from the Direction régionale de santé publique. 
In conclusion, it behooves me to underscore the important role the Canadian Port Authority is playing in Canada's economic development. By working with various partners, the port authorities are able to implement the necessary measures to promote their development while protecting the environment.
EmploymentMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary staying around, given the late hour. I will try to be concise. This is an area of interest to her in her role as parliamentary secretary.
This is a follow-up from a question I put to the minister on April 16. My question related to the hiring of temporary foreign workers and issues raised by those who work in the skilled trades and the concerns of the trades and construction workers that the government needed a wake-up call. They had stated to me that the real barrier to skilled workers is a lack of paid apprenticeships. The Canadian Apprenticeship Forum had reported that fewer than 50% of employers were hiring skilled workers and enabling them to take part in apprenticeships. 
I put that question to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and found the answer a little unsatisfactory. Indeed, she reiterated some of the programs the government had offered in previous years, starting back in 2006, yet we continue to not have sufficient numbers of apprenticeships provided.
I followed up with the skilled trades and construction workers associations, the Alberta Federation of Labour and other organizations. They have continued to raise concerns with me that the federal government is not taking enough action to facilitate apprenticeships. Why is that important? It is important that our workers get their ticket so that they can be paid according to their skill level. The problem has been that a lot of major employers prefer to bring in skilled temporary foreign workers, because they do not want to slow down their work and spend the resources and so forth to provide apprenticeships to Canadian workers.
I was assured today that the federal government is holding some discussions with the Building Trades Association, and it is encouraged that the federal government might be moving forward in pursuing some kind of support or activity to enable apprenticeships, but here is the problem.
I should first point out that the federal government is the largest purchaser of construction activity in Canada. Therefore, it could be a real model for other employers that it is useful to invest in apprenticeships or could encourage or direct that there be apprenticeships. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada has met with the building trades and has proposed three options, only one of which is amenable to the building trades.
First is to simply educate the contractors. It would be a good idea if they had a certain percentage of apprenticeships. 
Second, the government is suggesting that corporate bidders might want to offer apprenticeships.
The third option is the one the building trades clearly want, and that is that the government require all bidders on federal construction jobs to require a specified percentage of apprenticeship positions and that they report on that work.
Very clearly, there is one option the government could pursue. It would set an example for other employers in Canada and provide good opportunities for Canadian workers.
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, the government is taking a balanced approach with respect to making sure that apprentices have the opportunities to be trained. Our reforms are focused on employers working hard to provide available jobs and making sure that Canadians are cognizant of what is available to them.
With respect to our most recent budget, to be clear, there are a number of items the federal government has proposed in economic action plan 2013 with regard to skilled trades across the country and making sure that apprentices, in particular, have opportunities.
The centrepiece of the budget is the Canada job grant. In conjunction with employers and the provinces, we will be contributing to the skills training of unemployed or underemployed individuals to fill vacant jobs. This will move skills training from government programs into the hands of job creators.
Because we are aware that practical work experience is just as important as education and training, the second phase of this plan involves the creation of additional job opportunities for companies.
We have apprenticeship programs that are already working well. With our track record in supporting them for up to $4,000 through the apprenticeship incentives grant and the apprenticeship completion grant, tradespeople across the country have opportunities.
With respect to economic action plan 2013, there are three major initiatives that focus on the skilled trades. The first, which I have mentioned already, is the Canada job grant. The second, though, is our commitment in federal contracts, particularly those associated with affordable housing on maintenance, as well as new contracts, to have apprentices on job sites to make sure they can acquire the number of hours they need to move forward and become journeypersons.
We have also made a commitment to look at practical testing to make sure young apprentices can be assessed and move forward and also to help in their mobility from province to province. The member opposite may have heard from her colleagues that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard significant concerns with regard to the mobility of young apprentices across the country, province to province, and the effort to decrease the interprovincial barriers. We will be working closely with the provinces in an effort to facilitate the movement of labour across the country.
Finally, we are focused on making sure the youth of tomorrow know what jobs are available, particularly that jobs in skilled trades are available to them and that they are excellent opportunities to have a great qualify of life. We are investing $19 million to make sure both employers and students are well educated in what opportunities are available to them across the country.
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for the information she has provided. Unfortunately, she has not really answered the question of what specific mechanism the government will use to ensure people have greater access to apprenticeships where there are federal contracts. I think I can say on behalf of the building trades that they would prefer the third option, that it actually becomes a requirement for all bidding on federal contracts, including housing. They look forward to getting clarification from the government that it is actually going to start imposing that mandatory requirement.
In follow-up to the discussion about the jobs that have been controversial and about advertising a program that does not exist yet, they are pleased that there is some consultation with appropriate partners, but there is still nothing with the provinces and territories. 
The specific question is this. If and when this program actually arrives and everybody is cost sharing, what trades will be included and in what regions of Canada?
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Canada is facing a significant skills gap. That is why, in our effort to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, we must match training to the skills that employers are actually looking for. The Canada job grant is doing just that. The intent is to move training from government into the hands of employers, the people who know what jobs are in demand and available, and out of the hands of government.
The red seal trades in particular offer the opportunity for well-paid careers in areas that are in high demand. 
Through grants, tax credits and support for training programs, we are encouraging apprenticeships and careers in the skilled trades across the country. 
I look forward to support from members opposite for our focus in economic action plan 2013 to facilitate skilled trades.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May, 22, 2013, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:54 a.m.)

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: Before delivering a ruling regarding the report stage of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, the Chair would like to thank those hon. members who have raised points of order regarding the process followed during the committee's consideration of the bill at clause-by-clause and in particular, on the impact this might have on the role of independent members in the selection of motions at report stage.
In view of the numerous arguments that have been raised on these questions over the past few days, the Chair believes that a comprehensive ruling on this matter is required. I will return with a detailed ruling on the matter, to be delivered at a later date.
Meanwhile, however, let me simply state that I cannot conclude that the committee has exceeded the limits of its mandate in adopting the process that it has followed and that accordingly, consideration of the bill may proceed. Therefore, my ruling this morning will be limited to the selection, grouping and voting pattern with regard to the motion that appears on today's notice paper.
The Speaker: There are 80 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-60.
Motions Nos. 5, 21 to 23, 25, 28, 44, 46, 76 and 77 will not be selected by the Chair, as they were submitted to the committee, deemed proposed and subsequently defeated by the committee. Furthermore, Motions Nos. 4, 45 and 75 will not be selected by the Chair, since they could have been submitted to the committee for its consideration.
I would like to reassure hon. members that as stated in my opening remarks, I will address the rationale for the selection of these motions and the other arguments raised in the points of order when I return to the House with a comprehensive ruling.
All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.
Motions numbered 1 to 3, 6 to 20, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 43, 47 to 74 and 78 to 80 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. 
I shall now propose motions numbered 1 to 3, 6 to 20, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 43, 47 to 74 and 78 to 80 to the House.
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):  moved:
 Motion No. 1 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 1. 
 Motion No. 2 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 12. 
 Motion No. 3 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 15. 
 Motion No. 6 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 104. 
 Motion No. 7 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 105. 
 Motion No. 8 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 106. 
 Motion No. 9 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 107. 
 Motion No. 10 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 108. 
 Motion No. 11 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 109. 

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): , seconded by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, moved:
 Motion No. 12 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 112. 
 Motion No. 13 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 113. 
 Motion No. 14 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 114. 
 Motion No. 15 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 115. 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 16 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 125. 
 Motion No. 17 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 133. 
 Motion No. 18 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 134. 
 Motion No. 19 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 135. 
 Motion No. 20 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 136. 
 Motion No. 24 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 137. 
 Motion No. 26 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 143. 
 Motion No. 27 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 144. 
 Motion No. 29 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 147. 
 Motion No. 30 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 148. 
 Motion No. 31 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 149. 
 Motion No. 32 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 150. 
 Motion No. 33 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 151. 
 Motion No. 34 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 152. 
 Motion No. 35 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 153. 
 Motion No. 36 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 154. 
 Motion No. 37 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 162. 
 Motion No. 38 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 167. 
 Motion No. 39 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 168. 
 Motion No. 40 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 169. 
 Motion No. 41 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 170. 
 Motion No. 42 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 171. 
 Motion No. 43 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 172. 
 Motion No. 47 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 200. 
 Motion No. 48 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 201. 
 Motion No. 49 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 202. 
 Motion No. 50 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 203. 
 Motion No. 51 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 204. 
 Motion No. 52 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 205. 
 Motion No. 53 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 206. 
 Motion No. 54 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 207. 
 Motion No. 55 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 208. 
 Motion No. 56 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 209. 
 Motion No. 57 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 210. 
 Motion No. 58 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 211. 
 Motion No. 59 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 212. 
 Motion No. 60 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 213. 
 Motion No. 61 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 214. 
 Motion No. 62 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 215. 
 Motion No. 63 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 216. 
 Motion No. 64 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 217. 
 Motion No. 65 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 218. 
 Motion No. 66 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 219. 
 Motion No. 67 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 220. 
 Motion No. 68 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 221. 
 Motion No. 69 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 222. 
 Motion No. 70 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 223. 
 Motion No. 71 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 224. 
 Motion No. 72 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 225. 
 Motion No. 73 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 228. 
 Motion No. 74 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 229. 
 Motion No. 78 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 230. 
 Motion No. 79 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 231. 
 Motion No. 80 
 That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 232. 

Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I rise yet again to speak on Bill C-60, another Conservative omnibus bill that crams changes to more than 50 pieces of legislation into it, and which ought to have been split up and studied at various different committees.
This bill will have wide-ranging impacts, affecting everything from the price of an iPod to credit unions to foreign aid to journalistic freedom of the CBC. This omnibus budget bill makes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, to the Investment Canada Act, and it merges the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade with CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency.
This bill also raises taxes on Canadians by introducing tax hikes on credit unions, increasing the taxes on small businesses, and increasing the taxes on thousands of products that Canadians use every day.
It took generations to establish institutions like the CBC and the central bank, and some of these institutions are the envy of the world. However, this bill would undermine the collective bargaining process at many of our Crown corporations, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Via Rail, Canada Post, the CBC and the Bank of Canada.
 These institutions have always been ambitious, but theirs was a vision grounded in hope and optimism. Canadians have always known that as a country we are stronger together.
Our leaders once had the wisdom to accept the independence of the Bank of Canada and the integrity of the CBC. They saw this independence as an asset to our country, not a threat to the power of government.
However, the Conservatives do not trust Canadians. Bill C-60, like omnibus bills before it, are evidence of this contempt. Many of the changes in Bill C-60 are cynical measures that will give more power to the Conservative government's inner circle while taking away the voice of Parliament from independent bodies, and ultimately from Canadians.
The Conservatives are making rash and ideological choices to push omnibus 3.0 through Parliament without talking to Canadians. If they had, they would have heard the kinds of things that I have been hearing from my constituents.
 Parkdale—High Park, the electoral district I represent, is home to many Ukrainian credit unions. I recently met with representatives from the Council Of Ukrainian Credit Unions Of Canada, which has a combined membership of over 60,000 people across the country. The representatives I met with were shocked that they were not consulted in advance about these changes. These tax code changes were absolutely unexpected, and there was no comprehensive review of the sector before these changes were introduced in the budget.
The changes have surprised people and created worry and uncertainty for credit unions and the many Canadians who rely on their services. In my riding, the Ukrainian credit unions invest nearly $1 million annually in community programming, projects and educational initiatives, which will simply disappear as a result of these changes.
There is also a great deal of concern from credit unions from coast to coast about the long-term impact of these changes. We appreciate diversity in the financial sector and the banking sectors of Canada. They are part of modern economy, but I share the concerns of my constituents, and many Canadians, that these changes put that diversity at risk. However, the Conservatives would have had to talk to Canadians to know this. 
My office has also been flooded with letters and emails and phone calls from constituents concerned about how Bill C-60 will impact the CBC, our national broadcaster. Thousands of Canadians are writing to tell Parliament that sections relating to the CBC alone are reason to stop this omnibus bill, to make changes to it. Last week I received a letter saying:
 I do not want any politician exercising this kind of control over our national public broadcaster. 
 It is not a state broadcaster.
Another letter put it succinctly, saying, “What can I do; Where do I protest..”.
Canadians have made it crystal clear. They do not support these measures, so why are the Conservatives not listening?
Respected members of the Canadian media are telling Parliament that this omnibus bill needs to be intercepted. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, the Canadian Media Guild, the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada and ACTRA are urging all of the Conservatives to use common sense.
On issue after issue it is clear that Bill C-60 is not what Canadians want, and if the Conservatives were listening they would know that. If they had talked to Canadians, they would be hearing the advice of experts like George Smith, who has decades of experience in Canadian business. Smith was once the chief management negotiator for Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway and the CBC. At the finance committee Smith stated:
 These proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act, buried in Bill C-60, contradict both the spirit and intent of the Canada Labour Code...and create a role for government in crown corporation collective bargaining which is not contemplated in the Canada Labour Code. 
Another issue of serious concern is the impact that this omnibus bill would have on the independence of the Bank of Canada. Last week, I tabled a motion at the finance committee to study the impact of this bill on the Bank of Canada, but the Conservatives voted against it, as they vote against every proposed amendment. However, in a recent article in the The Globe and Mail, Kevin Carmichael, one of Canada's most respected financial reporters, discussed my motion and affirmed that measures in this bill could gravely impact the independence of the bank. Again, the Conservatives are willing to sacrifice the independence of our central bank and the national interest, if it means giving more power to the Prime Minister's Office. 
Another measure in omnibus bill 3.0 makes changes to the temporary foreign worker program. These measures are a band-aid solution that does not get to the heart of the government's mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program. Experts and community groups across the country are speaking out against this band-aid solution.
When is it enough? Canadians are saying, once again, that they do not support this omnibus budget bill. Canadians have serious concerns with the measures in Bill C-60, and until those concerns are addressed, we cannot support this bill and we will not support this bill.
There are serious issues facing our country, but budget 2013 does not rise to meet these challenges. It does nothing to address unemployment, record levels of household debt or rising inequality. Instead, the Conservative government is more concerned with rearranging power to give more power to its inner circle and less voice to Canadians.
Let us not forget what this budget is not doing. It is not getting Canadians back to work. It will not stimulate growth. Instead, this budget is squarely focused on a job-killing austerity agenda that has made major cuts to the services that Canadians rely on. Putting people to work is clearly the best way to reduce our deficit.
There is no need to play big brother with the Bank of Canada. There is no need to trample on credit unions that so many communities rely on. There is no need to spend millions on an advertising budget that Canadians do not agree with.
 Instead, New Democrats know that investing in education and infrastructure, making life more affordable for Canadians, supporting small and medium-sized businesses and creating high-quality, high-paying jobs is the best way to get our economy back on track.
Canadians are counting on us. They are counting on New Democrats, and I dare say all of this Parliament, to show leadership and bring forward the ideas and proposals that will work in the public interest, not the private interest of a few insiders. We need to put Canadians first. This budget does not do that. 
I see that my time is up. I look forward to the questions and comments from my colleagues.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to our amendments to Bill C-60.
I figured the members would be interested in talking more about this during questions and comments, so I had to hurry. Still, I will use my time to talk about why the Bloc Québécois's amendments to Bill C-60 are so important.
Once again, the government has tabled a budget implementation bill that makes many changes that are not strictly financial. Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, we have gotten used to seeing measures like these in mammoth bills. Several different committees have had to look at measures that originated with the Standing Committee on Finance and end up going back there.
It is very difficult for both MPs and Canadians to follow exactly what is going on. I think that was the government's plan when it decided to bury so many other measures in the budget implementation bill.
Today, I would like to focus on how some of our amendments relate to the Canada health transfer for Quebec. Other provinces have also expressed disapproval regarding the federal government's cuts to health transfers. The Conservatives say that they have not cut anything. They say that the budget remains the same, that it is stable. However, we are not seeing the 6% increase that was supposed to happen.
Instead of growing by 6% per year, the Canada health transfer will increase in step with economic growth, though it will never rise by less than 3%. Over time, the federal government will reduce funding for health care to a fraction of the 50% it was originally. By 2024, it will probably shrink to 18.6%.
Why do we want to get rid of that clause? We want the health transfer to continue increasing by 6%. We all know that health costs are skyrocketing in Quebec and the other provinces. The Government of Quebec reacted strongly to this decision.
When the federal government announced its plan, Quebec's finance minister reacted. A message on the Government of Quebec's website reads as follows:
 While the federal budget confirms technical changes to the equalization program, Mr. Marceau pointed out that Quebec had asked that the caps that were imposed on the program in 2009 be removed. “Because of these caps, Quebec has suffered significant financial losses totalling $7.6 billion since 2009-10. Combined with budget shortfalls resulting from the federal government's unilateral decisions in 2011 regarding health care, Quebec will lose out on $8.6 billion between 2014-15 and 2024-25. Together, these unilateral changes are having a very serious negative impact on Quebec's public finances. The Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to reverse these unfair decisions,” Minister Marceau stated. 
This shows what a serious impact these decisions are having. That is why I am confident that at least the members in the House from Quebec will support our call to delete this amendment on health transfers.
Of course there are other issues related to crown corporations, credit unions and securities, and I would be remiss if I did not address them. Once again, we proposed amendments to make this budget implementation bill more equitable.
In the case of credit unions, this measure was introduced in 1972 in order to allow Canadian credit unions to build capital faster. From our perspective, of course, we are particularly concerned about the Caisses Desjardins.
Most credit unions are subject to a federal corporate tax rate of about 11%, and the additional deduction for credit unions means they can enjoy a lower tax rate, since they are not otherwise eligible for the small business deduction, up to a maximum cumulative amount, which is directly related to the total amounts the credit unions owe their members. 
This budget announces plans to phase out this additional deduction for credit unions over a five-year period. It will be completely eliminated by 2017.
On top of the impact on the caisses populaires members, some fear that certain branches will close if this deduction is cancelled.
The Bloc Québécois is proposing to maintain the current deduction formula. I would remind hon. members that budget 2013 is a frontal attack on several aspects of Quebec society. Eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds that help vulnerable Quebec businesses, such as Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN, is just another one of the obstacles the Conservative government is putting in the way of small businesses and investors in Quebec.
Clause 15, which deals with this measure affecting credit unions and caisses populaires, should also be eliminated.
As hon. members know, the Bloc Québécois has made securities their issue for a very long time, for ages, or certainly since the current Minister of Finance got it in his head—in a pigheaded way, in fact—to create a Canada-wide securities commission. He wants to impose it on Quebec and the provinces.
Quebec is not the only province that is against this decision. However, this issue got a lot of ink, in Quebec in particular, and it will get even more. The Supreme Court recently made a ruling whereby the provinces, Quebec, have all the latitude they want to take care of their securities commissions themselves. 
I have in hand a press release from the Government of Quebec, which slammed this decision when the Conservative Minister of Finance brought down his budget. Mr. Marceau says he does not understand why the federal government is insisting on setting up a Canada-wide securities commission when the rulings handed down by the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are clear. Minister Marceau also said he is surprised that the federal government extended the mandate of the Canadian securities transition office. This is what Minister Marceau said: 
 Allowing the federal government to insinuate itself in securities regulation, which is within Québec’s exclusive jurisdiction, is out of the question. 
It is rather surprising. Well, it is and it is not, since the government's stubbornness is not surprising. However, when the Supreme Court has given a ruling, it is time to give up. The Supreme Court made that decision for a reason, and that reason is just as clear as what is set out in the Constitution: that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces must be respected.
Yet, the Minister of Finance and his friends on Bay Street, probably, are telling themselves that they are in control, that they have the power and that they are going to shove this much-touted Canada-wide securities commission down the throats of Quebec and the other provinces no matter what the cost.
Take, for example, what is happening around the world. The government often brags that it prevented an economic disaster, but not all countries were so lucky. One of the reasons we were is because of our securities system, which ensures that Quebec and the provinces can have their own control system if they want. The system is working well.
The OECD has said as much about Canada's securities system. Other countries also work this way, so I do not understand why the minister would continue down the path he is taking when everyone, except perhaps his friends on Bay Street and a few provincial governments, are saying that he can have a Canadian commission if he wants but that each province, and Quebec in particular, should continue to have their own control over the securities system. 
I have to wrap up, but I would be remiss if I did not mention the federal government's decision to interfere in Crown corporations' collective bargaining negotiations. This is a great cause for concern. We have already seen what happened with Canada Post and what is now happening with CBC/Radio-Canada. The government wants to interfere in negotiations. Obviously, CBC/Radio-Canada's concern is maintaining control over its newsroom. This is all also related to Bill C-377, which started making the headlines again yesterday.
In this context, the House must adopt the Bloc Québécois’s amendments to delete those provisions and ensure that the implementing legislation deals with tax measures and leaves out all the other measures that should be introduced in separate bills.
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague opposite that some of the things he said in his speech are not accurate.
Regarding the securities system in Canada, the Supreme Court clearly said that the federal government has certain responsibilities with respect to the financial markets. We cannot ignore them. Everything in this bill clearly and strictly relates to federal proposals. 
Quebec eliminated its special access for credit unions in 2003. Therefore, Quebec agrees with the federal government on that. I simply wanted to clarify the facts about these two matters for Canadians. 
What is more, I have many quotes from Quebec organizations, such as the chamber of commerce, which support our 2013 budget. I invite my colleague to read them. This is a good bill and a good budget, and he should support it. 
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I have always said in the House—and the parliamentary secretary can check the speeches I have given since 2004—that every bill has pros and cons that must be weighed before voting for it. 
In this case, we are not debating the budget, but the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60. What I am telling the parliamentary secretary and all members of the House is that amendments should be adopted in order to improve the bill.
With respect to securities, I understand that the member is supporting her Minister of Finance and that she has found some phrases that suit her purposes in the Supreme Court ruling. However, I have an article here that says that the Supreme Court of Canada does not at all agree with the Conservative Minister of Finance.
 According to the Supreme Court, “the government...is violating the principle of the division of powers of the Canadian Constitution by attempting to create a national securities commission.”
What more do I have to say?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House once again to speak to an important piece of pro-economic and job growth legislation. Of course, I am talking about Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, which is BIA 1, at report stage. 
Before I begin my remarks I want to take a moment to personally thank all of my colleagues on the finance committee for their outstanding work in their careful, detailed and timely consideration of the bill, and I mean all of the members from all of the parties, including independent members who came to committee.
Also, I would like to thank all the witnesses who took their time to come before the committee to share their thoughts and opinions about the bill and its importance to the Canadian economy.
I would also be remiss if I did not recognize the member for Edmonton—Leduc, our cherished chair of the finance committee, someone for whom all sides of the House have tremendous respect. They acknowledge his great work, I am sure.
I also want to remind all members and all Canadians that our government went to great lengths to ensure that Bill C-60 and its great measures received the appropriate consideration by the House, especially at committee stage.
That is why five additional committees—industry, veterans affairs, human resources, citizenship and immigration and foreign affairs—undertook comprehensive examinations of select portions of today's legislation. I was quite surprised to hear the NDP critic talk about it not being reviewed by other committees because, in fact, it was.
As all Canadians know, our government's main priority is the economy. Whether encouraging job creation, promoting economic growth or ensuring Canada's long-term prosperity, we focus first on what matters to Canadians.
However, in recent years, Canada has faced a challenging global economic landscape that has resulted in persistent threats from outside its borders, including from the United States and Europe, two of Canada's most important trade partners.
To add to this uncertainty, Canada is dealing with increasingly intense competition from emerging economies, such as China and India. In a constantly changing global market, we must continue focusing on the economy and building on Canada's strong economic plan.
Since the end of the global recession in July 2009, the Canadian economy has created more than 900,000 net new jobs. This is the very best job growth record in the entire G7. Even better, over 90% of those jobs have been full time and nearly three-quarters have been in the private sector. 
On top of our very strong record of job growth, Canadians can also point with tremendous pride to other strong economic fundamentals, which include the soundest banking system for over five years, according to the World Economic Forum. We have the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7, and we are the only G7 country to have more than fully recovered business investment lost during the recession. This is great news for Canadians.
What is more, Canada is forecasted to have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 for years ahead, according to both the IMF and the OECD. It is little wonder that all the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have recently reaffirmed Canada's rock solid AAA credit rating. 
However, we all understand that Canada cannot afford to be complacent. We cannot rest on our laurels. While our position relative to other countries is strong, now we must take the bull by the horns and build on this strength to secure long-term prosperity for our children and their children and their children.
As the Vancouver Board of Trade pointed out recently, and I quote:
 Given the state of the global economy — where we are seeing recessions, drops in national and sub-national credit ratings, and out-of-control deficits —we are truly fortunate in Canada to be contemplating balanced budgets, receiving AAA credit ratings, and growing our GDP. 
That is why I am so proud of economic action plan 2013. It is forward looking and would build on our solid record with measured, prudent steps that would help position Canada for long-term success, both today and well into tomorrow. It is a really positive plan for Canadians.
Many elements of this plan will be implemented with this legislation. For example, in order to build a stronger Canadian economy and help promote job growth, Bill C-60 will enable the government to extend tax relief for new investments in machinery and equipment by Canadian manufacturers; index gas tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure projects in municipalities across Canada; extend the mineral exploration tax credit; provide $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research; provide $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow and develop their firms and their future; provide $5 million to Indspire for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students; and finally, undertake many other important initiatives on the economic front.
In addition, today's legislation would help families and our communities by promoting adoption through enhancing the adoption expense tax credit; by introducing a new first-time donor super credit to encourage Canadians to donate to charity; by expanding tax relief for home care services; by providing $30 million to support the construction of housing in Nunavut; by investing $20 million in the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land; by providing $3 million to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers; and by committing $3 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted. Also, so much more is in this bill.
I would like to note one last time that this legislation is an important step in creating jobs and economic growth, all while keeping taxes low and balancing the budget in 2015. I urge all members to vote in favour of this bill and support jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. 
I would caution Canadians who are listening today that they will hear two sides to this very important bill, but I want them to take an opportunity to actually look at the bill. It is available online through the Department of Finance website. The facts speak for themselves. This would be another tremendous leap forward for Canadians and for this country so that we preserve all of those jobs, create more of them and create an environment where business can flourish. Our children would benefit and the grandchildren they have would benefit for years to come.
 I just wish the opposition members would reconsider their position to vote against this bill and maybe have some heart today, look into their souls, do what is right for Canadians, do what is right for taxpayers, stop blocking those all-important measures that would help Canadians and vote for this bill.
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning, the member was talking about consultations and the bill being split up and going to different committees to be reviewed. 
At the industry committee, we had the changes to the Investment Canada Act. We had a little over a whopping three hours of consideration of the Investment Canada Act. There are critical changes in this act with the threshold for foreign takeovers going from $330 million to $1 billion. We heard from industry officials that this will lead to a reduction of 50% of reviews of foreign takeovers. We also had representatives from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives come to committee and say that the Investment Canada Act should be changed and modified rarely and with great consideration.
I wanted to ask the parliamentary secretary if she thinks a grand total of three hours constitutes careful consideration of these huge changes, and that “rarely” would mean three consecutive budgets?
[Interjection]
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure where the member opposite has been all of this time, because it was in fact the Minister of Industry who began many consultations on this when we were looking at some takeovers over two years ago.
This is something that has been looked at for years, not only by the Minister of Industry but also by thePrime Minister himself. He has taken great strides to ensure that what is in the best interests of Canadians is done, regardless of opposition from the NDP, the Liberals or others. We will do what is right for Canadians, as we have done since we took power in 2006.
While I am on my feet, I do want to take a moment to also thank the Liberal member for Kings—Hants, who was instrumental in helping us at finance committee. I know we do not always agree, but there are times when we do agree and I do want to take an opportunity to thank him for his co-operation.
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech intently. She talked about the dozens of consultations that took place between members of Parliament, the Minister of Finance, members of the finance committee and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
I know that we had finance consultations in my riding, and across Atlantic Canada. Can the member expand on what she heard in those consultations and how we have implemented that in the budget bill?
[Interjection]
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely right. The members of the House took great lengths to consult in their home ridings and across Canada. They got back some phenomenal support from some of the stakeholders in their own ridings.
I just want to quote a couple of them if I might. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said:
 It's 39 years since we updated [the preferential tariffs]. It was meant to help developing countries. I mean, countries like Hong Kong and Singapore, we were giving them preferential tariffs while their per capita GDP is higher than Canada’s. [...] The solution is what the government is doing: try to negotiate free trade agreements with countries around the world so that we not only drop our tariffs, but they drop their tariffs as well. 
This is what we were hearing. We do not want to give special breaks to companies that are working in China; we want to give benefits to Canadian companies. We do not want to give benefits to companies whose booming economies outweigh our own; we are going to do what is right for Canadians.
It is unfortunate that the NDP and the other parties disagree with us.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record in the House. I think the hon. member opposite may have misspoken when she talked about consultation. 
We heard from witnesses at the industry committee, government officials, in fact. There was no consultation on the changes to the Investment Canada Act. We heard from crown corporations that there was no consultation around changes to their labour relations. We heard from credit unions that there was no consultation. They said very clearly at the committee that no one had talked to them about very significant changes that will be affecting credit unions across the country.
I think what happens, sadly, is that a few members opposite get into phone booths with people who talk and think like them, but they do not get out and listen to the rest of Canadians or do proper consultation.
I would like the member to correct the record.
[Interjection]
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, correcting the record is something that I have not heard the NDP do very often because it does not do it very well. The facts speak for themselves. There has been extensive consultation, as mentioned by a number of members who stood here today to ask questions or to make statements. There are some measures in the budget bill that are closing tax loopholes. Of course, we do not consult with those who attempt to avoid paying taxes when we close those tax loopholes. 
I might add that I am very disappointed in the member who just spoke. She was particularly difficult to deal with throughout all of this. She continues to be particularly difficult to deal with and continues to mislead Canadians on this. This is a good budget bill. It is a bill that would help Canadians to progress. It would create jobs. It would maintain our long-term prosperity. I just wish the NDP member would have a change of heart. 
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-60, the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget implementation act, as well as amendments that are now before the House. 
The Liberals continue to oppose Bill C-60 for two key reasons: this legislation threatens the independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and it continues to raise taxes on middle-class Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives’ wasteful spending.
At committee, the Liberals put forward several constructive amendments to help address these concerns. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen and give decent consideration to these amendments. They refused to entertain any amendments whatsoever, despite the growing evidence that Bill C-60 is in fact deeply flawed. 
To give an example of just how flawed the legislation is, Mr. Hubert Lacroix, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, took the almost unprecedented step of writing to the members of the finance committee and essentially threatening a court case if Bill C-60 passes without amendment. He said that the legislation threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio-Canada. This is what he told us in his letter:
 We believe that the proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act….may conflict with key parts of the Broadcasting Act, our corporation’s governing legislation, and as a result, would reduce the independence that is critical to our operation. 
He further stated:
 “[The bill]…may give rise to conflicts with the Broadcasting Act and the Charter and compromise the Corporation’s independence. 
 This could potentially embroil the government, our corporation, and its unions in litigation, a result that could be avoided with an amendment that protects that independence. 
We have also heard from tens of thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions and written to their MPs in order to protest the way in which Bill C-60 threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio-Canada.
Unlike the government, Canadians understand that the CBC/Radio-Canada was originally set up as an independent crown corporation in order to shield it from political interference. While the government appoints the board of directors and determines the overall budget of the CBC and Radio-Canada, this cultural crown corporation has always had the independence to determine who should work there and how much they should get paid. This legislation effectively removes that independence. 
Canadians have been clear. They do not want politicians to punish reporters or journalists from the CBC and Radio-Canada for asking any of us uncomfortable questions. In an effort to be constructive, Liberals tried to provide the Conservatives with options in order to address these concerns. We proposed a constructive amendment that would have excluded the CBC and Radio-Canada from the measures of Bill C-60. 
We also proposed an amendment that would have simply yet clearly protected the independence of CBC and Radio-Canada from the measures in this bill so that the government could avoid a potential legal showdown, but the Conservatives would not listen to reason and consider these amendments. They seem to have become completely deaf to the concerns of Canadians. 
George Smith, a professor at Queen's University, who has also served as a chief management negotiator for the CBC and Radio-Canada, also appeared before the finance committee and was clear that the changes in Bill C-60 are not just bad for labour, they are bad for business. This is what Professor Smith predicts will happen under this legislation:
 Relationships between labour and management, which are fragile at best during stressful negotiations, will be strained to the point of breaking with the negative consequence of ensuring labour disputes. There will be costs to the economy. In sum, an already complex process will be complicated to the point where in my considered professional opinion it will become totally dysfunctional. 
In addition to threatening the stability of CBC/Radio-Canada, one of Canada's most cherished cultural institutions, as well as endangering labour relations, this legislation actually raises taxes on Canadians. In fact, in each of the last four budgets, the Conservatives have raised taxes on hard-working, middle-class Canadian families. Their latest budget raised taxes by a whopping $3.3 billion over the next four years and a number of these tax measures are included in Bill C-60. Bill C-60 actually attacks Canada's rural and small-town economy with a tax increase on credit unions.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants will have just under five minutes left when we resume. We are going to move on to statements by members.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Statements By Members
Southwest Saskatchewan Relay for LifeMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when we say the word “cancer”, everyone pays a bit more attention. It is a scourge that comes in many forms. However, the battle is not just one-sided, and the fight to find a cure continues.
Last weekend, I was honoured to attend our local annual Relay for Life cancer fundraiser. This year's event was held in Eastend, Saskatchewan. We came to raise money for a cure. Southwest Saskatchewan fielded 14 teams, young to old, with 144 participants, and raised over $55,000. 
We also came together to celebrate cancer survivors and to honour and remember loved ones. There were 68 survivors in their bright yellow T-shirts, some still receiving treatment and others who have survived cancer for 30 years. It was a night of encouragement, music and fun.
Congratulations to the event co-chairs Joan McNaughton and Yvonne Neufeld, both young ladies who are survivors, for bringing southwest Saskatchewan together to beat cancer.
Gatineau ParkMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 75th anniversary of Gatineau Park.
I want to take this opportunity to draw the members' attention to the importance of rescuing Gatineau Park from the legal grey area it is currently mired in. 
Unbelievably, 75 years after Gatineau Park was created, there is still no legal definition establishing its boundaries, even though the park is home to the largest number of at-risk plant and animal species in Quebec. Moreover, there are no objectives at all for managing the park's fragile ecosystem. 
Right now, in 2013, federal public lands in Gatineau Park can still be sold to private interests without Parliament's consent. 
To correct these irregularities, I recently introduced Bill C-465, and I invite all members of the House to support it.
Happy birthday, Gatineau Park.
Paralympic Games AthleteMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour one of northern B.C.'s great athletes.
 Robert “Bo” Hedges was born in Fort St. John, British Columbia. He grew up on his family's cattle ranch in the small town of Wonowon. He became paraplegic at the age of 13, and during his rehabilitation he witnessed wheelchair basketball for the first time. Soon after, there was a demonstration at his school and the rest, as they say, is history.
Bo began playing competitively in 1996 and won his first gold medal with Team Canada in Toronto at the World Junior Championships in 1997. He is currently the co-captain of Team Canada's senior men's team, of which he has been a member since 2007. Following Team Canada's gold medal victory in London at the 2012 Paralympic Games, Bo and all of Canada's Paralympic athletes were awarded the Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal.
It is my privilege to honour a great Canadian athlete. Congratulations again, Bo. You have made us all truly proud.
AsthmaMr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May marks Asthma Awareness Month. Asthma is a chronic lung disease that causes shortness of breath, tightness in the chest, and wheezing and coughing. Asthma affects more than three million Canadians, including me.
Six out of ten people are living with uncontrolled asthma, leading to a huge loss in quality of life, productivity in the workplace and attendance at schools. It is estimated that 250 Canadians die from asthma every year. Eighty per cent of those deaths are preventable with proper education.
The good news is that asthma can be controlled. Those affected by asthma can live active, symptom-free lives by becoming informed, avoiding triggers and taking medication as needed.
I applaud the work of groups such as the Asthma Society of Canada, whose mission is to educate the public about asthma, promote awareness and encourage those affected by asthma to live healthy, active and productive lives.
Summer Events in Calgary EastMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with the arrival of summer, I would like to wish all those in my riding of Calgary East a very safe and happy summer. 
Each year, the communities of Calgary East take full advantage of the summer months, hosting wonderful events. Some of the highlights of this summer include the annual summer FLOP pool party at the Forest Lawn Community Pool in July, which I co-host. In the community of Inglewood during August, we host the Calgary Fringe Festival, where visitors can enjoy the work of artists from many different backgrounds and expressions. 
Then there is Globalfest, which lights up the August skies with an incredible pyromusical fireworks display, and has delicious food and dance performances from many cultures in our community. 
Of course, in July one of the prides of being from Calgary is hosting the world's greatest outdoor show on earth, the Calgary Stampede, a time for barbecue and flipping pancakes.
I thank all those volunteers in my riding of Calgary East who work hard to make these events possible.
Relay For LifeMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate all those who organized and participated in the Relay For Life that took place on May 25 in the D'Autray RCM, as well as those involved in a second relay, which is scheduled to take place on June 1 in the Maskinongé RCM.
The Relay For Life is an opportunity to raise money, celebrate life and fight cancer. It is also a chance to honour survivors and the memory of those who have passed on. It takes enormous courage to fight this terrible disease. Research is key. Researchers have made remarkable progress, but funding is still needed.
My thoughts turn to Jack Layton, who shared this message of hope with those battling cancer: “You must not lose your own hope.”
Once again, congratulations to everyone involved in the Relay For Life. It is a wonderful initiative.
Suicide PreventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, each November men across Canada grow moustaches and raise funds for prostate cancer research.
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in Canada. Overall, though, males face a higher risk of death by suicide than by prostate cancer. However, we do not talk about that. If our society is uncomfortable discussing suicide, how can we effectively prevent it? We need to break this stigma. The question is, how?
 The collateral damage project captures photographs of Canadians touched by suicide and presents a story of how they recovered and turned their experience into something positive. It encourages dialogue by letting Canadians know they are not alone.
I ask Canadians to visit www.leftbehindbysuicide.org to learn more about this project. Every Canadian will be touched by suicide in their lifetime. Most will feel their experience is unique and that no one shares their pain. We need to talk about suicide, because not talking about it is not working.
ScoliosisKellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, June 1 has been declared Scoliosis Awareness Day in Ottawa.
It is important to raise awareness and lessen the stigma around scoliosis, which is prevalent in girls and young women between the ages of 10 and 15, and which often makes the difficult teen years even more difficult to cope with, as I know first-hand in my role as a pediatric orthopedic surgeon.
Scoliosis is an abnormal curvature of the spine that affects people of all races and socio-economic classes. In the majority of cases, we do not know the cause. Early detection provides scoliosis patients with the most options for slowing down or halting the progression of the curve, thereby often avoiding surgery.
In the spirit of girl power, Curvy Girls support groups were created throughout the world. These groups are peer-led and empower girls to become leaders, make healthy choices and improve their self-esteem by diminishing the emotional impact of scoliosis through shared experiences.
I want to invite everyone here to join Curvy Girls of Ottawa tomorrow at their second annual scoliosis awareness walk in Stanley Park. 
As I physician, I encourage all young women and their parents to talk to their doctors about scoliosis.
Kristina NorstromLinda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to observe the tragic loss on May 29 of Alberta wildlife biologist Kristina Norstrom, killed in an accident in northern Alberta.
The Alberta public service and scientific community have lost a friend and respected colleague. Sadly, helicopter pilot Bryce Campbell was also killed. Also on board was fellow biologist and colleague Simon Slater, currently recovering in hospital from serious injuries.
This tragedy occurred when the helicopter crashed south of Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Alberta. The biologists were tracking threatened woodland caribou populations.
Kristina worked as a wildlife biologist stationed out of Athabasca and was engaged in tracking caribou. I am told she was an extremely dedicated and confident professional who truly made a difference in wildlife conservation and protection. She was well respected by her colleagues and will be deeply missed.
The dedicated work of our wildlife biologists, scientists and support staff all too often places them in perilous situations. It is important that we recognize and value that sacrifice made on all our behalf and for the species they seek to protect.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families during this difficult time.
Michael WassillMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Michael Wassill was going about his day in Orleans when an intruder wearing rubber gloves and carrying box cutters entered his family home.
The intruder had been stalking a young woman who was then sheltered by the Wassill family. Mike stepped between the intruder and the young woman to protect her. He took a slash to the throat.
Unfortunately, the tremendous efforts of professionals at the Montfort and Civic hospitals were in vain. Mike died trying to protect someone. He put others before himself.
His death was as tragic as that of Dapo Agoro, late of Blackburn Hamlet, who was murdered in similar circumstances 10 years ago.
I was with his family on Wednesday, and my wife attended his funeral yesterday. This brave family is devastated.
Like many families in the region, Mike's purpose was one of public service.
When his father, René, heard the terrible news, he was serving his country in Jordan.
I ask all members to join me in telling Mike's family and friends how saddened we are about the loss of a brave son and friend.
Félix Leclerc HouseMr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, too many people are unaware that Félix Leclerc lived in Vaudreuil for 20 years.
On June 15, the fourth annual family picnic will be held at the former home of Félix Leclerc. The purpose of the event is to remind people of all ages of the importance of this great man to Quebec and to help preserve the historic Maison Félix-Leclerc. Admission is free.
A number of activities are planned, including a presentation by students from Marguerite-Bourgeoys school. The theme of the presentation is “Moi et mes souliers”—the title of a Félix Leclerc song. Local artist Monica Brinkman will also create a mosaic.
Just down the lake road, Hudson's StoryFest welcomes Michael Ondaatje this year. 
The Hudson Village Theatre's 21st summer season will be starting on June 12 under the artistic direction of Heather Markgraf. The 2013 season features four great Canadian live plays for the whole family to enjoy.
I am looking forward to these activities. All members should come along and we will have a chat in Jack Layton Park and enjoy the summer in Vaudreuil--Soulanges.
SAR Tech FatalitiesMr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart for the family, friends and members of the Ornge ambulance team as emerging details reveal we lost four of Canada's best.
Late last night, Ornge's helicopter went down between Moosonee and Attawapiskat. 
As a nurse on countless medical evacs and relying on teams like the four who perished, I appreciate their work. They are dedicated to making sure Canadians living in our isolated and remote communities in the vast region of northern Ontario are picked up and transported safely almost without exception, no matter the weather or the time of day.
In this case the Ornge Sikorsky helicopter was reported missing at 1:11 a.m. this morning. Canadian Forces search and rescue assets were dispatched swiftly. Our SAR techs parachuted onto the crash scene and confirmed the fatalities at dawn.
I ask all members to join me in paying tribute to this tragic loss of these four lives and those who take such particular risks to ensure the health and safety of all Canadians across this immense country. 
We share their loss. Our hearts are with their family and friends.
Iran Accountability WeekHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday parliamentarians launched Iran Accountability Week with the Iranian political prisoner global advocacy project, pairing parliamentarians with Iranian political prisoners on whose behalf we began our advocacy this week.
Parliamentarians also heard witness testimony, which recommended the importance of sanctions targeting not only the Iranian nuclear program but human violators as well; pursuant to the Special Economic Measures act, sanctioning members of the Iranian revolutionary guard corps for their human rights violations; listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code; and exposing the fraudulence of the upcoming Iranian presidential elections wherein two of the candidates have themselves been indicated for terrorist acts.
Together we will stand in solidarity with the people of Iran, let them know that they are not alone and let them know that the repressive dictatorial regime will be held to account.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party is in over his head. Time and time again he has proven to Canadians that he does not understand what our national interests are. He has declared that Quebecers are better than Albertans and that Canadians who speak just one of our two national languages are lazy. 
When asked by media in Quebec for his views on Senate reform, he stated that there should be no reform because it benefits us. The Liberal leader's own member of the caucus, the member for Bourassa, stood in his place on Wednesday and declared that we should stop pitting the regions against each other. Even the Liberal leader's own caucus is ashamed of his attempts to divide Canadians and our national interests.
We agree with the member for Bourassa that Canadians should not be pitted against each other, and other leaders in the House should defend the national interests of all Canadians both at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the Liberal leader does not understand our national interests and is in way over his head.
Conservative Government of CanadaPhilip Toone: After the Prime Minister's now famous response, “I do not understand the question”, to the Leader of the NDP, the Conservatives changed their tactics yesterday to avoid answering any questions about the Duffy case.
Yesterday, they did not even pretend that they did not understand our simple questions. They instead used the old Conservative tactic: in case of doubt, resort to intimidation or insults.
They went so far that artists who were this year's winners of the Governor General's Award and who were present for question period, left in disgust because of the insults hurled their way by none other than the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Canadians deserve better than a government that hurls insults at people when it is mired in scandals. They deserve a transparent and honest NDP government.
In the meantime, we wonder who the Conservatives will insult today.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats claim to be for strong action against tax evaders, yet they knowingly appointed a tax evader as their critic for national revenue. The NDP ethics critic said that the member for Brossard—La Prairie met with the Ethics Commissioner and he had worked out a deal.
Shockingly, this is not the only time that the New Democrats have covered for tax evaders. A second MP owes tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes, and they hid it from Canadians. The New Democrats' cover-up for tax evaders shows that they want tougher tax rules for everyone else but the NDP.
The NDP leader has yet to explain why he felt that the member for Brossard—La Prairie's unpaid taxes made him the best person to represent it on the tax cheats file.

Oral Questions
EthicsNycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Prime Minister had this to say about the Senate expense scandal and the Mike Duffy affair: “...we all spoke of this as soon as the story was in the news.” 
Early media reports did not include information about the $90,000 cheque.
Who in the Prime Minister's Office was responsible for this file?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already said that he found out about this after the story broke in the media. He already answered that question very clearly.
However, the NDP leader has not yet answered the real question. He was aware of a bribery attempt. He decided to hide it for 17 years. Had he disclosed the information, corruption that happened in Laval and Montreal could have been avoided.
Why did he not report it?
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister participate in discussions about Senate expenses with members of his staff before May 14?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, as we have already stated, the Prime Minister found out about it after the media broke the story. The moment he was aware of the payment, he disclosed all of the facts. 
The NDP leader, on the other hand, hid the fact that he was offered a bribe. Had he let the authorities know, corruption in Laval and Montreal could have been avoided.
Why did the NDP leader hide it?
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, all they are doing is showing that they do not want to answer a simple question about covering up a scandal.
Senator David Tkachuk confirmed that he talked to Nigel Wright and other people in the Prime Minister's Office about the Senate expenses report.
Who were those other people?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, she says that she still does not understand the answer we have given, but we have given the same answer from the very beginning. The Prime Minister learned of the payment after it was reported in the media. He has been very clear on that ever since.
The NDP leader has not been clear on why he kept secret and covered up an offered bribe. Bribes are crimes. Covering up bribes is a serious ethical breach. Imagine all of the corruption in Montreal and in Laval that we could have avoided if the NDP leader had done the honourable thing and told the police about the crime of which he was aware
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, on May 17, after learning of the $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy, the Prime Minister spokesperson said:
 The prime minister has full confidence in Mr. Wright and Mr. Wright is staying on. 
Why did the Prime Minister change his mind?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wright has taken sole responsibility for his decision. He offered his resignation to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister accepted it.
By contrast, the leader of the NDP has been aware of two of his senior critics trying to avoid their taxes. One of them is the heritage critic, who attempted to introduce a private member's bill that would absolve him from his tax liability. The other, amazingly, was his revenue critic. That is not the kind of leadership that Canadians expect.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, again, no answer.
Yesterday, on CBC's Power &amp; Politics, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment said:
 The prime minister himself [came out and] expressed deep regret for appointing Mike Duffy. 
However, he has not said so publicly.
Would the government confirm that this is the view of the Prime Minister?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear that any expenses that were inappropriate should be repaid.
In fact, he told Mike Duffy that in February.
The Prime Minister said something else. Let me quote:
 Anyone who wants to use public office for their own benefit should make other plans, or better yet, leave this room. 

Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that there is documentation related to the Duffy affair because emails are being leaked every day.
Will the government release all the documentation related to Mike Duffy's fundraising activities for the Conservative Party and the public funds used to carry out this ploy?
Canadians are demanding it.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, an independent investigation is underway, and we are going to respect that process.
Meanwhile, a senator is trying to hide $1.7 million in an offshore banking account so that she does not have to pay taxes. Yet Canadians have to pay their taxes.
Why has the Liberal leader not contacted this senator to inform her that she has to pay taxes here in Canada?
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, after almost two weeks, Conservatives continue to withhold all the documentation related to the PMO ethics scandal. Canadians are not going to believe the government until they see proof. Polls suggest that only 13% of Canadians believe the Prime Minister of Canada is telling the truth on this affair. Will the government release the documents that the Liberals have requested under access to information and do so immediately?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we will respect the independent examination that the House and Senate ethics officers are undertaking separate from this government. 
However, that does not answer the question for the leader of the Liberal Party. He has in his Senate caucus today a senator who is the beneficiary of a tax haven, an off-shore tax account, with $1.7 million contained in it. Canadians are forced to pay their taxes here in our country. They expect the very same thing from Liberal senators. Why will the Liberal leader not make it so?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given all the past cover-ups, Canadians are not ready to give the Prime Minister and his PMO the benefit of the doubt on the Wright-Duffy issue. They want to see all the documents themselves. 
Now we learn that the Prime Minister's former director of communications did not pay all of his taxes when he worked there. How is this possible, when PMO staff have taxes deducted at source? Did Mr. Soudas have a side deal, like Mr. Duffy, to get extra income from the Conservative Party? What is going on in the PMO? 
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Liberals are attempting to divert attention from the reality that they have in their Senate caucus a member who is a beneficiary on a $1.7 million off-shore account, an account that was never reported and was kept entirely secret. The Liberal leader has known about this for over a month. He has done absolutely nothing. Why does he not stand up and show some leadership and demand accountability from his senator?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to say that Nigel Wright wrote a personal cheque for $90,000, but how can they know that for sure if they did not see the cheque?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already answered the question, and Mr. Wright has answered very clearly that he takes sole personal responsibility for his decision. He offered his resignation, which has been accepted.
By contrast, on the other side, the NDP leader kept secret an offered bribe. Bribes are criminal offences. He kept a criminal offence secret for 17 years. Imagine how we could have avoided the corruption in Laval and Montreal, if he had the ability to speak out about what he knew?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, I have two simple questions.
On what basis did the Prime Minister assume that Mike Duffy had even agreed to repay his expenses? Who informed the Prime Minister of that?
These are straightforward questions, and they deserve a straightforward answer.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple.
The Prime Minister has always said that all inappropriate expenses would have to be repaid. He said that to Mr. Duffy directly in February, and he has been saying it openly and publicly throughout Canada for a long time. That is the position that we took and that we will continue to take.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the course of a typical day, how many times, on average, does the Prime Minister speak with his chief of staff?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wright took sole responsibility for his decision. He resigned and the Prime Minister accepted his resignation.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport stated that Nigel Wright issued the cheque because, and I quote, "we didn't believe taxpayers should have to pay the cost and Mr. Duffy was not in a position to pay them himself”.
Who does he mean by “we”?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we all believe that any inappropriate expenses should be reimbursed. All Canadians believe it, our caucus believes it, everyone believes it. I hope the New Democrats believe it as well.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister's Office was informed of the $90,000 cheque on May 14. So who in the Prime Minister's Office was told on May 14, and why does the Prime Minister say he was not informed?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister became informed after the matter was in the media, and he took action accordingly.
Now the question is how can we work to reform the Senate to ensure this never happens again.
We have put forward 11 tough new rules to require accountability in the Senate, we have introduced 7 bills to reform the Senate to make it elected and we have said that if the Senate will not be reformed then it should be eliminated.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, simple questions demand simple answers and we simply do not get them.
Of the 15 senators who spent the most on travel during the reporting quarter for the last election, 10 are Liberal and 5 are Conservative. Does the government believe it was right for its senators to be receiving salary and expenses from public funds while campaigning for the Conservative Party during the last election?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, any and all expenses for the Conservative Party of Canada during a campaign have been paid by the party and reported accordingly to Elections Canada. That is how the rules work, and we follow all of those rules.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, then Conservative senator Mike Duffy campaigned in the Northwest Territories during the last election and was double- or triple-dipping on expenses.
 Why did the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages say yesterday that the Conservative Party campaign was financed by Conservative funds, when that is clearly not true?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the reason the minister said that is because it is true. The Conservative Party pays all of its campaign funds out of party funds, and we report those accordingly to Elections Canada.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep saying that Nigel Wright's payment to Mike Duffy is above board because, when he was working for the Prime Minister and his salary came out of the taxpayers' pockets, Mr. Wright gave a personal gift to pay off Mr. Duffy's fraud.
Do the Conservatives think that this payment to Mike Duffy was legal?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we already answered that question.
An independent investigation will determine whether or not all this was legal.
However, is it legal to offer bribes? No, that is fraud, which is a crime. The NDP leader should have reported it to police, but he hid it for 17 years. That is outrageous.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, my question could not have been more straightforward. The answer, however, was not so straightforward. Perhaps the Conservatives do not want to answer, perhaps they cannot answer, or perhaps they did not understand the question. I will make it even easier.
Was this payment to Mike Duffy legal, yes or no?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, that is up to the independent investigation to determine.
The NDP leader knew about an attempted bribe. He was offered a bribe. He hid that information for 17 years. He should have said something, he could have said something, but he did not. That is outrageous.
Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is marked by cover-up after cover-up: election day fraud in 200 ridings, and the Conservatives will not co-operate with Elections Canada; obstructing the Parliamentary Budget Office to hide real costs; running wasteful ads about programs that do not even exist yet, and then refusing to release the cost Canadians paid. Canadians have had enough.
Why do the Conservatives think Canadians will believe this is not yet another cover-up if they will not release a single piece of paper, not even Nigel Wright's cancelled cheque?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing any time the Liberals talk about accountability, but to choose this particular member as their spokesperson is really a new level of audacity. 
This is a member who was found guilty of illegal robocalls in the last election. He made the calls. He gave a false name and phone number, and he was caught. He was the first person in Canadian history to ever be convicted of illegal robocalls. 
Why can he not stand and explain himself for that?
Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to talk about guilty robocalls, maybe he should turn around and speak to the member for Wild Rose behind him, who was fined $14,000.
Perhaps the member would like to look all around himself in the Conservative Party, which was fined $78,000.
Perhaps the member for Nepean—Carleton would like to look in the mirror. He will not like what he sees, because the scandals and affairs of the government keep building up: the F-35 affair, the in and out scandal, the Jaffer affair, the Penashue scandal, the Carson affair, the Peterborough illegal donations scandal, the Bev Oda affair, the Chuck Cadman scandal.
Why?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I could spend all day talking about the era of Liberal scandal, the missing $40 million the Liberals still have not repaid, but I would rather talk about the fantastic economic growth numbers we saw today: 2.5% in economic growth, 6.5% growth in exports, and seven consecutive quarters of economic growth. That growth means jobs, 900,000 net new jobs with 75% of them in the private sector and 90% of them full time.
We are creating jobs; we are building this economy; we are leading this country.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the scandals continue to pile up, so do the government's attempts to cover them up.
We all remember the fraudulent calls in the Mount Royal riding, the in and out scandal, the ministers found in conflicts of interest, the Bev Oda affair, the controversial appointments at the Old Port of Montreal, the Bruce Carson affair, the wasteful spending on partisan advertising, and of course the Arthur Porter affair.
What makes the government think that Canadians will believe anything it says, unless it releases all documents related to the Duffy-Wright affair? 
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, Canadians trust us because we are showing real leadership and we are getting the job done. Economic growth, for instance, has been much greater than we expected. We created 900,000 jobs and cut the deficit in half. We are creating jobs and leading the country in the right direction and we will continue to do so.
Government AppointmentsJamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, Arthur Porter was arrested Monday in Panama on charges of money laundering and fraud. Yesterday, documents from the Panama national police revealed allegations that Porter received financial compensation for selling information during the Montreal university health centre bidding process. Despite charges and allegations dating back years, Conservatives still refuse to take responsibility. Why is Arthur Porter still in the Privy Council?
Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we would like to congratulate the authorities for a successful arrest and, while we will not comment on specific cases, we can say that anyone involved in corruption must face the full force of the law. 
The appointment of Mr. Porter was approved by both the former leader of the Liberal Party and the former leader of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Porter resigned two years ago, and the fact is that these allegations have no connection to his role with the federal government.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of these vapid and limp responses from Conservatives.
To fight his extradition, Arthur Porter has hired a lawyer, Ricardo Bilonick, who was convicted of drug trafficking in 1991. These are the kinds of people the Conservatives are allowing to remain members of the Privy Council. 
Allegations that Mr. Porter sold information on the construction of the McGill University Health Centre during the tendering phase were confirmed yesterday. 
Will the Conservatives finally admit that they made a very serious error in judgment when they appointed him? 
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, again, while we will not comment on specific cases, we do believe that those who are involved in corruption and cover-up should face the full force of the law. 
That does beg the question why the leader of the NDP, for 17 years, hid a sleazy bribe that was offered to him. This is unacceptable to Canadians. It is certainly unacceptable on this side of the House.
Public SafetyMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, federal correctional officers have now been without a contract for three years. Three years is a long time.
Instead of sitting down at the bargaining table, the Conservatives are focusing their efforts on budget cuts to correctional services, which threatens the safety of staff.
When will the minister negotiate in good faith with federal correctional officers?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to respect the confidentiality and legal obligations of collective bargaining. The government is negotiating in good faith to reach reasonable agreements that are fair to employers, employees and taxpayers. We thank Correctional Service officers for the important work they do to keep Canadians safe.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, they can try to spin things however they like, but the reality is that the President of the Treasury Board has been dragging his feet for three years and is refusing to negotiate.
It is also troubling to hear that Public Safety employees are the latest victims of the campaign to muzzle public servants. As of today, no employee is allowed to speak publicly without the minister's prior approval.
What is the minister so afraid of?
Candice Bergen: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is completely reasonable for the Minister of Public Safety, who is accountable to Parliament and to Canadians, to know what his civil servants and his bureaucrats are communicating, completely appropriate. 
What is not appropriate is the leader of the NDP, for 17 years, hiding a bribe that was offered to him. Canadians see that as completely inappropriate.
The EconomyMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while we are working hard in Parliament to implement Canada's economic action plan and its job-creating measures like the Canada job grant and our new infrastructure plan, the NDP seems only interested in opposing these pro-growth and job-creating measures. While Canada has seen more than 900,000 net new jobs created since the end of the recession, the NDP wants to kill jobs with reckless spending and higher taxes.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update the House on the state of Canada's economy?
Shelly Glover: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member who just spoke for his efforts to help us ensure the long-term prosperity of our country. 
Here is the good news. I am pleased to report that Statistics Canada announced that our economy grew by 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. On a special note, this is the strongest quarterly growth in nearly two years and the seventh straight quarter of positive economic growth. It shows we are on the right track. We are going to continue on this track. Economic action plan 2013 is going to lead us down that low-tax agenda that we have been on for some time. We just need the NDP and the Liberals to get on board.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I hate to burst the hon. member's bubble. The most recent employment insurance monitoring and assessment report shows that the job situation in Canada has become more precarious. In 2011 and 2012, temporary work arrangements accounted for 13.7% of all employees, the largest such share since comparable data were recorded 15 years ago. 
Why are the Conservatives butchering employment insurance, a policy that does not really reflect this new reality?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. This government has created 900,000 net new jobs since the downturn of the recession. Ninety per cent of those jobs are full-time jobs, 75% of them in the private sector. This government, as was just mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, has had an increase in growth over the last seven quarters. It was 2.5% in the last quarter alone. 
We are doing a great job creating jobs. We want every Canadian to be connected to a job. I encourage the opposition to get on board.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada was supposed to dredge the Tabusintac channel one week before the tragic event of May 18 that cost the lives of three people. Even after the dredging began, four boats got stuck in the channel for several hours on Monday and the rest remained offshore. The task of dredging was assigned to the private sector as a result of budget cuts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ever since then, there have been delays in cleanup operations ever year. 
What are the Conservatives going to do to deal with the chronic blockage problems in New Brunswick's channels and gullies? That is the question fishers are asking the government. 
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course, our hearts go out to the communities, and we express our condolences to the families of the fishermen who perished at sea.
The issue, of course, was whether the dredging was delayed because of weather. The Transportation Safety Board is investigating this incident. My understanding is that the incident itself was due to bad weather and heavy seas and that the incident took place outside of the area that is to be dredged.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 2010 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation launched its strategic plan, “2015: Everyone, Every way”. It was announced that the corporation would be making a strong comeback in remote areas. In fact, the CBC just eliminated a third of technician positions in Matane, Rimouski and Sept-Îles. Employees fear that these stations will become empty shells at the mercy of the corporate head office. There is good reason to fear a decline in the production of local and regional content.
The government must stop abandoning the regions. Can it commit to stop making budget cuts to the CBC, which have a disproportionate impact on regional stations?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, CBC Radio-Canada receives almost $1 billion in taxpayer funding. It has committed to undertaking its plan for 2015, and it will continue to provide services in all regions of the country and in both official languages.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, in addition to eliminating the technician positions, in June the CBC will cancel the program Mer et Monde, one of few regional radio broadcasts. Moreover, CBC television has simply stopped broadcasting in my region of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
The Conservative's $115-million cuts to the CBC compromise the quality of information and the cultural offer in an area already weakened by job losses. The people in my region feel abandoned as a result of the cuts to the CBC.
What will the Conservative government tell them?
Paul Calandra: Again, Mr. Speaker, CBC Radio-Canada receives almost $1 billion worth of taxpayer contributions each year. The president of the CBC has continued to say that it will continue with its plan for 2015. That will be to provide services in both official languages in all regions of the country.
Canada PostHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in November 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada Post had to honour pay equity and compensate more than 6,000 employees. A year and a half later, the matter is still not settled. When I raised the question, I was told that Canada Post is an independent corporation that manages its own human resources. However, in 2011, the Conservatives did not hesitate to intervene, and if Bill C-60 is passed, they will not stop intervening.
Why do they interfere in Canada Post's affairs when it suits them, but they do not intervene to ensure compliance with a ruling by the highest court in the land?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that we fulfill whatever the court decides.
Right now, in this particular case, the Government of Canada cannot interfere, because it is an arm's length crown corporation. However, I am told by Canada Post that they are working very diligently to get this matter resolved, because they have to.
EmploymentScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, with Canada's high unemployment rate, thousands of students and recent graduates are forced to accept unpaid internships, just for the work experience. This is not only a big issue for young Canadians. It is a big issue for their families, their parents and grandparents, who are paying the bills. 
There is a problem in that Stats Canada does not track unpaid internships in Canada. As the saying goes, “You can't manage what you can't or don't measure”. Will the government take the first step and direct Stats Canada to track the number of young Canadians who are working today in unpaid internships?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to young Canadians, economic action plan 2013 is second to none. We are creating 5,000 new paid internships to make sure that young Canadians get that work experience they need. We have put in place the Canada job grant. At its peak, 130,000 Canadians will benefit from this training. Just last month, we announced Canada student jobs—36,000 jobs for young Canadians.
We are doing our part. We encourage the opposition to get on board.
International Co-operationMs. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first the Conservatives posted partisan attacks on the CIDA website, and now they are neglecting the International Development Research Centre. It seems that 70% of the seats on the board of governors are now vacant and the board cannot even make quorum and do its work.
The IDRC is recognized internationally for its research on developing countries.
Will the minister agree to make non-partisan appointments that are necessary for the IDRC to carry out its mandate?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful question by my counterpart from the New Democratic Party.
Indeed, we have identified a number of candidates to put forward for nomination to serve on the board of the IDRC. I think she will be very pleased with all of them, as she should be with all the appointments this government makes.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced a $4-billion plan to invest in the Palestinian private sector to help restart the peace process. In contrast, Canada's aid commitment to the Palestinian authority expired in March, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken a “wait and see” approach in terms of renewal.
This aid that was very successful in helping the Palestinian people and that contributed to stabilization there is something we think will help advance peace in the Middle East, particularly in helping the Palestinian people.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs actually confirm that he will advance the cause of the Palestinian people and renew the funds?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, about eight weeks ago, I travelled to Ramallah and met with President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. I met with my counterpart, Mr. al-Malki, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I am pleased to tell the member opposite that our aid for the Palestinian authority has not lapsed. In fact, there have been some construction delays, issues that are no fault of Canada, or frankly, of the Palestinian Authority. Aid has been extended to complete the commitments we have made. It was $300 million over five years, and we will take the sixth year to get the job done.
I did consult about what their priorities are. They identified economic development, health, education and security. We are currently reviewing what we heard in Ramallah.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to have grave concerns about Iran's nuclear program, the Iranian regime's appalling human rights record, and the regime's continued support for acts of international terrorism
Canada's government has spoken out against these actions of the regime. We have, number one, implemented over a dozen rounds of sanctions. Number two, we have listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, and number three, we have listed the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah as terrorist entitles.
Given Canadians' ongoing concerns regarding the Iranian regime, would the Minister of Foreign Affairs update this House as to how the government continues to bear pressure on the Iranian regime while at the same time supporting the people of Iran in their pursuit of freedom?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member. He has been a leading advocate for the freedom of the Iranian people, and his work on the human rights committee is to be commended.
Just two days ago, we strengthened our actions against Iran by adding another 30 people and 82 entities to our sanction list. We have never had any confidence that the regime will act in good faith when it comes to the people of Iran. 
On May 10, I took part in the “Global Dialogue on the Future of Iran”. It was an opportunity to speak to those behind the regime's firewalls. To date, I am pleased to say that more than 360,000 users inside Iran have accessed content from the event we hosted at the Munk School at the University of Toronto. We stand with the courageous activists who are working for freedom in Iran.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, this Monday, June 3, the landmark Arms Trade Treaty will be open for signature. This treaty will help prevent the sale of conventional weapons to conflict zones and outlaw states, such as Syria. Canada voted in favour of the treaty at the UN, despite drawing criticism from other countries for being an obstacle to a robust treaty. However, the rumour is that Canada now will not sign or ratify the treaty.
Will the government now state clearly that it will sign the Arms Trade Treaty and stand up for those victimized by violence in conflict zones?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, Canada already has some of the highest global standards for the export and control of munitions. We believe that any treaty regarding the sale of munitions helps move the international community closer to a world with leading standards. That is why we joined 154 countries in voting in favour of the resolution.
We have always been very clear, though, on two points. We do not want to detract from legitimate sportspeople and the legitimate civilian use of firearms. We do not want to detract from the cultural practices of hunting and fishing in the country. That is why we will review the treaty closely and consult with Canadians, as we always do before we act.
Public SafetyPierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want to replace customs officers at Morses Line border crossing in Saint-Armand with a remote monitoring centre based in Ontario.
It is about time the government realized that a border crossing open only from eight to four is not good for the economy. Still, I am worried about the implications for public safety.
What if a vehicle needs to be searched? What if somebody manages to cross the border illegally? Why does the minister want to subcontract public safety to robots instead of humans?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our government has increased front-line officers at the border by 26%. We want to make sure that the border is open for legitimate trade and travel but closed to illegitimate and criminal activity.
Every time we try to bring forward measures, whether they are initiatives at the border to cut red tape and redundancy or to cut union money taxpayers' dollars are going toward and putting it instead toward front-line border officers, the opposition votes against it. We are actually bringing forward measures that have an effect in stopping criminal activity at the border.
Veterans AffairsMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is standing up for veterans. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government has implemented double funding for funerals and burials and has expanded eligibility for the war veterans allowance in economic action plan 2013.
Unfortunately, members of the leader of the NDP's own caucus have disdainful remarks for our own veterans. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update the House on the NDP's stance on World War I?
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been 50 long days since the leader of the NDP has failed to retract the shameful and hurtful comments of his socialist party members that denigrated and attacked the incredible contributions of Canada's World War I veterans. It is clear by the NDP leader's silence that he simply cannot control the communist supporters in his party and would impose risky social policies on all Canadians. 
It is time for the NDP leader to retract these hurtful statements. The question is whether he has the guts to stand up for Canada's veterans.
International TradeDan Harris: Mr. Speaker, after the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador said "no" to Nigel Wright, her province was cut out of CETA negotiations, while at the same time, the federal government cut deals with other provinces. It gets worse. The confidential negotiating position she provided to the minister has now been leaked to a lobby group set up to undermine her position. 
Why are Conservatives taking such an extreme and heavy-handed approach to these important trade negotiations?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member opposite. We continue to work collaboratively with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to protect and create jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
EthicsAndré Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, never has a culture of control been such a defining feature of a government. It is refusing to answer reporters' questions, muzzling scientists and interfering in access to information requests and private members' bills.
Now Public Safety Canada officials, just like their Environment Canada colleagues, will have to notify the minister before they make public statements. The Prime Minister and his ministers have to know absolutely everything.
As the driving force behind this obsessive need for control, how can the Prime Minister claim that, until the media broke the story, he knew nothing about the $90,000 cheque his chief of staff wrote to keep the Duffy scandal quiet?
Is the Prime Minister suggesting that he controls everything except what goes on in his office?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made his position clear.
Mr. Wright has taken full responsibility for what happened. He tendered his resignation, and the Prime Minister accepted it.
Government AccountabilityMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office in this country has way more power than the White House does in the United States. However, the White House is part of the U.S. Constitution. The PMO is an invention. It is a partisan fortress. It is the least accountable place to where taxpayer dollars go. About $10 million a year disappears into the PMO, with zero accountability.
The guys in short pants who run around bullying MPs, muzzling scientists and harassing civil servants report to one boss. Is it not time to have accountability out of the PMO?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does take responsibility for leading this country, and the results speak for themselves.
Just today we saw a 2.5% economic growth, much bigger than expectations. Exports are up by 6%. We have had seven consecutive quarters of economic growth; 900,000 net new jobs, 75% in the private sector, and 90% of them full-time jobs. We have cut the deficit in half. We have the lowest debt in the G7.
 Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but you would cut me off. Why do you not let me speak a bit longer about this incredible record?
[Interjection]
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have to rise and respond to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who made comments with respect to young boys in short pants. We have a lot of young talented women also working in the Prime Minister's Office. I would ask her to withdraw her sexist comments.
The Speaker: I am not sure that is a point of order.
I see the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands rising, so I will allow her to respond.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I used the term in some degree of levity. I know it is the term that backbenchers use for those who harass them.
I accept that there are then also women employed for the purpose of harassing scientists, bullying MPs, and muzzling civil servants.
The Speaker: I am glad that we have sorted that out.

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 99 petitions
Industry CanadaMr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the document entitled “Canadian Industrial Participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program”, which is from Industry Canada, for spring 2013.
Ways and Means Motion No. 22Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of discussions among the parties and I do anticipate that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the motion following:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Ways and Means Motion number 22 to introduce An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be deemed adopted. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Yale First Nation Final Agreement ActHon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-62, an act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseMs. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, concerning the main estimates 2013-14, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 25, 30, L35, L40, 45 and 50, under Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
The committee has considered these votes and has agreed to report them without amendment.
PetitionsHarold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions today.
The first one is a petition regarding Bill S-10.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend Bill S-10 to close loopholes and make it clear that no Canadian should ever be involved in the use of cluster munitions.
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I also have a grouping of four other sets of petitions signed by people from the GTA, Hamilton, northeastern Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to condemn the discrimination against females occurring through sex selective pregnancy termination.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a number of petitions.
The first petition is signed by people who are concerned about cluster munitions. Canada has signed, along with 110 nations, to ban cluster munitions, and Bill S-10 provides significant loopholes and exceptions.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the bill to close the loopholes and specify Canada's international obligations under the convention.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Edmonton, Leduc, and Sherwood Park.
The petitioners are calling for a moratorium on GM alfalfa.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by over 200 residents throughout Montreal and Laval.
The petitioners are calling upon the government to address the ongoing human rights violations against Rohingya Muslims in Burma, including sending clear signals to the authorities in Burma that repression of the Rohingya and other minorities will not be tolerated, renewing sanctions, and helping in pressing the Burmese government to allow the special rapporteur to conduct an independent investigation into abuses and expand support for UN agencies and NGOs providing humanitarian assistance.
As vice-chair of the House Subcommittee on International Human Rights, we have heard appalling testimony regarding the situation of the Rohingya in Burma. I am pleased to stand in solidarity with these petitioners and encourage Parliament and appropriate government agencies to implement these actions with all deliberate speed.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.
The first petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain funding for old age security and make the requisite investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Food and Drugs Act so that mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods is in place.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition is signed by hundreds of people from my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. 
The petitioners call upon Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa in order to allow a proper review of the impact on farmers in Canada.
Frank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present additional petitions from Canadians across Canada, in Guelph and throughout southwestern Ontario, who wish to add their voices to the many thousands of others calling for a moratorium on the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa.
The petitioners are justifiably worried about cross-contamination, co-existence, transportation and production. They call upon the government to impose an immediate moratorium on its release until such time that a proper analysis of its impact on both organic and non-organic farmers is done.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions concerning the employment insurance reforms that are buried in Bill C-38. The public is still opposed to these reforms. 
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present several petitions on the same subject. The petitions come from people in Quebec. They are calling on the government to cancel the changes made to employment insurance by the former Bill C-38, which have to do with the power to define the terms “suitable employment” and “reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment” and with the creation of a social security tribunal.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. 
The first petition is from residents of the Vancouver area, and also from within my riding, Salt Spring Island.
The petitioners call upon this government to call for a full public independent inquiry into the fraud that occurred in the 2011 election. We now know, due to the court ruling, that indeed attempts to defraud voters did occur in widespread areas, but the court did not know who was responsible. Certainly it is time for a responsible government to find that out.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from residents of Toronto who are concerned about the attitude of this administration in promoting a project, that being the Enbridge northern gateway project. The petitioners are asking the government to step back and that the Minister of Natural Resources await the evidence.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1302, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309 and 1310 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Philip Toone:  With regard to funding in the electoral district of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, what is the total amount of federal funding allocated to the electoral district from fiscal year 2011-2012 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by year, department, agency, initiative and amount?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Françoise Boivin:  With regard to the distribution of jobs with federal departments and agencies in the National Capital Region (NCR): (a) how many jobs were located in the Quebec part of the NCR in 2013; (b) how many jobs were located in the Ontario part of the NCR in 2013; (c) how many jobs in the Quebec part of the NCR will be eliminated as a result of the cuts introduced in the last budget; and (d) how many jobs in the Ontario part of the NCR will be eliminated as a result of the cuts introduced in the last budget? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Irwin Cotler:  With regard to Bill C-10, in the year after it received royal assent: (a) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged for offences created by the bill; (b) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted of offences created by the bill; (c) broken down by offence, what sentences have been issued to people convicted of offences created by the bill; (d) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged under the provisions of the bill; (e) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted under the provisions of the bill; (f) broken down by offence, how many people have been sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (g) broken down by offence, what sentences have been issued to people sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (h) in how many of the cases in (d) was a constitutional argument raised by the offender (i) at trial, (ii) on appeal; (i) broken down by geographic jurisdiction and instance, how many cases in (d) are pending (i) at the trial level, (ii) on appeal; (j) how much money has the government spent on prosecutions under the provisions of the bill; (k) how much money has the government spent defending the constitutionality of the bill; (l) in what cases, if any, did the bill provide for punishment where none was provided for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (m) broken down by offence and length of sentence, in what cases, if any, did an offender sentenced under the provisions of the bill receive a longer sentence than what was allowed for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (n) in what ways has the bill made streets and communities safer; (o) in what ways, if any, has the government reviewed the effectiveness of the bill; (p) what were the results of any such reviews; (q) what reviews of the effectiveness of the bill, if any, are ongoing; (r) when will the results of any such reviews be made available to Parliament; (s) what factors has the government considered when evaluating the effectiveness of the bill; (t) by what standard does the government determine whether repeal of the bill for ineffectiveness is appropriate; (u) what is the prosecution rate for offences created by the bill; (v) what is the prosecution rate for offences with one or more sentencing provisions modified by the bill; (w) what was the prosecution rate for the offences in (v) prior to the coming-into-force of the bill; (x) what is the prosecution rate for offences otherwise modified by the bill; (y) what was the prosecution rate for offences in (x) prior to the coming-into-force of the bill; (z) what is the prosecution rate for all federal offences in Canada; (aa) what is the projected rate of recidivism for offenders convicted under the provisions of the bill; (bb) in what ways has the government worked with provinces and territories to inform prosecutors and police services of the provisions of the bill; (cc) broken down by province or territory, what funding has the government provided to provinces and territories to assist with the implementation of the bill; (dd) what studies, if any, have been undertaken of the impact of the bill on the number of inmates in (i) federal custody, (ii) provincial custody; (ee) what are the results of any such studies; (ff) what is the projected impact of the bill on the number of inmates in (i) federal custody, (ii) provincial custody; (gg) what evidence exists to suggest that the provisions in the bill have deterred criminal activity; (hh) broken down by province and territory, which specific communities, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (ii) in what ways have the communities in (hh) been made safer; (jj) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the communities in (hh) have been made safer; (kk) broken down by province and territory, which specific streets, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (ll) in what ways have the streets in (kk) been made safer; (mm) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the streets in (kk) have been made safer; (nn) which First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (oo) in what ways have the communities in (nn) been made safer; (pp) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the communities in (nn) have been made safer; (qq) in what ways have people traditionally marginalized by the criminal justice system, such as women, aboriginal Canadians, and low-income Canadians, been made safer by the bill; and (rr) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the people in (qq) have been made safer?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Irwin Cotler:  With regard to the crisis in Syria: (a) what criteria does the government use to determine (i) whether to intervene, (ii) when to intervene, (iii) the nature and scope of any intervention; (b) who makes the determination in (a) and how; (c) what sources does the government rely upon in determining (a); (d) what legal obligations are considered with respect to (a) and in what ways does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine factor into decision making under (a); (e) in what ways has the government evaluated its obligations under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine with respect to Syria; (f) when were such evaluations done, by whom, and with what outcome; (g) have the criteria by which the government determines its official policy towards the crisis in Syria changed since 2012; (h) when the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly expressed his support for an indictment of Bashar al-Assad by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2012, was this the position of the government and does it remain the position of the government that al-Assad ought to be indicted by the ICC; (j) with respect to Canada’s decision not to sign on to the request of 57 countries made in January, 2013, to ask the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC, did Canada support this request; (k) with respect to (j), when, why, how, and by whom were the determinations made in this regard, and when was Canada approached to join in this endeavor and by what means; (l) what criteria were applied in determining whether to support this effort; (m) are there any specific policies or directives within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that guide decision-making with regard to Canadian intervention in situations of humanitarian crisis; (n) was the decision not to sign the Swiss-led letter asking the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs; (o) were any other officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade involved in the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter; (p) were any other cabinet officials involved in the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter; (q) was the government made aware of this specific international initiative in advance of the official lodging of the request with the United Nations on January 14, 2013, and (i) if so, how was the government made aware of this initiative, (ii) when was the government made aware of this initiative; (r) did the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter include (i) consultations with the Minister’s counterparts from any other countries, (ii) consultations with the Minister’s counterparts in any of the 56 countries that ultimately supported the Swiss-led initiative, (iii) consultations with any international or intergovernmental organizations; (s) did the government make submissions promoting a specific policy approach with regard to the Swiss-led initiative to (i) the governments of any other countries, (ii) the governments of any of the 50-plus countries that ultimately supported the Swiss-led initiative, (iii) any international or intergovernmental organizations; (t) what steps is the government taking to bring al-Assad before the ICC; (u) has Canada raised al-Assad’s conduct as an issue before the Security Council; (v) what legal remedies has the government invoked with respect to addressing the situation in Syria; (w) what legal remedies has the government invoked with respect to al-Assad in particular; and (x) does the government support an International Criminal Tribunal for Syria?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:  With regard to Canada's submission under the Convention on the Law of the Sea: (a) what is the precise extent that will be included in the claim and what scientific research supports that claim; (b) does the government anticipate that Canada's submission will overlap with claims of other nations, (i) if so, has Canada begun consultation with other nations with which its submission may overlap, (ii) which countries has Canada consulted, (iii) what were the dates of those consultations, (iv) what briefings were prepared for those consultations, (v) what briefings were prepared for the Minister responsible after the consultations; (c) which department is the lead agency on Canada’s submission and which other departments are involved; (d) who are the external researchers and institutions involved in Canada’s submission; (e) how much money has been allocated for Canada’s submission and how much of that money has been spent to date; and (f) regarding any Requests for Proposals for research in support of Canada’s submission, (i) what was the process, (ii) what are the milestones, (iii) what reporting has been done so far, (iv) what oversight is in place?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Libby Davies:  With regard to government funding, what is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency of Vancouver East during the fiscal year 2012-2013, broken down by: (a) department or agency; and (b) for each body mentioned in (a), by initiative or project?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hélène Laverdière:  With regard to the amalgamation of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) into the department of Foreign Affairs and International Affairs (DFAIT): (a) what is the timeline for the amalgamation; (b) which officials within CIDA, DFAIT and other government Ministries, including the Privy Council Office, will be in charge of the amalgamation; (c) what are the expected job losses among CIDA staff and in which divisions; (d) what changes will be made at the senior management level, including CIDA president; (e) will there be a deputy minister for development; (f) will employees be re-located; (g) will the respective unions be consulted; (h) will there be further cuts to funding for development programmes for the purposes of poverty reduction; (i) will CIDA’s countries of focus be changing; and (j) will the promised legislation ensure that Official Development Assistance will continue to be provided only if it (i) contributes to poverty reduction, (ii) takes into account the perspectives of the poor, (iii) is consistent with an international human rights perspective?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hélène Laverdière:  With regard to the Partnership with Canadians program at the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), for each year from 2006 to 2010: (a) how many proposals were received, broken down by year and type of call for proposal, if applicable; and (b) how many proposals were approved, broken down by (i) year, (ii) partner, (iii) CIDA priority theme or cross cutting theme, (iv) total dollar amount contributed by CIDA, (v) total dollar amount contributed by partner, (vi) description of project, (vii) recipient country, (viii) length of days of approval, (ix) length of project, (x) grant or contribution?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. 
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage. 
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage. 
Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks ActPeter Van Loan:  moved that Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express my support for Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada's national parks act.
In 2011, the Government of Canada made a commitment in its Speech from the Throne to create significant new protected areas. The bill before us would deliver on that commitment by amending the Canada National Parks Act to protect Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada as Canada's 43rd national park.
This initiative has garnered a high level of support in Nova Scotia, including among the Mi'kmaq. In fact, we are establishing Sable Island as a national park reserve out of respect for the ongoing negotiations under the Made-in-Nova-Scotia Process. A national park reserve enjoys the same protections that a national park does while respecting assertions of first nations rights.
For many Nova Scotians, Sable Island is a mystical but real far-off place. A unique sandbar island, it is 42 kilometres long and 1.3 kilometres across at its widest point. It is home to some 190 plant species, including 20 that have restricted distribution elsewhere. It is perhaps best known for its herd of over 500 wild horses, one of the few herds in the world that remains entirely unmanaged. It was the future of those very horses that sparked the first efforts to conserve Sable Island that today culminates in this legislation.
In reaction to plans in 1960 to remove the wild horses from Sable Island, schoolchildren from across Canada raised petitions, and petitioned the House of Commons. Canada came to the defence of those schoolchildren and the horses on Sable Island. In 1961, the government of the day, the government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, passed regulations protecting the horses and protecting the seeds for the long-term protection of this unique and fabled landscape.
Now, 50 years later, this chamber can help complete the work started by hundreds of schoolchildren decades ago by passing legislation to permanently protect Sable Island as part of Canada's world-class national parks system.
There have been 350 shipwrecks recorded on Sable Island and in the vicinity of Sable Island, earning it the title of the graveyard of the Atlantic. In the past, life-saving stations, lighthouses and shelters for shipwrecked sailors were established, and today the island is used for scientific research and monitoring activities such as weather forecasting and wildlife research.
I stand proudly to debate Bill S-15 today because I am probably one of the few parliamentarians in this chamber who has ever had the pleasure of setting foot on Sable Island. I have been to Sable Island probably 25 or 30 times when I worked in the offshore. We used to fly to the rig in a fixed-wing airplane that took the mail to Sable Island, land on the beach, get transferred over to the helipad and then transfer to the rig from there. I can speak with some authority to the uniqueness of Sable Island, of the shipwrecks that are on it, of the horses that are there. Those horses are very much believed to be descendants of the original horses that were taken during the expulsion of the Acadians. 
During the expulsion of the Acadians in 1755, horses and cattle and pigs were gathered up and put on Sable Island. The pigs quickly destroyed the trees that were still on the island at that time and they were later butchered and taken off. The cattle were used to provision the fishing fleet and the British navy and the horses themselves. It is believed that it is the descendants of those horses that are the Sable Island horses of today. I often hear people talking about Sable Island ponies, but I can tell members from experience, that there are no Sable Island ponies. These are horses in their own right, probably the true and earliest Canadian horse.
Sable Island has long inspired those touched by the island's history and beauty. George Patterson penned the first formal history of the island in 1894. Nova Scotia author Thomas Haliburton inspired by the loss of the brigFrancis  in 1798 wrote “The Sable Island Ghost” in 1802. His fictional account of a ghostly woman raised support for the construction of a rescue site on the island. Among the first photographic expeditions to Sable Island was Alexander Graham Bell, who was part of an 1898 National Geographic visit. The late, great Stompin' Tom Connors recorded his song Sable Island in 1970.
Sable Island is located in one of the largest offshore hydrocarbon basins in North America. The governments of Canada and Nova Scotia have agreed to prohibit drilling and to limit other petroleum-related activities on the island out to one nautical mile from the island. Industry will still be able to access Sable Island to monitor several abandoned wellheads from the 1970s and to undertake non-intrusive exploration work if authorized by the Offshore Petroleum Board in consultation, of course, with Parks Canada.
As a former worker in the offshore petroleum industry, I am pleased to confirm that in case of emergency, workers will be able to seek shelter and safe harbour on Sable Island should they be taken off platforms due to emergency conditions. Parts of the bill would amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to this effect.
If members will bear with me, I will speak a bit more personally on that subject. Having worked in the offshore industry for over eight years, six and a half of them as a driller, I went through many rig abandonments. A rig had to be abandoned on a day in the early 1980s. Most of the personnel were sent to Sable Island. There were 12 of us who were deemed as necessary personnel and had to stay on board. 
The lads who were sent to Sable Island had quite a time. They came back with stories of some of the existing houses still on the island half full of shifting sands. There were a lot of great stories and pictures. Of course, they spent about a day and a half altogether on the island. In those days, there were several people in the weather station and it was just before Christmas. Along with our personnel were the personnel from a Yugoslavian freighter that was in danger of taking the legs out from the rig. All of those sailors, thanks to the search and rescue team from Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and Charlottetown, were rescued and harboured safely on the island. 
Although this is a national park, it is extremely important that in cases of emergency, the facilities on Sable Island are able to harbour individuals, whether they are on an offshore platform or fishing boats that are medevaced, or whatever the reason. We can do that in the parameters of the national parks system. There is already a helipad there. It does not have to be added. There are already some personnel on Sable Island. This could be a win-win situation, where industry and Parks Canada can work together for the benefit of all.
Holders of exploration licences that include parts of Sable Island have contributed to the historic consensus to protect this remarkable island by amending their licences to prevent drilling on the island and within the buffer zone of one nautical mile. I am sure that hon. members will join me in thanking ExxonMobil Canada Properties and other licence holders for their commitment to helping protect this remarkable island as a national park reserve.
Among the steps to create a national park reserve on Sable Island, administration of the island will be formally transferred from the Canadian Coast Guard to Parks Canada. With the collaboration of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, this bill would also amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, to remove reference to Sable Island. The Sable Island regulations would be revoked, and instead the island would be subject to the regulatory regime under the Canada National Parks Act. 
At this time, I would like to thank and congratulate the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for their work in helping create a national park reserve on Sable Island. The Government of Canada is proud to table this bill to give Sable Island the highest level of environmental protection in the country for the enjoyment, appreciation and benefit of current and future generations of Canadians.
Turning now to other aspects of Bill S-15, including important matters related to two of Canada's oldest national parks, Yoho National Park and Jasper National Park, I will briefly describe the other proposed amendments to the Canada National Parks Act made in the second part of the bill. 
The bill before us would modify the French version of subsection 4(1) of the Canada National Parks Act to align the French version with the English version. It would also add a new subclause, subclause 4(1.1), that states for greater certainty that nothing in section 4 limits the ability of the minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency to charge fees in national parks under either sections 23 or 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act. These changes address concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. 
The provisions affecting Yoho National Park make minor changes to the description of the commercial zones for the community of Field, British Columbia, located within Yoho National Park of Canada. These zoning modifications are well within the legislative commercial growth limit for Field, they reflect public consultations carried out and they respond to concerns for business operations and residents of the community. They are important to the economic viability of the community of Field, British Columbia.
The proposed amendments that would affect Jasper National Park relate to the ski area at Marmot Basin within the boundaries of the park. The operator wishes to improve the ski experience in order to remain competitive with other new and expanded ski operations in the region and to stay financially viable. The operator has presented Parks Canada with an opportunity to achieve a significant environmental gain in the process.
 Development of ski areas within a national park is strictly controlled by legislation, by ski area guidelines, by site-specific guidelines and by leases and licences of occupation. Changes to the size and configuration of the ski area boundaries require an amendment to the Canada National Parks Act. The growth limits in the site guidelines for the Marmot Basin ski area are based on a design capacity of 6,500 skiers per day, but the existing commercial space can serve less than 3,000 skiers. There is a need for additional facilities and services, and they must be developed in a strategic manner to achieve a better ski experience and respect conservation imperatives. The ski area management guidelines would allow ski areas to add new ski terrain only through an exchange that results in substantial environmental gain to the ecological integrity of the national park.
 This is what is proposed in the bill before us. Marmot Basin ski area would remove from its lease 118 hectares of ecologically sensitive land in the Whistlers Creek valley. The area is an important habitat for woodland caribou, which is listed under the Species at Risk Act, as well as habitat for sensitive species such as the grizzly bear, wolverine and lynx. In exchange, the ski area would receive 60 hectares of comparatively less environmentally sensitive habitat for the new ski trails and the beginner runs. This is a win-win situation for the ski hill and for Jasper National Park, resulting in a net increase of 56 hectares of wilderness area to the park and the protection of future development of 118 hectares of prime woodland and caribou habitat.
The creation of Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada, which is near and dear to my heart, would build on the Government of Canada's impressive achievements in protecting our natural and cultural history. 
In conclusion, I hope hon. members will join with me in supporting this bill. This work started more than 50 years ago. By protecting Sable Island today as a national park reserve under the Canada National Parks Act, we can expect an important addition; even though it is an island and obviously Tertiary, the water surrounding Sable Island National Park in the nautical mile buffer zone is a very important addition.
For those members who have never had an opportunity to visit Sable Island, I urge them to do so. It is absolutely a unique place on the east coast of Canada, and the island continues to shift. It is continually in movement. We flew out and landed on Sable Island on one of the trips to the oil rig, and there was a vessel approximately 130 to 140 feet long, a steel ship, sitting upright on the bar of Sable Island. This was a vessel that had been wrecked on Sable Island back in the 1950s. I cannot say if there was any loss of life, but the vessel is still out there today. Over the period of the fall and before Christmas, that vessel, of which the spar probably would have been 60 feet off of the sands of Sable Island, was again totally covered in sand and one would not know if one had not seen it oneself that the vessel had been totally out of the sand and open on the island.
That is the type of terrain there. It is an amazing addition to the Canada National Parks Act and I urge all hon. members to support this legislation. This is a great piece of legislation.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. In fact, I agree with a lot of what he said. Sable Island is a magnificent place that must be preserved and given national park designation. We agree on that.
The thing I am not so sure I understood from my colleague's speech is that he seems to fully support the bill. I wonder whether he thinks there is cause to propose some amendments to this bill.
I could add a second part to my question. I wonder about the expression “low-impact development”. I am not sure if my colleague knows exactly what is meant by “low-impact”, what that implies and what this protects us from.
I think that if we do not fully understand this expression, then we cannot really fully support this bill. Can the hon. member tell me what he thinks about that?
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for both of those very important questions. The answers deserve to be given in this House. Her first question was whether or not I would support the bill without amendments. I absolutely would support the bill without amendments. That does not mean there cannot be amendments made that possibly could support the bill, but as I understand the bill right now, it is the proper bill for both Sable Island and for the other two national parks that were mentioned, Yoho National Park and Jasper National Park.
The second question was on low-impact development. As I said in my remarks, low-impact development will only result when there is a land swap, so if a commercial entity that is operating, for instance, a ski hill in a national park needs to expand and it can expand in an area of that park that is not ecologically sensitive, then it has to actually swap land and property that increases the size of the park, and that land has to be ecologically sensitive.
In the case of the ski hill that I mentioned, that is exactly what it has done. It will be increasing the size of the park and adding ecologically sensitive land to it in exchange for the non-ecologically sensitive land that will allow for the expansion of the ski hill.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, obviously we are going to be debating the bill today and possibly agreeing to send it to committee. Along the lines of the questions from the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, I want to make sure government is going to be open to amendments. Based on the past history of the government, being a parliamentary secretary, the member knows very well that there have not been any amendments and the government has not been open to any amendments on bills. I am not saying there are going to be any amendments, but we are going to be listening to witnesses at committee because this is going to be a very delicate type of bill to pass, making sure all parties are happy with the bill we would be passing.
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that all governments are open to amendments to legislation, if those amendments actually improve that piece of legislation. I have seen a lot of bills by other governments and by our own government come to this place, and often there is some tweaking that is required of them. However, in this entire piece of legislation, we have a unique partnership between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. There is a recognition of aboriginal rights and the importance of allowing those aboriginal claims to be settled before this would actually become a national park and part of the national parks system of Canada. 
It recognizes the fact that there are a number of existing wellheads on Sable Island now that will require monitoring by Mobil Oil or the other companies that have drilled wells on that island. It recognizes the fact that this is an important hydrocarbon basin. When I worked in the offshore, we drilled a directional well right under Sable Island, so there is no question that there can be industry there without hurting the landscape on Sable Island. There is a great partnership between—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. parliamentary secretary will know there is a lot of interest in his remarks, so we need to allow some time.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this House today would agree that this legislation is a positive step in the right direction.
I wish my colleague to comment on two things. First, he spoke very briefly about the partnership the bill includes. I believe it is already passed almost in mirror form in the Nova Scotia Legislature.
 Would he talk about what the island means to the local community and the partnership to take it to this place? Would he also speak to the fact that committee study is a very proper and good tool to look at legislation, even as good as this, and that certainly he would support a rigorous study at committee, should the bill be supported by all parties to get it to committee in the near future?
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second question first. I absolutely agree. Rigorous committee study is important to any piece of legislation. Whether that legislation is by the previous government or our government, it is important to make sure the legislation is crafted properly. Quite frankly, often we do find some mistakes in legislation, and amendments need to be made to correct those.
The partnership, which I was speaking to earlier, is extremely important. There are some changes made to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to recognize the difference of a national park reserve.
 There will be an ongoing partnership now with the Province of Nova Scotia and with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia, and this bill quite frankly recognizes the importance, not just of partnerships but of collaboration and working for the benefit of all.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the changes to Jasper National Park to accommodate the Marmot Basin ski hill.
The government has taken it upon itself to make major changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and now many projects will not be assessed. Also, it is extremely difficult for anybody claiming to be directly impacted—for example, living on the land—to intervene. 
I am wondering if the hon. member can give reassurance that there would be thorough environmental impact assessment as the ski hill moves to develop these lands that are exchanged, and can he give assurance that all interested, concerned parties would be included, including independent scientists?
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the hon. member when she said there are projects that will not go through an environmental assessment. All projects have environmental assessment.
In direct answer to her question about the Marmot Basin ski area site guidelines for development and use, those site guidelines for development and use were approved by Parks Canada in 2008. They were prepared in collaboration with Marmot Basin, including a comprehensive public participation program and completion of a strategic environmental assessment, the very environmental assessment the hon. member asked about.
A long-range plan for the Marmot Basin ski area in Jasper National Park of Canada is being developed. There will be opportunities for public involvement in the long-range planning process, and at the end of the process, the long-range plan will be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, but I could not support the bill as written. It would undercut the fundamental principles of the integrity of the national parks system.
When we created Cape Breton Highlands National Park in 1936, the forest licences did not remain. When we created Gwaii Haanas National Park in 1987, the forest licences did not remain. 
The idea that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board would still have the ability to approve petroleum activities in and around a national park is deeply disturbing.
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. member is incorrect. It is not in and around; it is around. That is the first thing.
There are already several wellheads on Sable Island. They are monitored on a regular basis. They need to be continually monitored on a regular basis to make sure that the cement plugs that have been set in those wells continue to maintain their integrity and that there is no gas or oil leakage that affects the island in any way.
Having worked in the oil industry off Sable Island, I can say there were a few wellheads in that nautical mile range from Sable Island, which we removed when we were out there. Even though the rig I was on did not drill those wells, we went down, cut those wells off and finished them off under the water, to maintain the integrity of the land around Sable Island.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I wish to seek unanimous consent to split my spot.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. Does the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona have the unanimous consent of the House to share her time?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Agreed and so ordered. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, with that, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
It is my pleasure to speak to this bill. The designation of Sable Island as a full national park has been long in coming and is welcomed by many quarters. Nonetheless, there have been a number of outstanding issues. It appears that all the parties have come together to a certain extent to resolve those matters. However, there have been discussions in the House about the comments made by the parliamentary secretary. There may still be a need for some discussion at committee. What our party certainly does not want to do in any way is slow down or stop the full designation of Sable Island as a national park.
Sable Island is a unique area. It is a sandbar island, off the coast of Nova Scotia, over 40 kilometres long and only 1.3 kilometres wide at its widest point. It is home to 190 plant species, including 20 that have restricted distribution and are not found elsewhere, and a remarkable herd of 450 wild horses.
It was that herd of horses that first brought the effort to conserve the island and protect their habitat. However, since that time, there have been many more revelations about the importance, significance and uniqueness of this island. Therefore, it is good news that all parties have come together to try to designate and set aside this area for future prosperity.
To that end, this act declares Sable Island national park reserve a full national park. That means it shifts to having full protection. However, as some of the members have indicated in the House, there are some questions about the extent of that full protection.
It is my understanding that conditions put on other parks, such as Gwaii Hanaas, Nahanni and so forth, are being imposed on Sable Island national park reserve, or would be imposed when it is designated. That includes allowing for first nation harvest rights and so forth.
There are additional problems, which I am quite familiar with from when I was the assistant deputy of natural resources in the Yukon. That was during the time when the majority of the first nation final agreements were being negotiated and included dealing with the issue of pre-existing mineral rights and interests on claimed lands. This legislation attempts to deal with those potentially conflicting rights and interests and also the jurisdiction and power of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.
I will not go into the details of those provisions. They would be discussed at committee should the bill be voted to go to committee. However, one issue that needs to be clarified and resolved is the extent to which pre-existing rights would be honoured.
It is my understanding that in designating the park, the decision was made to remove any right to actually extract petroleum resources on Sable Island or within a perimeter of, I believe, one mile offshore. The problem is that there is considerable offshore oil activity in the vicinity and the potential for direct or indirect drilling.
A question was raised by one of my colleagues about the term “low impact”. The law would allow for certain low-impact activities to occur. Unfortunately, the legislation does not specify what those are. I am sure that will be a matter for discussion and debate at committee. I look forward to the presentations by other members on that aspect.
It also amends the Canada Shipping Act, including the transfer of jurisdiction from the Coast Guard to Parks Canada.
One of the outstanding issues, which I look forward to being fully addressed, is that the preamble of the bill designating Sable Island national park reserve refers to Mi'kmaq asserted rights and title. The problem is that a preamble is not legally binding. It may well be that they may want to pursue some kind of substantive provision within the act and associated regulations and so forth to clarify that those rights are recognized. That is important, because there have been previous determinations by the Federal Court that previously, the government erred in law by making decisions on the protection of habitat of species without giving due consideration to aboriginal rights and title.
I note that the chief of the Paq'tnkek first nation, which is one of the Mi'kmaq nations, advises that they have not been consulted. Perhaps that has happened since he stated that. They are calling for more in-depth archeological studies on the island connected to their previous occupation. I am hopeful that they may be brought forward to committee. 
The Conservatives initially wanted to make the designation subject to all other federal laws. This was a rather reprehensible proposal, because all other national parks have said the opposite, which is that the National Parks Act would supersede all other laws, which is obviously important when designating an area for protection. My understanding is that they have withdrawn from that suggestion. I look forward to hearing clarification on that.
Finally, I would like to speak to the parts of the bill that deal with changes to Jasper National Park. As the parliamentary secretary has said, the bill deals with an exchange of properties to allow for the Marmot Basin ski project to potentially develop in the future. Presumably there was some kind of evaluation and assessment in this exchange and Marmot ski development would give up areas that are more ecologically sensitive for ones that are less ecologically sensitive.
I cannot speak to that in detail. I am not sure who was engaged in that review. I do not know if it was an open review. I look forward to more detail being provided on that in committee. It is absolutely critical, because under the National Parks Act, the minister is obligated to give priority to ecological integrity in making any decisions about the management of the parks.
That is potentially a matter that might come forward. My understanding is that nobody has specifically objected to the switch of the lands, but there are ongoing concerns, because a number of threatened species are potentially at risk.
Three or four herds of caribou in Jasper National Park are close to extirpation. Those are the last remaining herds that have any level of protection in my province. Essentially, for all the eastern slope herds, the provincial government has declared, “let them be extirpated”. All the herds in northern Alberta where the oil sands developments are occurring are also at risk.
There will be a lot of attention to the commitment by the federal government to step up to the plate and ensure that these last remnants of the caribou herds get full protection.
Again, as I mentioned, a previous court case was brought by a number of Alberta first nations because of the federal government's failure to actually directly consult and consider any impacts on first nation rights and title in deciding whether to protect the critical habitat of the woodland caribou. The court ruled that the minister had erred in law by determining that he did not have to consult and consider those rights. The federal court thoroughly chastised the minister for this erring in law, and this matter has continued to spin round and round.
According to National Park policy, the ski operators must demonstrate a substantial environmental gain from their plans. What people interested in the protection of this area will be watching for under the new regime of the Canadian Environment Assessment Act is whether there will be a thorough environmental assessment of any plans to expand in this area they will be allowed to expand into. Will Canadians who are concerned and dedicated to the protection of the species in that area be allowed to fully participate?
The government has been moving to try to limit participation by Canadians. I would think this would be a good chance to show and exercise good will and be forthright and say that it intends to ensure a full environmental assessment and full participation by people, even if it does not deem them to be directly impacted.
I would just like to close with some words of Alison Woodley, director of conservation for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. She said:
 Parks Canada policy requires that the operator demonstrate that there will be a substantial environmental gain from the overall plan. In our view, it is highly unlikely that there will be a substantial environmental gain achieved through a Marmot Basin ski area expansion and that the potential new development could cause harm to park wildlife, including woodland caribou, which have dropped to critically low numbers in the park and are at risk of disappearing. 
There is good will on the part of all parties, but there are still significant questions remaining. I think the ball is in the court of the government to step forward in both of these matters and assure the public and those concerned that those matters will be addressed and that they will protect the integrity of our national parks.
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very thoughtful comments in this debate. 
There are opportunities for us to drill into some of these issues in committee. I am very glad that we are having a productive and respectful debate on an important subject, which is this park.
I wanted to address one of the areas she brought up with regard to the definition of low-impact exploration activities. I believe that one of my colleagues also brought this up in a question. Some of the examples raised in a previous study of this bill have been related to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board issuing a call for bids that included the subsurface of Sable Island from time to time. A company that had a successful bid would need to access the island to undertake activities to further refine its understanding of the petroleum potential in the greater Sable Island area.
I think the last time something like this happened was in 1999. A company undertook a 3D seismic program. It temporarily installed listening devices and vibrating devices to provide a sound source. However, this particular activity was subject to permits and so on.
Is this the type of information that meets the specificity she would be expecting in a committee study, which we would look forward to engaging in?
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, frankly, what I would be looking for as an environmental lawyer would be clarification imposed in law. The problem is that, yes, there is a listing of activities, but then there is a wide open bucket of things that could occur, which is called “low-impact activities”.
The one provision of greatest concern is “petroleum exploration activities with a low impact on the environment”. What is that? If one talked to the oil and gas industry, many of them would say that there is absolutely no impact, because they manage x, y and z safely. 
Given how small and sensitive this area is, there is a need for a very specific definition to give assurance to everyone into the future. As to what legal mechanism we can come up with, I look forward to the innovative ideas of the Government of Canada.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. It is clear that she is well versed in the subject through her background in environmental law.
I have a question for her about the cuts the Conservative government made last year to the national parks. A number of national parks employees were laid off and will be replaced with signs. I was sad to hear this, because future generations could benefit from this wealth.
Has the hon. member gotten any reaction from her constituents on this?
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her dedicated work on environmental measures in the federal area. She raises a big issue, not just about the interpretation of the area but about the recent very deep cuts to the number of scientists, interpreters and so forth at Environment Canada and Parks Canada. Given that both of these matters, and also, Yoho Park, which I did not speak to, will need a high level of scientific scrutiny and close monitoring, it does raise concerns. 
Sable Island, as the parliamentary secretary who spoke to the bill said, is a terrain that is changing all the time. There are hundreds of unique plant species and so forth there. Who is going to be monitoring this? Who is going to be monitoring and acting as watchdog over these so-called low environmental impacts? 
For the ski area, we will want some assurance about who is going to be brought in to actually do this close evaluation of any future expansion into another part of the park of the commercial activities related to skiing. We are going to need assurances that if they do not have the scientists in-house anymore who can be accessed, they will draw upon independent scientists. They could include the wonderful, qualified scientists we have in Alberta.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who spoke before me, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. She gave a wonderful overview of Bill S-15. I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this Senate bill.
We know that in 2011 the federal government and the provincial NDP government negotiated an agreement to make Sable Island a national park. Bill S-15 was drafted as a result of that agreement.
Basically, Bill S-15 proposes that Sable Island become a national park reserve. It should be noted that unlike a national park, which does not allow for aboriginal land claims within the park area, a national park reserve designation allows the government to continue land claim negotiations.
That detail is very important here because the Mi'kmaq people of Nova Scotia are currently asserting ancestral rights to the island.
We must acknowledge the presence of first nations on the territory now known as Canada. As my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned, we need to ensure that there are proper consultations with first nations.
I hope that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will invite first nations to appear before the committee so they can share their views. We know that the bill's preamble is not binding. We must ensure that this bill reflects the rights of first nations when it is implemented.
All the members of the House have said that Sable Island is a place Canadians should be proud of. Canadians all across the country know of this long, narrow, crescent-shaped island in the north Atlantic, southeast of Nova Scotia, because of the wild horses that inhabit the island.
Over 190 plant species have been identified on Sable Island, and it is home to the world's largest grey seal colony in the world as well as 350 species of birds. That is why it is so important that we protect this Canadian ecological gem.
By the way, I would like to thank everyone who works at the Centre d'interprétation de la nature de Boisbriand, in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. This interpretive nature centre is a natural, wooded conservation area that covers approximately 42,500 m2 and borders the Mille-Îles river. Thanks to their efforts, our children and our children's children will be able to enjoy our flora and fauna as past generations were able to do.
I would like to commend them for their hard work in the area of conservation, since that is what we are talking about this afternoon. These people are making sure that future generations will be able to enjoy our natural resources. In my opinion, we need to consider the issue of intergenerational equality.
It is also important to mention that this Conservative government is leaving an ecological debt for future generations. We know that the federal government sabotaged parks by making cuts to national parks last year. For example, the government made $29 million in cuts to the parks' budget last year, and over 600 biologist and park interpreter jobs were lost.
These people will no longer be available in our national parks to share their ecological and scientific knowledge with Canadians across the country. We know that, in some cases, park interpreters are being replaced with interpretive signs.
We also know that the Prime Minister's Conservatives committed to meeting the conservation targets set out in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. However, they are not doing so.
Unfortunately, Canada is protecting only 10% of its land area and 1% of its waters. The Conservatives do not have a very good track record in this regard. I think that future generations will inherit this debt from this backward-thinking Conservative government.
What is more, the Conservative government has eliminated major environmental protection measures in Canada. Take for example the elimination of 98% of federal environmental assessments, the elimination of 98% of the measures to protect Canada's navigable waters and the elimination of measures to protect most fish habitats.
I was very sad to learn that the environment museum located in the Montreal Biosphere would open its doors for the last time this summer. In July 2012, the Conservative government made significant cuts to the Biosphere. Now, most of the staff is being cut.
We recently learned that Environment Canada has unilaterally decided to review the mandate of the environment museum, which will not survive if it no longer has any staff. The people who are being targeted are museum professionals, educators, guides, designers and technicians.
If the Conservative government really cared about sharing scientific and technical knowledge with the public, it would not have made these drastic cuts to our parks and museums, which are our country's true treasures.
That being said, I support the bill at second reading because it seeks to protect the history and beauty of Sept-Îles. I applaud the work done by the environmental groups who have joined forces to protect Sept-Îles.
As I said, I will be supporting this bill at second reading. However, I must say that the wording of this bill does raise some concerns. As my colleagues have already mentioned, the bill prohibits drilling within one nautical mile of the island, as well as drilling on the island's surface. However, in exceptional circumstances, exploration activities will be allowed on the island, which is a first in any national park. These exploration activities will be limited to those with a low impact on the environment. However, the bill fails to clearly define those exploration activities. I believe that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment needs to have a closer look at this issue in order to clearly define the term “low impact” and clearly define the exploration activities that will be allowed under this provision.
As it stands, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board will have to consult with Parks Canada before issuing licences for petroleum-related activities. The board would have the discretionary power to include in the terms and conditions any mitigation or remedial measures that the company must take.
I hope the Standing Committee on Environment will invite many experts in order to properly examine the bill. Having been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment, I have witnessed first-hand this government's unbalanced approach to conservation. The government muzzles Canadian scientists and refuses to listen to experts or scientists who work on conservation. 
Throughout this parliamentary session, Conservative members who sit on the various committees have refused to adopt the amendments proposed by opposition members, even though those amendments were based on testimony from experts and reliable information gathered in committee. The goal of such amendments is always to improve bills and make them better, including through public consultation. For once I hope the government members will accept the amendments proposed in committee by opposition members, who work very hard on the committee. 
I now look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the tone of debate earlier today, but I have to express a bit of disappointment in my colleague in turning this debate into a partisan issue, rather than looking at the form and substance of the bill itself as we hopefully take it into committee stage. 
I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to speak to a specific recommendation that perhaps she would have and perhaps to take a moment to retract some of the incorrect comments that she made, including the 99% environmental screening component. The Commissioner of the Environment said in the subcommittee on Bill C-38:
 The majority of screenings are very small projects for which there are no significant adverse environmental impacts. The agency has estimated that 94% of screenings would not pose significant adverse environmental impacts. 
I would like the member to comment on that statement. Since she raised it in debate perhaps she could also talk about whether or not, since the Commissioner of the Environment says that 94% of these small screenings do not have significant environmental impacts, she believes that the money and time spent on these screenings is better spent on no environmental impact rather than the larger environmental impact assessments where the funding is now going.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to answer the parliamentary secretary's questions about changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but we know that these changes were included in the omnibus bill passed last year by the Conservative government. 
We really did not have the time to debate these changes in the House of Commons. That is another sign that the Conservative government refuses to be accountable to the Canadian people. Canadians across the country expressed their opposition to the changes made by the Conservative government. Moreover, the government sabotaged the consultation process for these environmental assessments. That is what I am hearing from my constituents and that is disturbing. 
A number of Conservative members have risen in the House of Commons to talk about conservation. However, I would really like to hear from the members who represent the following areas: Riding Mountain in Manitoba; Point Pelee in Ontario; Banff and Jasper in Alberta; and Prince Albert in Saskatchewan.
Canadians have had to volunteer to maintain national parks because of the Conservative government's cuts.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her speech, which was excellent as usual.
As she pointed out, the Conservative government committed to achieving the conservation targets in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. It committed to protecting at least 17% of land habitat and 10% of marine areas by 2020. However, the government is seriously behind schedule, because only 10% of land areas and 1% of marine areas are protected.
I would like my colleague to explain why it is very important, even crucial, that these targets be met.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
These targets are essential for several reasons. Canada has become an international laughingstock because the government refuses to meet its targets under international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol. In addition, the Minister of the Environment withdrew Canada from the protocol in 2011, without consulting Canadians or even the other countries.
The international community was not even aware that Canada was pulling out until the very last minute. The government refuses to take positive action on the environment and is waiting for a Senate bill to do so—because we know that Bill S-15 originated in the Senate. I urge the Conservatives to listen to Canadian scientists and environmentalists.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-15, which would amend the Canada National Parks Act to create the Sable Island national park reserve of Canada, the culmination of years of work by the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia and by various stakeholders to protect Sable Island's unique nature and ecosystem. At present, Sable Island, an ecological gem, is afforded little protection and does not have protected status.
Sable Island lies approximately 290 kilometres southeast of Nova Scotia. It is a long, crescent-shaped island in the North Atlantic. While its topography is characterized by sand dunes and grasses, it is home to a significant biodiversity, including 375 wild horses, 350 species of birds, 190 plant species and the largest colony of grey seals in the world. 
Sable Island is world-renowned not only for its biodiversity but for its shipwrecks. Since 1583, there have been more than 350 recorded shipwrecks on or near the island, earning it the title of “Graveyard of the Atlantic”.
Given the unique ecosystem found on the island, in 2004 the federal and Nova Scotia governments concluded that it would be in the public interest to use a federally protected area designation to achieve conservation objectives for Sable Island. 
In 2010, a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, was signed to establish a federally protected area on Sable Island. Following the MOU, public consultations were held with members of the public and with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia to consider whether to establish a national wildlife area under the Canada Wildlife Act or a national park under the Canada National Parks Act. 
In the end, the consultations recommended that Sable Island be designated a national park, and on October 17, 2011, the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia signed an MOU to establish a national park on Sable Island. 
The island will be designated as a national park reserve in recognition of the fact that the island is subject to a claim of the Mi'kmaq. The Mi'kmaq and the Governments of Nova Scotia and Canada are currently negotiating this claim. The designation as a national park reserve allows the governments to continue these land claim negotiations.
Conserving Sable Island poses a challenge because of the wealth of resources in and around the island. Sable Island has been at the centre of oil and gas activities for the last 50 years. Offshore hydrocarbon exploration began in the 1960s. To date, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has made 23 significant discovery declarations in offshore Nova Scotia, eight of which have been declared commercial discoveries. From the commercial discoveries, 53 billion cubic metres of natural gas has been produced from Sable Island offshore energy fields. 
Bill S-15 would put into law an existing prohibition against drilling on Sable Island. Importantly, five oil companies that have been granted exploration licences for on-island drilling have voluntarily agreed to relinquish these rights. 
Let me say clearly that the Liberal Party is strongly in favour of the establishment of Sable Island national park reserve. Sable Island must be protected. In fact, the bill coming out of the Senate had the support of Liberal Party senators. 
However, the Liberal Party has concerns with the legislation that we feel are important and should be addressed at the committee stage. The Liberal Party would like to ensure that rigorous environmental protections and safeguards are maintained for this national park reserve. As well, we must ensure that any concerns by the Mi'kmaq with regard to the legislation have the opportunity to be addressed.
Liberals also have several concerns regarding the extent and oversight of natural resource development that Bill S-15 authorizes, specifically as it permits horizontal drilling underneath the island as well as low-impact exploration activities on the island. We would like to know what the government defines as “low impact” and what the effect would be on species at risk.
The Liberal Party is in favour of responsible and sustainable resource development. However, we believe that development projects like these must adhere to the most stringent environmental assessments. We must ensure that Sable Island is environmentally protected and that development does not detrimentally affect the ecosystem. 
We understand the economic value that developing the oil and gas resources in and surrounding Sable Island would provide Nova Scotia. However, Sable Island is a particularly sensitive ecosystem and is, as I have mentioned, home to a wealth of biodiversity as well as many species at risk, and it is important to find the right balance.
Other concerns include the following. The bill contains changes to the dedication clause, as well as changes to land borders in Jasper National Park, while the exchange of land between Parks Canada and the operators of Marmot Basin would have a detrimental impact on species in the area. 
Another concern regards clause 3, an exception to the application of the Canada National Parks Act with regard to existing leases, easements and licence of occupation and work on Sable Island. Why the allowance of renewal of licences? How many leases and licences are currently in place that affect Sable Island? We have also asked for that list from the minister's office and hope it will be provided at committee stage. We would also like to know how clause 6 corresponds with clause 3 with regard to the extension of leases on Sable Island. 
In clause 7, what would be the new mechanism for coordination and co-operation between Parks Canada and the offshore petroleum board? 
In the amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, it states, 
 “Before deciding whether to issue the authorization, the Board shall consider any advice...”. 
Is the offshore board not bound to the recommendation of Parks Canada? We would like to know who is looking after the interests of the environment and Sable Island if the offshore board is not bound by the decision.
Regarding clause 8, is the Conservative government not concerned with petroleum exploration activities, which might include systemic geological or geophysical programs on Sable Island?
What other activities might fall under the definition of “low-impact petroleum exploration”? What work has been undertaken to study the impacts of any programs?
Clause 14 amends the designation from utility zone to commercial zone in Yoho National Park of Canada. What changes come with the change of designation?
On clause 15, with regard to Jasper National Park, with the exchange of land and the new development, are there any areas of concern with regard to the environment and species at risk in this new area that will be developed?
The Liberal Party supports the creation of Sable Island National Park Reserve and would not block or even slow down its creation as it represents years of work by the government and stakeholders. 
In fact, our environmental critic, the member for Etobicoke North, had a conference call with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, which focuses on protecting many important areas of Canada's wilderness, to confirm what aspects it was comfortable with in the bill. Even if the bill went to committee, amendments would likely not be accepted. Based on the history of the government, would society be comfortable with the bill? 
I believe the government does want Sable Island protected and Bill S-15 is an important first step.
 In closing, I ask that the government not use the bill as a precedent to allow exploration in other national parks. As well, I hope it will allow a number of witnesses to appear before the Standing Committee on the Environment so that concerns can be appropriately addressed and, if necessary, the bill amended so that this special national park reserve can be established. 
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I have also been canvassing the views of environmental groups that work on park creation and conservation. There is a lot of concern across the country about the provisions that would continue to allow petroleum exploration-related activities within a national park. In particular, there should be no regulatory oversight within a national park by a body such as the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, whose mandate by legislation includes expanding oil and gas activities. 
I would like to ask my hon. friend what changes we can make in committee to ensure the integrity of national parks across Canada.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the member is obviously an environmental buff. Being that she is the leader of the Green Party, I would not be able to challenge her on some of her statements. 
As I stated in my speech, our environmental critic has a few things that she would like to examine at committee stage. I know the bill was looked at in the Senate. That is why we have two houses, so that we can have a review of what the other house did. I hope that this bill will have a deep review and not just a cursory review, and that we do not just quickly pass it without consultation.
One of the things that we can look at in a positive light is that, importantly, five oil companies that had been granted exploration licences for on-island drilling have voluntarily agreed to relinquish the rights. Therefore, I feel optimistic that the offshore petroleum board would not be granting licences on Sable Island. 
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, when I look at the way this legislation is crafted for Sable Island and for other national parks, in a more collaborative way, which I think is absolutely necessary for continuation of national parks in Canada. We have an island with a nautical mile buffer zone that is totally protected but allows, for instance, Mobil Oil to go on it and monitor wells that were drilled back in the seventies to make sure that the integrity of those wells is maintained. It allows for the helipad on the island. Many national parks have helipads for evacuation purposes, and they have to be maintained. The collaboration of that is a step in the right direction, not just for Sable Island, but for other national parks.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. I want to thank the member for the offer to visit Sable Island.
We are in uncharted territory. Normally petroleum companies would ask to explore a national park. This is a situation where petroleum companies are already exploring for oil or natural resources and we are going to be converting that to a national park, so we are in uncharted territory. I think we should take our time and make sure that we do consult all stakeholders, all people affected and all governments that are subject to having to govern this type of situation.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, the member commented on the usefulness of the Senate. I hope that he will pause and reflect on what happened to climate change legislation in the Senate just a few years ago, how the red chamber killed important climate change legislation that we all agreed upon.
However, rather than talking about the red chamber, I would like to refer the member to the red book in 1993. The member's party made a promise to make a significant improvement to the national parks system but it did not get the job done by its own deadline of 2000. I know the member was not here at that time. It was Alfonso Gagliano who sat in his place, but does he have any idea of some of the reasons and lessons that can be learned from the failure to get the job done in that seven-year period in the nineties?
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I have to address the Senate. My own private member's bill was passed in the House of Commons and stuck in the Senate, but that is because of the Conservative-dominated Senate and the fact that its members were not able to fulfill their role as parliamentarians. It is very shameful. 
However, in this situation, we had a case where the Conservatives tabled a bill and the Liberal senators on the committee were able to present amendments. The amendments were accepted. We are not sure if the same thing is going to happen here in the House. We will wait to see what committee finally does. 
Maybe the member is older than I am, but in the 1990s I remember Conservative governments overspending money. When we took over we did a good job in controlling the deficit. In my youthful years I am hoping that when we take over in 2015, we will be able to get everything in order, and spend money appropriately and properly.
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up the issue of the Senate again. It is an archaic institution that should not be able to hold the House of Commons and the duly elected members hostage. I would like to ask the member where their proposals for reforming or abolishing the Senate would be, so that we do not have that kind of situation that he just raised happen again. For over 50 years-- 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Where are yours?
Dan Harris:  To respond to the government heckling, for over 50 years it has been the NDP's position to abolish the Senate. The government has had seven years to make a change and make a difference. All it has managed to do is refer it back to the Supreme Court instead of having it brought forward in the House.
I would like to ask the member to perhaps comment on his proposals for change in the Senate because we have yet to hear any.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I am not sure that question is really pertinent to the question that is before the House.
I do see that the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel is on his feet. Does the hon. member wish to answer?
The hon. member.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, this is the problem with the NDP. One of its members is asking me about what happened in the 1990s and another one is asking me about something that is happening right now.
We have a leading scholar as our democratic reform critic. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville has an untarnished past and an untarnished reputation when it comes to making suggestions for reforming the Senate.
The easiest reform, I can tell members right now, if we look at our caucus, is to appoint competent senators.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I will give the member a second chance to answer a question that I asked him.
The member should have a bit of humility, since we know that he replaced Alfonso Gagliano. I think everyone in this House knows the history of that particular member in this House.
However, my question was more specifically about the promise the Liberals made in 1993, in their red book, when they said they were going to improve the parks system by the year 2000. They did not get that job done.
I want the member to reflect and pause and tell us what lessons the Liberal Party learned from that period of broken promises.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges took over from a previous member named Mr. Discepola, who was a former mayor and who passed away recently. This member obviously cannot hold a candle to him by asking questions like that.
However, I recall that during our years, between 1993 and 2000 we actually increased converting national parks by 50% and actually increased the budget to our national parks by 25%. 
 I am not sure where this member is getting his facts, but he should probably look at the history books and look at the previous budgets the government tabled under the Liberal Party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We are resuming debate.
I will let the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment know that we only have a couple of minutes left in the time allowed for government orders for this afternoon. I will allow her to get started, but be assured that she will have the remaining time available when the House next resumes debate. We have about two minutes left.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, in the short time that I have today, I will emphasize what I think all of us have been saying across debate in this House. This is an important piece of legislation because it would protect a very ecologically sensitive part of our country, one that is almost iconic not just in the local area but across the country. Sable Island is an island that really captures the hearts and minds of Canadians. Certainly I know from talking to colleagues from all parties who represent areas in the region that it strikes a chord with everybody who lives in that area. We have to protect this area. It is so important.
I want to thank my colleagues opposite, who asked very thoughtful questions today and who have expressed a desire to bring this proposal into committee and ensure that we have a rigorous, intense study of it to ensure that we get this legislation right.
That said, before I close today, I must take umbrage with the comment made by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that the bill should be abandoned because it would allow for oil exploration on the island. That is not the case. The whole point of the bill is to protect the area from that type of exploration in an area that is natural resource extractive intensive right now.
The point of the legislation is to protect this island and its heritage for years to come. I am certainly very optimistic that colleagues in this House can work together to ensure that this piece of legislation passes. 
The Nova Scotia government has done an excellent job in getting this measure through. Industry has done an excellent job in working to ensure that this principle is protected. In this place we owe the residents of the area, and all Canadians, the same level of diligence.
We should pass the bill because it is important to protect Sable Island.

Private Members' Business
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer)[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. 
Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC):  moved that the bill be concurred in. 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): (Motion agreed to)
 When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
[Interjection]
Earl Dreeshen:  moved that Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for seconding this third reading debate for the bill. I appreciate all of my colleagues' support, which has brought us to where we are today, as well as the support of the people of central Alberta. I have been working on this bill for three years. I first introduced it during the last Parliament, but it died on the order paper when the election was called. I am very pleased that we are here today at third reading.
Three years ago, I met a brave young lady and her mother who were seeking help. This young woman had been the victim of a vicious crime, so she and her mother asked me to help them make a change to the Criminal Code of Canada. They understood that a bill in Parliament would have no effect on the criminal proceedings that they were involved in. Yet they expressed their desire to help others who might find themselves in this same situation.
 I admire people who fight for and support changes to the Criminal Code, knowing full well they cannot make a difference in their own situation but will help others down the road. They seek positive change for a greater good. This was evident to my colleagues on the justice and human rights committee when my constituents appeared as witnesses and recounted this horrendous ordeal.
 In addition to the support of my colleagues, I would also like to specifically thank the Minister of Justice's staff and his department for the support that they have extended to me for my proposed amendment. I am also no less grateful for the support that I have received from serving and retired police officers, including our Conservative law enforcement caucus.
 Thousands of officers enforce Canadian criminal law every day, putting their lives on the line to do so. For our men and women in uniform, there may be times when some are reluctant to express judgment on proposed legislation because their job is to enforce, not to legislate. However, in this case, I am grateful for the positive feedback that I have received from police officers. They understand that my amendment does not seek to affect enforcement of section 130 of the Criminal Code. It is a sentencing provision. However, from their perspective, the police I have consulted with recognize that this particular crime jeopardizes their public reputation, which is essential for them to be able to do their jobs.
I want to be clear that I understand the significance of amending the Criminal Code. The changes that we as parliamentarians make to the laws found within Canada's Criminal Code have a profound effect on people's lives. However, as parliamentarians, we should also remember that the Criminal Code of Canada is a working document. It must continue to be updated to reflect the protections and justice that Canadians need and expect, and that our freedoms depend on.
I am proud to be part of a government that has been so committed to respecting the rights of victims. There are plenty of important issues that we tackle every day for Canadians, but I am especially proud of the accomplishments that our Prime Minister has delivered to Canadians in reforming our justice system.
I represent an area of Canada that has no tolerance for those who commit crimes against either persons or property. The citizens that I represent support a tough justice system that includes incarceration to punish criminals and to protect law-abiding Canadians. When an offender personates a police officer as a cover to commit another crime, this is a severe instance of personating an officer. It can have serious and long-lasting effects on a victim. Victims must be assured that there will be consequences for criminals who have hurt them. The sentence for this kind of malicious deceit must denounce this unlawful conduct and also reflect the significant impact that the crime has on victims' lives. It is not only the victim that this crime affects. It can affect an entire community, even to the extent that people are fearful of real police.
 We have seen recent media reports from Calgary of a vehicle driven by a person who is trying to pull people over, with flashing red and blue emergency lights on its dashboard. This is an ongoing mystery in Calgary, as there have been a number of reports of this happening over the past few years but no arrests have yet been made. The Calgary police have issued numerous warnings to motorists to use caution if they are unsure of the authenticity of a police car.
The Calgary Sun recently reported, on April 25, that Staff Sergeant Guy Baker said the police are concerned about public paranoia and a loss of trust in police if the culprits are not caught. He was quoted as saying:
 We want to maintain the respect of the community and don’t want the public unduly harassed. 
This is a crime that could have grave consequences for an entire community and the police who try to protect it. Therefore, sentences that are handed down for section 130 offences should reflect the seriousness of the crime.
Bill C-444 has one basic objective, to make personating a peace officer or public officer in the commission of another offence an aggravating circumstance that would be part of the consideration for sentencing purposes.
 It would add one clause to the Criminal Code, following section 130, to say:
 If a person is convicted of an offence under section 130, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the accused personated a peace officer or a public officer, as the case may be, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence. 
When we look at some of the aggravating circumstances that currently exist in the code, there is a common denominator among them, the vulnerability of the victims: crimes against children, crimes against the elderly, crimes involving firearms, or crimes that abuse the position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. These are all circumstances that Parliament has required judges to consider when sentencing. They are legislated as aggravating circumstances because offenders have taken advantage of the vulnerable position that the victims are in.
When citizens see a police uniform, they trust the authority that comes with it. When confronted by someone who looks like a police officer, people will rationally do what they have been taught to do; they will stop and follow instructions.
Personating an officer is a serious breach of the public's trust, and it has the same effect as using a weapon. It forces the victim to submit. If they are under the control of someone pretending to be an officer, they will ultimately lose any opportunity that they might otherwise have to protect themselves. We have been taught to respect and trust the men and women who wear uniforms. When criminals start using this trust as a weapon, we need to treat it within the Criminal Code for what it is.
The bill will instruct judges to consider it an aggravating circumstance to personate a peace officer or public officer as a cover for other criminal activity. This would apply regardless of the age of the victim.
My amendment would achieve three results. It will recognize the disarming effect that personating an officer has on a victim and the vulnerable situation that it puts them in. It will support victims of this crime by strengthening the reparation provided to them. It will preserve the trust that Canadians have in peace officers and public officers.
Within the maximum sentence for personating an officer, the appropriateness of a sentence would still rest with the sentencing court. However, it is up to us, as legislators, to establish sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code.
 Judges have the discretion to consider any factors they feel may have constituted aggression on the part of an offender, but there are also some circumstances that judges are explicitly required to consider when sentencing. They are in the code because Parliament has said they should always be taken into consideration by a judge.
As I have mentioned, one of the aggravating circumstances prescribed in the code is that of an abuse of a position of trust or authority in relation to a victim. This would apply in situations where an offender has an existing relationship with the victim, such as a teacher or coach or as a bona fide police officer. However, those who assume a position through deceit do not fall into this category. Offenders who personate officers have not abused a position of authority, for they do not have that position to begin with.
Aggravating circumstances in the code acknowledge the particularly forceful or dangerous way in which some offenders commit their crimes. Therefore, personating an officer to commit a crime is certainly an aggressive action on the part of an offender, similar to existing aggravating circumstances, and it should be recognized in the code as such.
I would like to quickly address the issue of my amendment having any effect on actual time served. I know this is a question that has come up in debate, as well as in my conversations with some of my colleagues.
I want to stress that my focus is on amending section 130 to add this sentencing provision, regardless of the length of sentences received for other convictions and whether or not they would be served concurrently. We can only speculate on what type of crimes may be committed alongside section 130 violations; how individual cases would be committed, tried and sentenced; how much evidence the crown may have in any particular case; or all of the mitigating or aggravating factors that may affect an offender's sentences. 
However, our role as legislators is to ensure that the maximum sentences and sentencing factors prescribed in the Criminal Code for each offence serve the purpose and principles of sentencing.
I am asking Parliament to add a sentencing provision to the crime of personating peace officers and public officers to ensure that future sentences for this crime adhere to the purposes and principles of sentencing, which are listed in the code. As for the types of crimes that are committed in concert with personation, what aggravating or mitigating factors might apply to an offender, or how an offender's total time served might pan out, those decisions remain in the hands of the sentencing court.
Speaking briefly to incarceration, it is meant to denounce unlawful conduct, deter others from committing offences, separate offenders from society and assist in rehabilitating offenders. These are all listed in the Criminal Code as purposes of sentencing. There is also another purpose of incarceration that is listed in the code, which is to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community.
Whatever the terms of a sentence for any offender may be, even if served concurrently with another sentence it is my goal to ensure that sentences for section 130 offences acknowledge the harm done to victims. The rights of victims need to be protected. They must know that there are serious consequences for the criminals who have hurt them.
Last weekend, I had the privilege of attending the Silver Lake RCMP detachment's Regimental Ball, which was an excellent event that raised funds for the RCMP's victim services program. The people who work in victim service programs and rape crisis centres provide compassion and direction to people in need. When I relayed the circumstances of this case and the purpose of my bill to RCMP members and victim service program attendees, they too gave me their unqualified support.
These people, these great Canadians who work in victim service programs, deserve our thanks and recognition. Day in and day out, they see the worst that society has to offer, and they continue to help people in their time of distress. 
At any time, any one of us could be blindsided by crime. It is very difficult to navigate and make decisions when in a state of shock. Victims services are a vital resource in our country, and they deserve our recognition and support. 
For many victims, no amount of incarceration can ever make up for the hurt that has been inflicted upon them, but it does provide some comfort and indeed protection when an offender is locked up. As I have said, this bill is about sentencing; it speaks to the need for tougher penalties for this particular crime. Victims must be assured that there will be serious consequences for the criminals who have hurt them. We need to preserve the trust and respect that citizens have for real police officers. 
I am pleased to continue this discussion here today.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, the fact that we did not see minimum mandatory sentencing in this was one of the things that allowed us to support this bill. This bill is a model of a logical and balanced approached to justice that we can stand behind and support.
It is a good example for democracy. It shows Canadians that sometimes we can work together in the House to produce good legislation.
Does the member realize that if they continue in this way of working—a reasonable and mannered approach, listening to opposition comments and working together, rather than in an adversarial approach—that perhaps we could pass other pieces of legislation? 
[Interjection]
Earl Dreeshen: Mr. Speaker, with a private member's bill there are sometimes opportunities to get a chance to speak directly to our constituents. Truly, this was an opportunity that I had. 
It was a little over three years ago when I first got an email from the family. We set up a meeting and we were going from there. There are a couple of things from that particular email that I would like to share, if I may. It said:
 I am asking you...[to] meet with me, so that we can move forward with a legislation change federally to increase the sentences for persons who impersonate a police officer in order to commit a crime. It is an abuse of public trust. It is abhorrent. 
 We teach our children to listen to the police. My daughter did what she's been taught, and suffers every hour of every day for it. I need some help to know what steps to take and where to go. 
This opportunity we have in the House of Commons and the opportunity I had as a private member with this bill, and the three years it has taken to get to this particular stage, is something I am proud of. I appreciate the support that I have had from all members of the House. 
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing the bill forward. As he mentioned in his speech, he has brought it forward a number of times. The NDP will be supporting it and this is one of those rare moments in the House where we can work together.
I know he mentioned this in his speech, but I would like him to address this because it is an important aspect of the bill. Part of this is really about protecting our police forces and their reputations. I will touch on it in my own speech, but I know that it is important for seniors, when an officer presents him or herself at their doorstep, to have some confidence that it is an officer of the law. Although it speaks to sentencing, this particular piece of legislation can be a deterrent. It can protect those reputations and give seniors some confidence that there are consequences to someone impersonating a peace officer.
[Interjection]
Earl Dreeshen: Mr. Speaker, indeed that is one of the aspects. After I had the opportunity to speak with the family and the young lady involved here, we then talked to the police. We wanted to find out just what some of the concerns were. I will get to the other point in a moment, but in a lot of cases, when police officers are arresting someone there are numerous charges, such as an assault that might take place against the police officer. However, those things kind of get lost in the mix by the time they get to the courts. I think they looked at this as one of those features we could present to the public that would say, this is something that is important. Therefore, if it is an aggravating circumstance we know that it would be addressed. They were interested in that aspect of it.
Certainly, if we go through what aggravating circumstances are, the intent is that any type of activity against the elderly or against the young would be involved. What impressed me was that, at the time, this young girl was 16 years old and she knew that the aggravating circumstances aspect of it was related to her age. However, she was saying that everyone has to keep this in mind. For that reason, I am extremely proud of being able to bring the bill forward. 
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, today I will be talking about Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.
The bill makes a slight amendment to the Criminal Code about personating a police officer or a public officer. This is a change for the better, so the official opposition will support the bill. I am pleased that we can work with the government to pass Bill C-444 quickly.
This bill establishes that personating a police officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing another offence must be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance.
How does that change the existing law? Currently, personating a police officer is an offence. That will not change. What would change is that the courts would no longer consider personation to be a stand-alone offence. In other words, if this crime is committed for the purpose of committing another offence, it will be considered an aggravating circumstance with respect to the primary offence. Until now, the two offences were considered separately.
Today, if a man is convicted of disguising himself as a police officer for the purpose of committing an assault, the court will hand down separate sentences for the assault and for personating a police officer. This bill will give the judge a way to connect the assault and the personation that enabled the assault. It will be easier for the judge to account for the outcome of personating a public officer. Guilty parties will receive more appropriate sentences.
It seems clear to us that, in such cases, the personation is part of the plan to commit the assault, so it would not make sense to separate the two crimes. I hope that the law will soon reflect logic and common sense.
There is another reason I wholeheartedly support this bill. Like my colleagues, I am pleased to support it because, in addition to its logical approach, Bill C-444 is balanced. By that, I mean that it respects judicial independence and sidesteps the trap of mandatory minimum sentences.
Courts will be able to assess sentences once they can consider personation to be an aggravating circumstance. Judges will be able to take all aggravating and attenuating circumstances into account.
We need to remember that each case is different. Legislators must provide the justice system with the means to hand down appropriate sentences. The very principle of minimum sentencing goes against that idea. We are quite pleased that this bill does not propose minimum sentences.
I hope that this bill has helped my colleagues on the other side of the House realize that when the Conservative government presents a reasoned approach to a real issue and proposes sensible solutions, the NDP will work with it to ensure that bills move forward more quickly. I should also say that collaborating on Bill C-444 gave us the opportunity to reiterate our support for victims and for those who keep our democratic institutions running.
Our first thought should always be of the victims. In particular, I am thinking about the young girl who was sexually assaulted by a police impersonator in Alberta. There are also drivers who have paid bogus fines and seniors who were scammed by criminals posing as public servants. All of these examples have one thing in common: there was an abuse of the victims' trust.
In each of those cases, the culprits took advantage of that trust in public authority. Thinking they were dealing with a public official, the victims let down their guard. They thought they could trust the person standing before them.
Making the connection between personation and the crime it enables more accurately reflects the reality of the abuse. It gives a better picture of the wrongs the victim has suffered, and that is what is important.
The bill more accurately reflects the abuse by helping us to put ourselves in the victim's shoes and to better understand what he or she went through. This allows us to show respect for victims and to punish offenders more appropriately. 
The bill will also make it possible to better protect the integrity of our most fundamental institutions. When people see a police uniform, they tend to trust the person wearing it. Personating a peace officer is a serious breach of the public's trust. This type of false representation also has a negative impact on our institutions, which need the public's trust to operate properly.
We refuse to allow Canadians to lose confidence in our institutions because of the actions of a handful of criminals. By disguising themselves as police officers or public officials in order to commit crimes, these offenders are attacking our institutions. They are tarnishing the reputation of public officials who make it possible for us to live in a society where everyone's rights are respected, including the right to live in safe communities.
By passing this bill today, we will be sending a clear message to anyone who might be tempted to impersonate a police officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing a crime. If they do, they will be punished. The court will take that into account and their sentence will be lengthened as a result. Dissuading criminals from committing crime remains the best way to protect Canadians.
If the bill passes, it will help improve our justice system considerably. It will protect the integrity of our institutions by deterring potential criminals from misappropriating the public authority. It will allow for more appropriate punishments, because the courts will be able to appreciate the circumstances of a crime. Furthermore, it will do greater justice to victims, because the outcome will better reflect what they suffered.
I hope this bill will serve as an example to show that when the Conservatives introduce a bill based on a logical and balanced approach, as is the case with this bill, and it does not impose mandatory minimum sentences, we can work together. This co-operation helps push the bill through the legislative process faster in order to benefit Canadians sooner.
To conclude my speech, I would like to talk briefly about something the hon. member for Red Deer said. He began his speech by saying that he represents a riding that has no tolerance for those who commit crimes. I sincerely hope the member was not implying that some ridings in this country do tolerate crime. Everyone knows that in all of our ridings, our fellow Canadians do not tolerate it. However, we could also say that there are criminals in every riding.
Honest Canadians want to see parliamentarians working together to pass logical, good legislation. They are disappointed to see that criminal activity exists even here, in the Senate, for example. We need to prove to Canadians that no riding in the country tolerates crime. That is certainly the case in Vaudreuil—Soulanges. My constituents want parliamentarians to protect victims and strengthen our laws. They want us to get truly serious about reducing crime across the country so that we can keep our communities safe and so that they can have faith in their institutions.
We will make sure that all Canadians are safe, from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-444, an act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer).
The bill is basically identical to the previous bill, Bill C-576, which died on the order paper when the last Parliament ended. 
Bill C-444 was reported without amendment from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on April 24, 2013.
The bill deals with the existing offence of personating a peace officer or public officer. Specifically it would make it an aggravating factor on sentencing if the offence of personating a peace officer or public officer was committed for the purpose of facilitating another offence.
Prior to 2009, pretending to be a peace officer or public officer was a straightforward summary conviction offence. At that time it carried a maximum of six months in prison, a maximum fine of $5,000 or both.
In 2009, this government hybridized the offence and increased the penalty to a maximum of five years when prosecuted on indictment, in former Bill S-4, also known as the identity theft bill. That legislation came into force on January 8, 2010.
The maximum sentence of five years reflects the fact that the offence only requires that a person pretend to be a peace officer or public officer. It does not require that they have a specific malicious purpose for doing so or that they accomplish something malicious by doing so.
Some people may impersonate the police for the thrill of feeling powerful or for other relatively minor objectives, such as obtaining information or gaining access to a place. Simply pretending to be a peace officer or public officer so that others may believe that person is in fact one, without any other motive, is enough to result in a conviction. Such cases may still be dealt with by way of summary conviction proceedings, based on the Crown prosecutor's assessment of all the relevant circumstances.
However, the five-year maximum penalty enacted in 2010 ensures that law enforcement and Crown prosecutors have the tools to appropriately address serious incidents of this behaviour, preserving public confidence in our peace officers and public officers.
Police personation can be closely associated with other offences. It can, in fact, be used as a tool to make the commission of other offences easier. Because we live in a society where most citizens are trusting of the police, members of the public may acquiesce to the authority of someone they believe to be a police officer or a public officer. The exploitation of citizens' trust in the police demonstrated by this kind of situation is the most troubling form of offence. It is especially deserving of condemnation by sentencing courts, as well as by Parliament.
This is precisely the situation that Bill C-444 targets. Bill C-444 would make it a mandatory aggravating factor on sentencing for the crime of personating a peace officer or public officer if the offence was committed for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence. It is frightening even to imagine how people could be influenced to comply with directions or the assertion of authority by someone they believed to be a police officer.
We are taught from our earliest interactions with our parents and teachers that police officers are safe persons we can rely on, especially in difficult or dangerous situations. It is thus not surprising that the vast majority of Canadians instinctively respect police officers' authority and follow their instructions, as we rightfully believe they are acting to keep us safe.
When criminals take advantage of this trust to defraud us or worse, that bond is jeopardized. This not only causes a great deal of anguish for individual survivors of these offences but also acts to make it more difficult for police officers or public officers to do their jobs effectively and keep our communities safe. Fortunately this is a rare occurrence, but its extreme seriousness can justify express condemnation in the Criminal Code.
It is also important to recall that in determining a fit sentence, the court must in all cases take into account all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code describes a number of aggravating factors that apply to all offences. These include, for instance, evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. However in addition to these factors that are specifically listed, the sentencing court always retains discretion to determine if additional circumstances revealed by the evidence are aggravating or mitigating factors that should affect the sentence.
It is already the case in our law that a sentencing judge can take into account the aggravating nature of this form of police personation. What Bill C-444 would do is essentially codify this practice in the context of the criminal law.
Bill C-444 merits support because it addresses a truly horrific form of criminality which has so many negative consequences on the public at large, on the ability of the police to carry out their functions, and especially on any individuals whose trust in public institutions and authorities was used against them to facilitate their victimization. There have been a number of incidents of this form of conduct reported in the papers in the last few years. Just this past April it appeared that at least two more incidents of personating peace officers have occurred. 
In Calgary there are recent media reports that a man driving a silver sedan with unauthorized red and blue lights pulled over two vehicles, scaring the innocent drivers. Fortunately, the victims realized that something was not right about the impostor and got in contact with the real authorities to report the situation. Luckily, nobody was harmed. However, this act has surely shaken Canadians' trust and their belief in who is or is not a police officer.
On the east coast, the Halifax Chronicle Herald reported criminals had been personating local police officers via telephone in order to fraudulently solicit donations for a bogus charity. The scam artists claimed that they were police officers fundraising to help combat youth suicide. This disgraceful conduct not only preys on generous citizens, but also makes it more difficult for real officers to give back to their communities through legitimate fundraising activities, which is a long-standing tradition in police services across our country.
Of course, there was the tragic case in the sponsoring member's riding, which saw a devastating abduction and sexual assault of a teenage girl near Penhold, Alberta. This incident clearly influenced the proponent's decision to bring this legislation forward.
During the most recent committee study of the bill, members heard the courageous testimony of the survivor of that offence as well as that of her mother. I applaud the immense strength of that young woman's courage to travel to Ottawa and assist the committee by sharing her story with members of Parliament as well as with all Canadians. She rightly explained to the committee that there should never be shame or stigma in reporting or speaking out against sexual violence. 
By passing this legislation we would send a clear message that the courts must give serious weight during sentencing to the enduring harm that is caused when criminals personate police officers or public officers for the purpose of committing other criminal acts, including sexual assault and kidnapping.
All Canadians should be concerned about these cases and should be encouraged to take the appropriate steps to avoid being duped by this very deceptive form of criminality. In particular, citizens should continue to trust the police but they should also recognize that criminals are not above exploiting their trust.
It is a difficult balance to achieve. The exercise of a bit of caution is a good thing. It is reasonable to ask to see the badges of individuals who appears to be police officers, especially if being requested to go with them or to allow them to enter the premises, or if they appear to be soliciting donations. This kind of verification process must be done respectfully and cautiously. If an impostor flees when asked for identification, immediately call 911, report the incident and attempt to provide an accurate description of the person and any associated vehicle while the encounter is still fresh in memory.
We as parliamentarians can help educate and inform Canadians about these risks, which many may be unaware of. In terms of Bill C-444, we can also vote to support this legislation and express our unified condemnation of those who would use our best natures as citizens against us.
I hope all members will join me in supporting this worthwhile legislation.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-444.
I will begin by quoting Anne Frank: “How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” I think this resonates with the hon. member for Red Deer, who has had to wait three years to get to third reading stage of his bill. In fact, this is a reincarnation of a bill that unfortunately died on the order paper. Such is life.
I want to commend the hon. member for Red Deer on resisting the urge to suggest a minimum sentence. He took another approach in considering personating an officer an aggravating factor in the crime committed, for the purpose of sentencing. 
This is a wise approach. It respects judicial independence and it suits the opposition. It shows that we can achieve rapid success if things are done properly. I thank him for that.
By taking this approach we are showing victims that during the trial, the courts will take into consideration the circumstances in which the crime was committed. That is important because the appearance of justice is just as important as justice itself. For these victims, it is very important to take into consideration the way in which the crime was committed, as well as their story, as painful as it may be. We have to take that into account.
This bill will help prevent people from mistrusting peace officers, something that should never happen. This is not insignificant. In terms of prevention, this is important.
When someone personates an officer, they make others vulnerable. Someone who personates an officer and takes advantage might put someone else who is not necessarily a victim in a vulnerable position. When we trust people, we lower our guard. It is human nature and that is good.
Taking advantage of this vulnerability is absolutely wrong. I think everyone here, on both sides of the House, agrees on that. In many cases people actively try to make others vulnerable. Much has been said about naturally vulnerable people, such as young children and the elderly. Everyone intuitively understands that. 
However, some people can exploit the vulnerability of others for their own benefit through lying or misrepresentation. Bullying is a typical case. Someone uses a supposedly superior position to achieve certain ends. Whether it involves physical or psychological abuse, bullying is bullying regardless of the individual or group of people targeted.
People who use their knowledge of the law, for example, to take advantage of others who do not have this knowledge are also doing something reprehensible. This human failing can take several forms.
 Let me tell you about something that happened to me once. I was walking my dog outside. There were some homeless people not far from my house.These were people without much of a future and who did not have a lot in life. I saw a homeless person talking to someone, almost as poor, who was offering a warm place to sleep for one night. In return, this individual was asking the homeless person sleeping on the street to give up the only thing he had, which was a watch. When I saw that, I was absolutely shocked.
Continually trying to exploit a weakness, whatever it is, for example through personation, as addressed in the bill, is something that always infuriates me because everyone deserves respect.
I would like to tell the member for Red Deer that I really appreciate his approach. I really appreciate the example he sets for the entire House on how to work together, as my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges mentioned. He went about it in a way that made it possible for everyone to agree. He makes it possible for us to say that if people of good will sit down together to acknowledge an obvious problem, there are ways to solve it without discord and still advance the ideals of justice. I would like to thank him again for that.
In closing, I hope that the Conservatives are prepared to consider not including minimum sentences in their future bills. In the past, and since I became a member of the House, we have opposed bills or expressed serious reservations about certain bills, not because they were not good bills in their own right, but because they did not recognize the autonomy of judges.
The member for Red Deer took this into account in this bill and that is important. For that reason, I am pleased to support this bill. 
In closing, I would like to quote the Tao Teh Ching. I hope the member for Red Deer will like it. It says that one can “accomplish great things by taking a series of little steps”.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by once again thanking the member for Red Deer for the work he has done to bring the issue of the personation of peace officers to the attention of the House. As he and others have correctly pointed out, there have been a number of offences committed in recent years in which the offender personated an officer in order to facilitate illegal activity, and these instances have the profoundly troubling consequence of undermining public trust in the police and other officials.
I would also like to acknowledge the courageous appearance before the justice committee of Laurie Long and her daughter Jordan, whose 46-hour ordeal at the hands of a man who pretended to be a police officer evokes in all of us the utmost compassion and outrage. Jordan's determination to not only overcome this trauma but to speak openly about it in an effort both to encourage other victims to come forward and to prevent others from being victimized truly merits the term “heroic”.
Accordingly, I will be supporting Bill C-444 as a statement of the seriousness with which Parliament regards the crime of personation. I can support it because the member for Red Deer has wisely not included a mandatory minimum sentencing provision and, as such, this legislation would be unlikely to have the unintended negative consequences of other Conservative justice bills that have come before us.
However, at the same time the bill is unlikely to have the meaningful positive impact that we all desire, indeed, that which the member for Red Deer desires, mainly fewer instances of personation. The bill would establish that for offenders who personate a peace officer in order to facilitate another offence, this intention would be considered an aggravating factor with respect to the sentence for personation. Yet, as I outlined at second reading, Canada already allows for longer sentences for personation than many comparable jurisdictions, and there has been no suggestion that Canadian judges have been ignoring material aggravating factors when meting them out.
Furthermore, even if some judges were moved by this legislation to issue longer sentences than they otherwise would have, the offenders would still be unlikely to spend more time in prison because the sentence for personation would generally be served concurrently with a longer sentence for the crime it was intended to facilitate. Indeed, while the member for Red Deer outlined at committee certain exceptional hypothetical scenarios in which his bill could conceivably impact the length of a prison term, these scenarios constitute exceptions that prove the rule, which is that the bill will have less of the impact than the member for Red Deer would himself wish on sentencing and prison terms. 
Finally, even if this bill were in rare cases to cause certain offenders to spend more time in prison, it has been well established that longer prison terms do not result in less crime. As such, the goal of reducing the occurrence of personation would not be furthered in any event. As I suggested at second reading, preventive measures, such as restricting the availability of authentic looking police attire and equipment, would do more to protect Canadians than this somewhat less than consequential amendment on the matter of sentencing guidelines might do.
I know that the member for Red Deer explained at committee, and today, that his primary purpose in bringing this bill forward was not to increase the length of prison terms, or even to have a direct impact on the incidence of this offence, but rather to raise awareness about the crime of personation. This is a laudable objective, and in fact I have spent much of my own work seeking to raise awareness on various issues, including crimes committed both in Canada and abroad.
While I am on the topic, I will take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to those members from all parties who have participated in the context of Iran accountability week in efforts to raise awareness about the threat posed by the Iranian regime, both to other countries and particularly to its own people. Raising awareness can undoubtedly be an important first step on the road to tangible change.
However, the Criminal Code is an inappropriate tool with which to engage in an awareness campaign. For one thing, I am somewhat uneasy about the precedent of making additions to it that are primarily of a symbolic nature. The Criminal Code functions best when it is simple, efficient, clear and accessible to ordinary Canadians. Amendments to the Code are appropriate when it is determined that there is a fault or a gap in the law, but if we make a habit or a practice of amending it simply for the purpose of signalling concern, however valid a given concern might be— and, again, I applaud the member for Red Deer in his expression of concern—we risk unnecessarily complicating a document that is already dense and complex, not to mention risking unforeseen and undesired consequences in unforeseeable cases.
More importantly, perhaps, the Criminal Code is simply not an effective means of raising awareness. I appreciate that this bill has brought the matter of personation of peace officers to the attention of Parliament, although that goal could have been achieved just as well by way of a motion. However, surely we must seek not only to alert parliamentarians to this problem, but the Canadian public as well. To that end, adding an aggravating sentencing factor to the Criminal Code, especially one that is unlikely to have any real consequential effect, may achieve little, as very few Canadians are conversant in the sentencing guidelines of section 130.
Indeed, the government itself has acknowledged on several occasions that amending the Codes does not, on its own, raise awareness. 
Last fall, for example, Parliament unanimously passed Bill C-36 which, similarly to the bill before us, added an aggravating sentencing factor, this one designed to increase penalties for those who target seniors.
At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice stood in this House and said:
 This government recognizes the concern expressed by witnesses...who noted that Bill C-36 could not serve as the only response to the problem of elder abuse. 
He went on to explain that the bill was intended to complement an awareness and advertising campaign already in place.
Another example is Bill C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act, which received royal assent on June 28 of last year. At committee, Catherine Kane, who was then director general and senior general counsel of the criminal law policy and amendments section in the Department of Justice, and I congratulate her on her appointment since to the Federal Court, referred to the government's plan for educating the public regarding the bill's provisions saying, “we will also be embarking on some public education materials so we can explain to various audiences what these changes mean”.
I regret that I have yet to see any such educational materials in the 11 months since the bill received royal assent. I might add, parenthetically, that while a backgrounder published by the Department of Justice in conjunction with the coming into force of the legislation on March 11 of this year speaks of two guides on the department's website, “What you need to know about making a citizen's arrest” and “Technical guide to self defence and defence of property reforms”, the links to both are broken.
Nevertheless, my point is that even the government has in word, if not always in deed, recognized that education and raising awareness should be conducted outside the Criminal Code. Regrettably, the bill before us does not do likewise. There has been no mention, for instance, of education programs to inform individuals about their right to ask a police officer for identification. Indeed, there has not even been any suggestion that the very change wrought by the bill will be publicized in any way.
Simply having this provision rest as one of many in the Criminal Code that most Canadians only encounter when they are either charged with a crime or fall victim to one does not constitute effective education or awareness-raising, and neither is it a strategy that will prevent, deter or dissuade anyone from engaging in what we all agree is reprehensible behaviour.
Fundamentally, the 2,074 pages of legal language in the Criminal Code are neither a billboard nor a public service announcement. Any attempt to use them as such, however well intentioned, cannot be expected to succeed.
As I said at the outset, I will support this bill so as to join with the member for Red Deer in seeking to make this statement on an important issue. Again, I commend the member for this initiative. However, if we are to protect Canadians from those who would abuse their trust by disguising themselves as peace officers in order to do harm, we must devise concrete measures that can be more effective at both raising awareness and preventing this intolerable crime.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Resuming debate. I will let the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan know that we only have about three minutes left in the time allocated for private member's business today. The remaining time will be available to her when we next resume debate. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that New Democrats will be supporting this private member's bill. I want to commend the member for Red Deer for being so persistent in bringing it forward. I know he has worked on it for a number of years. I also think it speaks to the fact that we as parliamentarians do respond to our constituents. My understanding is that the member for Red Deer brought this forward as a result of an incident in his riding.
Others have mentioned it, but what Bill C-444 does is to propose to amend article 130 of the Criminal Code, to establish that personating a police officer or public officer for the purposes of committing another offence must be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes. A number of other members have pointed this out, but I think it bears repeating. It is essential that the public have absolute confidence and are able to trust that when dealing with a police officer, the person is actually a police officer.
Many of us, as parents, have told our children that if they are in trouble or get lost when they are out and about, they should go to a police officer. We need to have confidence that it is police officers we are sending our children to.
One reason that confidence and trust is important is the fact that we have vulnerable populations. I know the member for Red Deer specifically talked about a young girl. I also want to touch on seniors because my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has a higher than provincial average of seniors. It is a very popular place for people to retire to. Sometimes seniors end up becoming part of the vulnerable population because people who have less than honourable intentions target them specifically for criminal activities. Unfortunately, people personating police officers go to their doors.
I went to the Vancouver Police Department's website and read its tips for seniors when dealing with people at the door. The website pointed out that for most crimes, seniors are the least victimized, so I would reassure seniors that they are not often a major target for criminal activity. However, it adversely affects seniors in a way that does not affect others in the population because seniors are often on a fixed income and have much greater difficulty replacing money or property when they have been targeted for criminal activity. 
There are a couple of tips that the Vancouver Police Department suggest. When someone goes to a senior's door, the first thing they should do is to look through the peephole or a glass window that may be on the side of the door to verify who is on the doorstep. If it is somebody purporting to be a police officer and they have any discomfort at all, they should call 911 or contact the police department to verify he or she is actually an officer. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan will have seven minutes remaining for her remarks when the bill returns to the House for debate.
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:30 p.m., the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)