2014-12-12

Government Orders
Rouge National Urban Park Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from November 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, be read the third time and passed. 
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this morning on a very important subject, which is the creation of the Rouge national urban park. We are at third reading of Bill C-40, and I have to say that I am very saddened today that my colleagues and I will not be supporting this bill. While we believe that it is extremely important that we create this first national urban park, we are very distressed at how the Conservatives are doing it. We believe that they have fallen far short of what is expected and needed in the creation of this park.
Let me say that I am very proud to have in my riding of Parkdale—High Park the largest existing park in the city of Toronto, High Park. It was created by the very visionary John and Jemima Howard, who set out clear boundaries and responsibilities for this park. They were absolutely adamant that this park should exist for all time for the free use of the public and that the integrity, ecology, and environment of the park needed to be protected while recognizing that it would be an urban park and a multi-use park.
I want to publicly thank the Friends of High Park Nature Centre for its stewardship of this magnificent jewel on the waterfront of Toronto. All seasons of the year, this park is warmly treasured by people from Toronto and those who come from abroad, whether it is for the cherry trees blossoming in the spring or for skating on Grenadier Pond in the winter or other sports activities. It is a wonderful urban space.
I also want to recognize that the Humber River is the western border of the riding of Parkdale—High Park. It is the only federal urban heritage river. It is an important historic and ecological major waterway. The watershed of the Humber River stretches from the highlands far north of the city of Toronto. It is a very important waterway. Sadly, the federal government has undermined the protection of this river by changes it has made to environmental protection. Specifically, it has removed all of the Humber River, except the mouth of the river, from the Navigation Protection Act and federal environmental protection, which is very troubling. 
I would like to thank my colleague from York South—Weston. He and I are working to have this river reinstated in the Navigation Protection Act because of its importance. We believe it is very shortsighted to remove the protections from the Humber River. We are working hard to try to get that reinstated.
I come from a perspective of someone who understands that when one is living in a city and has these treasures, one recognizes that they are a bit different from very remote parks and heritage areas because of their settings. People can get to the Humber River and High Park by subway in downtown Toronto, so they are very different from other protected areas.
The Rouge national urban park would certainly be the largest park in the city. It would be one of the largest parks in North America and the only national park that can be accessed by public transit. It is a unique situation. The government is still trying to assemble the land, but it is land that is already in use. There is farming. There are hydro rights-of-way. There are roads. There already are activities in this area.
Like High Park, in my neighbourhood, no one is expecting that this will be absolutely 100% pristine wilderness. It will not be. It will be special, because it will be an urban park.
 We are strongly in favour of creating more parks, but we are most strongly in favour of protecting the ecological health of these national parks. We have to get this right. To do this, we need strong environmental legislation that recognizes that this is a multi-use urban park and that makes its ecology an absolute first priority.
 The Rouge national urban park would be very rich. It has a diversity of ecosystems, including a rare Carolinian forest, numerous species at risk, and many agricultural and cultural heritage resources, including a national historic site and some of Canada's oldest known aboriginal historic sites and villages. It is a very special place.
This bill, because we are dealing with the first national urban park, would create a precedent. It would be a model for protecting other areas in urban settings. We need to get this right. This is a stand-alone bill that has been created just for this park. We have the opportunity, unlike with the grab bag of legislation that is thrown into omnibus bills, to study this bill in detail.
The result of Bill C-40, I am sad to say, would be to create weaker protections for Rouge Park than exist for all other national parks in Canada. They are weaker protections, in fact, than the provincial legislative framework that exists already for the park. Yes, it is an urban setting, but there is already a provincial framework that exists that should be improved rather than undermined.
In fact, the Ontario provincial government is refusing to transfer land to the federal government for the creation of this park. Why? It believes that the land would be jeopardized. To be included in the park, it wants to have stronger protections, not weaker protections, and it believes that the protection the province is offering will be stronger. That is why it is saying it is not going to transfer this land if it is going to undermine its ecological integrity.
I want to point out a key point here. The Canada National Parks Act already says:
 Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks. 
That exists in the existing parks legislation.
This bill would undermine it by saying that it must only “take into consideration” the ecosystems. There is nothing that gives it priority, that gives it precedence, over anything else.
 We have tried to amend the bill. We proposed a number of changes. There was one key proposal that would have recognized that yes, there is farming, and yes, that farming would continue, but the ecological integrity would have to be respected. The Conservatives rejected all of this. We are very sad about this. 
Because all of our amendments were rejected, we have been forced to create our own private member's bill that calls for the creation of a Rouge national park. It would incorporate the same national protections other parks have. It has broad support from environmental organizations, local community groups, and residents. I want to salute them, because they have worked and fought so hard to get this park created. They are heartbroken at what they see is this bill undermining the ecological integrity of this very prized piece of land.
We had to create our own bill that says that we support the Rouge Park vision, goals, and objectives and that we want to preserve the ecological integrity of this plan.
Sadly, my time is up, but I would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on my hon. colleague's speech. I would say that she is right that it is important to have that strong language in a better bill, which we do not have here today, to make sure that the ecological integrity of Rouge national park is respected and so we can work together with the Province of Ontario so that it can transfer provincial land to make a much larger park. Preserving a larger area, and not breaking pieces of land up into little bits, is important. That is a factor in terms of ecological integrity and the ability of species to survive the inevitable fluctuations in any sort of ecology.
The Liberal Party, when we take power next year, will be fixing the problems in this bill so that we can create a better Rouge national park.
 I would bet that the other opposition parties would feel the same way. There is no particular reason to be too partisan here today, but I would ask my hon. colleague to comment. I know that she talked about a private member's bill. It is probably not going to make it through this Parliament, but perhaps my colleague from the NDP would like to say what the NDP would do if it were to form the next government.
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston for his question. I agreed with most of his comments but not the part about the Liberals winning the next federal election. I did not agree with that particular piece.
When New Democrats form the next government, one of the things we will do is make the environment a priority. Our leader is a former environment minister. It is a key priority of our party, and we will ensure that our national parks are protected.
What we have laid out in the private member's bill is what we would introduce in government. We would adopt the Rouge Park vision, goals, and objectives. We would strengthen and implement the existing environmental protection policy framework. We would protect a healthy and sustainable 100-square-kilometre national Rouge park area and would restore a sustainable and integrated natural heritage system. There are other pieces in the private member's bill.
 Suffice it to say, Canadians know where New Democrats stand when it comes to the environment. They can count on us to protect our national parks system.
Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.
 The many urban parks in the Montreal area are not really interconnected and, unfortunately, there are not that many natural areas.
However, there are still some special spots, particularly in my riding, that run along the St. Lawrence River. For example, there are the Lachine Rapids and the adjacent Parc des Rapides.
I find the Rouge Park initiative very interesting. We need to think about the long-term protection of these particular areas, which will also be outdoor schools. This will enable urban residents to enjoy nature and give them access to interpretation centres focusing on these ecologically rich and historical areas.
Could the member talk about the importance of a park such as the Rouge Park for the greater Toronto area?
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who has asked a very important question.
In my riding, High Park, there is an outdoor school. It is very important for kids who live in the city. Often, people cannot afford to vacation in Muskoka because it is very expensive. For children, this outdoor school is a chance to learn about the importance of nature conservation.
I recently took part in a walk through a park to observe bats. It was so important and so interesting for the kids. It is very important that we protect the environment, not only for today, but also for the future of our children.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to support the establishment of the Rouge national urban park. Indeed, the creation of Rouge national urban park is a proud and historic achievement for all residents of the greater Toronto area, Ontarians, and Canadians, from coast to coast to coast. Its creation is a major element of our government's national conservation plan, which aims to conserve and restore nature in ways that provide meaningful opportunities for Canadians to connect with our country's vast natural heritage. This Canadian first is the latest example of pioneering conservation work undertaken for over a century by Parks Canada under a vision that was first established by Sir John A. Macdonald. 
In 1911, Canada became the first country in the world to create a dedicated national park service, then known as the Dominion Parks Branch. It was the very first of nearly 100 dedicated national park services that are found today all over the world. Canada is recognized as having one of the world's most extensive and best national systems in the world. Moreover, Canada protects more acres of land and federally managed protected heritage areas than any other country in the world.
Recently, our government has worked to add two important jewels to Canada's rich family of national parks: Sable Island National Park Reserve, in Nova Scotia, established in 2013; and Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, in the Northwest Territories, now before Parliament as Bill S-5.
These initiatives provide important protection for rare sand dune ecosystems in the Atlantic, and several endangered species in the north, such as woodland caribou and grizzly bears. 
In 2009, in partnership with local first nations, our government also made the single largest act of conservation in this country in a generation, by expanding Nahanni National Park Reserve to six times its original size, making it roughly the same size as Switzerland. Today our government once again reaffirms our long-standing commitment to protecting Canada's heritage, with Bill C-40. With the creation of Rouge national urban park, our government is building on a legacy of the many passionate and dedicated community groups and citizens who have given their time and worked diligently to conserve the area. We now honour this legacy by bringing Parks Canada's expertise to bear in the Rouge to create a new type of protected area, one which is tailored to the Rouge's urban setting and which is intended to set a new standard for urban protected areas around the world.
I would say to all members of the House that the designation afforded to the Rouge sets a new and different standard than exists in our national parks. Our bold and innovative approach elevates the level of protection to new heights, by protecting not only the park's natural resources but its cultural and agricultural resources as well. 
The opposition brought forward motions to amend Bill C-40, many of which were based on the mistaken notion that the national park concept of ecological integrity should or could apply to the Rouge. Testimony was brought forward at committee that the concept of ecological integrity is inappropriate for the Rouge national urban park. Not only is 75% of the parklands in a disturbed or altered state, but the park's close proximity to a large urban centre makes the application of this concept impossible to apply. Some of the amendments proposed by the opposition would have been problematic for the farmers, first nations, and cultural elements within the park. If we were to manage the Rouge as we do in the national parks, it could mean evicting farmers who have been responsible stewards of the land for over a century. It appears that the opposition do not understand the practical realities of this new urban park, nor how a new and different approach would provide the strongest protection possible.
Let me make clear for all members and all Canadians how strong our protections would be. The Rouge national urban park act would provide exceptional protection for a multitude of plant and animal species. This exceptional protection also extends to the Rouge's endangered and threatened species, which for the first time would be under the strong protection of Canada's Species at Risk Act. All threatened and endangered terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals would be protected. In addition, killing, harming, harassing, or possessing threatened and endangered species would be strictly prohibited, along with the destruction of their habitat.
Parks Canada would draw on its internationally celebrated expertise to conserve, monitor, and, wherever possible, restore the diverse habitats within the park upon which the park's 1,700 species, plants, and animals depend. Actions taken would sustain, and in many cases increase the diversity of native species in the park.
Information gathered through ecosystem monitoring would be used to both report on the condition of ecosystems and their components, and to make the very best management decisions to improve the health of ecosystems in the park across its diverse natural, cultural, and agricultural landscapes. 
Key management objectives for the Rouge national urban park would be to enhance, buffer, and connect habitats for a wide range of species. A better connected landscape will also increase the resilience of wildlife populations, allowing them to move freely across the landscape. Parks Canada would also explore rigorous and innovative scientific approaches to control and eliminate non-native invasive species. 
Our government's proposed protections for the Rouge go much further. Drawing on years of expertise, Parks Canada is working with public landholders, local stakeholders, and governments to enhance habitat quality and connectivity. Current efforts are simply not addressing these issues. 
While the Rouge national urban park has yet to be formally established, our government has already realized several important environmental and ecological gains for it, including work with the Toronto Zoo to release ten endangered baby Blanding's turtles into the Rouge in June. We also recently worked with the City of Toronto to construct a safe road crossing for the rare frogs, toads, and salamanders in the park. We have been working with park farmers to rehabilitate park streams and enhance park wetlands.
As other levels of government improve roadways, Parks Canada will work with them on improving connectivity for wildlife by improving and adding culverts, and, in the future, by finding other innovative ways to improve wildlife movement to allow a multitude of species to move more freely on the landscape. 
Rouge national urban park will provide, for the first time in the Rouge's history, year-round dedicated law enforcement, through Parks Canada's highly esteemed park wardens. These wardens will have full powers to enforce one set of clear park rules and regulations. With this unprecedented level of protection for the park's natural, cultural, and agricultural resources, and with provisions clearly articulated in Bill C-40, Parks Canada will have the legal tools and resources to impose stiff fines and penalties for long-standing issues in the Rouge. This includes pollution, dumping, poaching, and harassing of wildlife, and the unlawful removal of plants, fossils, and artifacts. 
Our government's protection of the Rouge's natural heritage and enhancement of ecosystem health meets and exceeds current protections that are in place. However, it is very important to note that our government's legislative and policy protections would also extend beyond national heritage to the park's rich cultural and agricultural heritage. Our government would provide protection for the Rouge's agricultural lands, which encompass approximately 62% of the Rouge national urban park study area. 
The York Federation of Agriculture represents 700 farmer members in the region. Kim Empringham, director of the federation, recently testified at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. She said that the farming community in the Rouge national urban park comprises the same farming families that have been caring for the land and growing food for the people of Ontario for the past 200 years. She also said that farmers in the park use environmental farm plans, incorporating the best management practices as part of their ongoing stewardship of the farmland that they have been taking care of for generations. 
Farmland produces food, carbon sequestration, climate regulation, improved air quality, wildlife habitat, hydrological functions, groundwater recharge, and buffering protection to natural heritage features. 
Our government fully intends to collaborate with the farming community, academic institutions, and other experts to realize that all conservation gains are possible, and to work with the farming community to develop the best agricultural practices for the park in ways that support and enhance biodiversity in the Rouge. Our government's integrated approach to conserving biodiversity in a way that supports a vibrant local farming community would further allow us to provide the strongest level of protection for agriculture and nature in the Rouge's history.
Ian Buchanan, the manager of forestry at the Regional Municipality of York, also testified at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He said that farmers are indeed a part of the solution of maintaining a healthy environment. Ian Buchanan stated:
 If we don't acknowledge that the farming community is the front line of environmental protection, we're missing the point. 
Mike Whittamore's farm is a large 220-acre fruit and vegetable farm nestled beside the Rouge River valley in Markham. He testified at the committee that Bill C-40 and the Rouge national urban park draft management plan clearly acknowledge the importance of agriculture in the Rouge
The plan demonstrates that agriculture, culture, and nature are all equally important contributors to a vibrant urban park, and agriculture can and will play a role in the future, to reach those goals and objectives of the Rouge national urban park. 
With respect to cultural heritage, our government's conservation approach will see us identify cultural heritage values and opportunities throughout the Rouge and set conservation priorities. We will also seek opportunities to respectfully repurpose, rejuvenate, and conserve some of the Rouge's neglected built heritage, including old farmhouses and barns.
Parks Canada will continue to work with first nations and local communities to ensure important landmarks and built heritage are commemorated, protected, and celebrated. We will also commit to providing strong protection for Bead Hill National Historic Site and the Carrying Place National Historic Event.
Our government's holistic approach and commitment to the conservation interpretation of the Rouge's cultural heritage and living history will allow us to provide the strongest level of protection for cultural heritage in the Rouge's history.
Let me also make it very clear what will not be allowed to take place in the Rouge national urban park. In stark contrast to some past and current regional land uses, Rouge national urban park will directly prohibit hunting, mining, logging, and mineral aggregate removal, thereby providing stronger and much clearer protections than those currently in place. There will be stiff fines and a full complement of park wardens to enforce any such unlawful and damaging park activities. 
Under the Rouge national urban park act, the Government of Canada cannot dispose or sell land for private development. To meet current and future provincial and municipal requirements, Bill C-40 will provide the legislative framework needed in an urban setting. This framework will allow Parks Canada to effectively manage and protect the park, while allowing for future public infrastructure needs, such as utilities or transportation corridors.
The bill sets a strict limit of 200 hectares on the amount of land that can be removed and provided to former public landholders, and no other disposals are allowed, period. 
Our government, through the trusted stewardship of Parks Canada, will manage the Rouge's natural, cultural, and agricultural resources in an integrated fashion, in a way that protects the park's natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes, maintains its native wildlife and the health of those ecosystems, while—and let me make myself very clear—providing a level of protection for the park that has previously not been achieved under current laws, policies, or practices.
With the creation of the Rouge national urban park, Rouge lands will be protected in perpetuity with this strong cohesive bill, now and for many future generations of Canadians to enjoy. 
It is for these most compelling reasons that I urge all members of this House to provide their full support for Bill C-40 at third reading.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all citizens of Prince George—Peace River to wish you a merry Christmas.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech.
Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, is truly innovative because this is the first time an urban park has been proposed in Canada. I would like my colleague to reassure me because some parts of the bill seem to give the minister some fairly discretionary power with respect to preserving the integrity of the park. I would like him to talk about that. The official opposition is wondering whether decisions about the integrity and conservation of the Rouge national urban park would be made by the minister. The member also talked about agriculture. Would that really help to preserve the integrity of this national park? Is the minister perhaps being given too much discretionary power over the Rouge national urban park?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, in government, every minister has a huge responsibility within their particular ministry. With the Minister of the Environment, it is the same.
To suggest there is going to be any less stringency placed on this national park is understating it. As I said in my speech, the minister is clearly concerned about the environment and wants to ensure the Rouge is protected. That is why we are moving forward on this, with protections that are not currently in place.
The minister is moving forward, along with our government, and we are going to protect the Rouge national park as it should be protected.
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I filed a petition in the House related to this issue, complaining about the fact that there was a lack of an agreement between the province and the federal government as this project moved forward. It said that there was a lack of transparency and accountability around a very particular issue, which is the issue of agricultural run-off into a river that flows into Lake Ontario, the source of drinking water for virtually everybody in southern Ontario.
The provincial government has been explicit. It does not want to sign on to this project until we have an understanding of how agriculture will be protected and managed, and how it will contribute to the ecological benefit of the entire region, not just within the park but within all of southern Ontario. The government has said that everything is completely out in the open, yet we have petition after petition, complaining that this process has gone forward too fast and without the consent of the provincial government.
When will the government sit down with the Premier of Ontario, the people of Ontario and the residents who have to live with this decision, and ensure that the highest ecological principles are protected and that the largest park possible is built?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the meeting with the premier and the Prime Minister will be forthcoming. However, there are going to be some things, naturally, that we disagree on with the provincial government in Ontario. I think there will be several disagreements. That is all I can say to that.
The fact is that we want to move forward and support farmers in their current status, like I talked about today in my speech. For 200 years, farmers have farmed the land in this area. As a government, we think, and have proven in committee, that farmers not only farm land, but provide benefit ecologically to the park.
We will move forward, and hopefully the provincial government of Ontario can move forward with us.
Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for his passion for national parks generally, and particularly for his understanding of the importance of the urban forest cover.
I will not try to score cheap political points here, but I will ask him a question. Does he think that the new act would provide better protection than what is in place for the existing park?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. That is why we are having the act put in place. It is to provide better protections to the Rouge River national park and to protect green cover and those sorts of things in the Toronto area, which I think most Canadians would appreciate.
We can see it in areas of my province, in Stanley Park, where areas have been protected and are still appreciated to this day. It is because governments like ours have moved forward and established acts like this so parks can exist and challenge the urban sprawl, work with farmers who are there, and still have better protections for our national parks.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He said that once this bill is passed, Parks Canada will be in a position to manage the park very constructively and positively. He left out the fact that in 2012, the Conservatives announced $29 million in cuts to Parks Canada's funding, which led to the elimination of over 600 jobs and reduced Parks Canada's scientific capacity by one-third.
My question is simple: how can my colleague really believe his government's promise to manage the park properly now that such big cuts have been made?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, that is almost a lob question for what I am going to say now.
 The fact is that we always hear from the opposition members that we are cutting funding for parks. In our economic action plan in 2012, the Government of Canada announced $143.7 million of funding over 10 years for the park's development and interim operations, and $7.6 million per year thereafter for its continued operation. This is proof in the pudding that there is going to be a lot of money in funds, and we are backing this seriously to ensure the Rouge takes hold and it is provided with adequate protections.
Mr. David Yurdiga (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River was informative. This is truly an unprecedented project. What are the benefits of creating a national urban park instead of a traditional park?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from a great member.
I established this in the speech. The key difference with the urban park is that it will take into account some operations that have already been there for 200 years, like farming, while it still pushes out things like mining and other operations that are more ecologically challenging.
 It recognizes transportation corridors that already exist. It honours farming that has been there for 200 years. It is unique in the perspective that it allows some environmental leeway to allow development to occur, while still protecting the park in the best sense of the word.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the answer that the Conservative member gave my colleague from Saint-Lambert regarding the paltry $391 million budget.
In fact, that amount is remedial and is merely a drop in the bucket. Parks Canada has been underfunded for years; its infrastructure is aging, and the government is giving a small cash infusion, trying to fix something that is perhaps in a critical state. 
According to The Globe and Mail, Parks Canada is in trouble because it would need $2.8 billion to do all the deferred maintenance work. This chronic underfunding is threatening Parks Canada's ability to fulfill its mandate.
I would like the member to comment on the fact that Parks Canada needs a lot more than $391 million to fulfill its broad mandate, which includes not only infrastructure but also scientific research, conservation, preservation and education. 
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, as for a drop in the bucket, if I went back to the folks of Prince George—Peace River and asked them if $143.7 million was a drop in the bucket, I think their jaws would drop at that comment.
Certainly $143.7 million and $7.6 million for the Rouge thereafter are hardly drops in the bucket. It is a large amount of money. Most Canadians work hard for those tax dollars. We like to use them responsibly and spend them responsibly. We are doing so with the urban national park.
Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-40. I was not expecting to speak to it because it concerns the urban area in Toronto. However, as my colleague mentioned, we do have some urban parks, although not as connected as what is intended for this park, and we see the importance of having an urban green space available to citizens.
The more things change, the more things stay the same. For example, the Conservatives now want us to think that they have all of a sudden become environmentally conscientious and conservationists overnight. They introduced Bill C-40, which is ironically called “an act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park”, and I will touch on the irony of that a little later. However, the Conservative government continuously wants us to accept these sort of broad-stroke grand ideas and overlook the poison pill aspect of them. 
Before I continue, I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with my dear colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta. 
The Conservatives consistently want to say in so many cases, like in this case, that NDP members do not support the building of a park. They say that we do not support many things, and that we did not vote for this or that. However, they leave out the very important fact that all of these sometimes reasonable and even good things that the government may propose are wrapped up in blankets of harmful and sometimes mean-spirited bills. They are tied up in 500-page documents, and we have to vote once to change over 200 environmental protection laws. 
Quite honestly, the Conservative government cannot be trusted with our parks. It is clear that the Conservatives do not believe in conservation or scientific monitoring, which jeopardizes the ecological integrity of our national parks.
As some of my colleagues alluded to earlier, in 2012, the Conservatives cut $29 million to Parks Canada, which meant a reduction of over 600 positions. Parks Canada was decreased by one-third of its capacity in scientific research.
I heard my hon. colleague across the way say that $120 some-odd million was not a drop in the bucket. Yes, it is a lot of money, but is it enough? There was a $29 million cut that meant the loss of 600 positions and one-third of Parks Canada's capacity for scientific and ecological exploration, which is harmful. There are 600 less people to help and guide Canadians through our parks. The parks are opening later and closing earlier as a result, which limits access for Canadians to these parks. The lessened ability for scientific research means that we are put in a position where we are reacting to ecological threats and potential diseases in our parks as opposed to being proactive with these issues. This is concerning to us.
Bill C-40, an act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, is not even accepted by the Ontario government. The Ontario government is refusing to release the lands to the federal government to create this park because the bill would diminish some 11 existing laws that currently protect this territory, namely the Ontario Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. 
This act is to:
 ...permanently protect a system of provincial parks and conservation reserves that includes ecosystems that are representative of all of Ontario’s natural regions, protects provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage, maintains biodiversity and provides opportunities for compatible, ecologically sustainable recreation. 
Bill C-40 would not do this. It does not embrace the strong foundation of conservation policy provided under the existing legislation. In fact, as written, Bill C-40 threatens the ecological integrity and health of the Rouge River. 
It seems that our job here is to do things right, and that does not seem to be happening with the current government. There seems to be a consistent desire to rush headlong into creating bills with catchy titles and catchy sound bites rather than bills of substance. When the Ontario government, which the federal government is supposed to be collaborating with, says this bill does not work, the Conservative government needs to listen. 
There has been a lack of listening by the government on many other issues, including in the courts, where attempts to establish minimum mandatory sentences have repeatedly been overturned. In this case, the government has created a bill that is supposed to protect a park, but in fact the bill threatens the very area that it claims to want to protect.
If the government wants to create a space for Canadians to enjoy and for future generations to visit and if it wants to protect the thousands of species of wildlife and fauna that currently call Rouge River home, then why not abandon this window-dressing bill and support the ideas and thoughts of the New Democrats and the bill that we will be presenting shortly to the House, which would work with the province in order to create an environment that Canadians and the community are looking for? As I said, New Democrats will be introducing a bill that would answer that question. The bill before us does not go far enough and, as I have said before, would actually diminish what already exists.
The role that we take on as legislators is to draft laws that are meaningful and move our society forward. It is a shame that the government constantly squanders its opportunities to create bills of substance, instead creating bills that pander and have little substance other than catchy sound bites.
Hon. John Baird:  Where is the Christmas spirit over there?
Tyrone Benskin:  It's right here. It's right here.
There is one particular part of this bill that I want to point out. This bill, as it stands, says that the ecological or conservational aspects of any decision made under this bill only need to be considered, as opposed to what exists now, which says that the conservational relationship or impact of any decision that is made must be the priority. This is truly important.
Many times the broad-stroke approach of the government relies on the idea that Canadians are not interested in the details, but that is a detail that is extremely important. With this bill, no longer is conservation of paramount importance in making decisions; it needs only to be considered. This bill would weaken the existing environmental protection and would set a dangerous precedent for the development of future parks. The government consistently wants broad-stroke ideas, but Canadians are interested in the actual substance of the bill. When a bill proposes to change existing laws so that conservation would only have to be considered, as opposed to being a mandatory priority, then there is a problem. 
With that, I will end my comments.
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, those are strange comments coming from a member whose riding, I believe, is close to Montreal. As members will recall, it was this government that returned land back to the farmers whose land was seized in order to create the Mirabel airport.
Across the Rouge, as members will recall, this is land that was seized from farmers 40 years ago. It was expropriated from them. They were turfed. They were given one-year leases.
Whether the member agrees with all parts of the bill or not, part of what is in the bill would return this land to the farmers through a Rouge national park and give them long-term leases so they could make investments. It would provide $140 million to upgrade certain parts of the park that are under provincial ownership. He talks about the province not wanting to bring those lands forward. That is fine. Even if he disagrees with that and even if the province does not bring forward its lands, what the bill would do is take 5,000 acres away from a potential airport in the east end, save it as farmland forever, and give it back to our farmers.
Surely on that basis alone—because that is the essence of the bill before us—and with the example of Mirabel, the member and his party should be able to support the bill.
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question is, but I touched on that aspect in my statement. The issue is with the way many of these bills are put forward, and this bill in particular. Bringing forward the idea of returning the farmland is an interesting concept and seems like a positive concept; however, if we are doing that at the cost of the environmental protection of the area for future generations, if we are doing that at the expense of protective laws that already exist, and if the province itself is not willing to participate under those conditions, then I think more discussion needs to be had. I think the bill needs to be created in such a way that all parties can walk away saying that this legislation serves everyone: the farmers, the conservationists, and the people in the Rouge River area.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was listening very carefully to the speech of my hon. colleague and I congratulate him on it.
I particularly paid attention to the fact that there is a double standard on the other side of the House. The government likes to sell itself as doing some form of conservation, but it voted against a bill we brought to the floor to do something about Gatineau Park.
How can it vote against something as important as ensuring the protection of Gatineau Park and at the same time propose this bill, which really does not do the job in terms of conservation?
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, I guess “double standard” is the catchphrase. I am giving the hon. members a gift, a gift of knowledge and wisdom: double standards are the force of the current government. 
It is about doing it right. It is not about winning or losing. It is about doing what is best for everyone involved, for all the parties involved. As I said to my colleague across the way, it is about ensuring that all parties with a vested interest in the area that the bill touches on walk away with a sense that they have accomplished what they needed to accomplish.
[Interjection]
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again because I do not think the member or the NDP understands that the bill before us deals with, in essence, the 5,000 acres owned by the federal government. That land is owned by Transport Canada. It was reserved for an airport, as part of one of the largest land-grabs in the history of this country. That is what we are talking about. It has nothing to do with the provincial lands. If the provincial government does not want to transfer its lands, that is its business.
The bill before us here today would deal exclusively with those thousands of acres of land that the Trudeau Liberal government took away from our farmers 40 years ago, forcing the farmers into one-year leases. That is all the bill deals with. It would give these farmers long-term leases. The only objection is from those environmentalists, who want to take half of that 5,000 acres, evict the farmers, and plant trees. That is what we are talking about here.
Does the member actually support the NDP position, which would see half of this land reforested and those farmers who have been farming in this area for 400 years, some of them the very same farmers whose land was expropriated 40 years ago—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. We are out of time. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's perspective. As I have said before, it behooves this place to ensure that all parties involved are heard and can participate. In essence, that is the problem. There is not only one party, the Government of Canada, there is a multi-party system, as well as the Canadians who the House serves. It is their voices that we all represent and their voices we need to ensure are heard in this place.

Statements by Members
Forces et DémocratieMr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD): Mr. Speaker, I want to wish everyone all the best for the holiday season. I also want to tell people not to lose hope for 2015.
Despite the political cynicism caused by a government that refuses to listen and opposition parties that continue their attacks and perpetuate the lack of decorum, Forces et Démocratie is here to listen to the people and give them the power that is rightfully theirs.
Working with the people and listening to them is the best way to successfully build the solid foundations for long-term collective prosperity. Rallying the strengths of our urban and rural areas is how we will create a future that we will be proud to pass on to our children and grandchildren. We need to do politics differently if we are going to succeed together in creating the wealth that we all deserve.
It is time to stop tearing down and, instead, come together to build our future.
Salvation Army Christmas Kettle CampaignMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone about the Salvation Army Christmas Kettle campaign. For more than 100 years, the annual Christmas Kettle campaign has been a great way for people to help others in need in their local community.
 Canada's first kettle was used in St. John's, Newfoundland in 1906. Today, the familiar kettles, or “bell ringers”, are seen in more than 2,000 locations across our nation.
 The holiday fundraising activities of the Salvation Army play a crucial role in sharing the spirit of the season with families in need. The Salvation Army does its best to ensure that no family goes without food, no child is without presents under the tree and that Christmas is a time of hope and healing. Beyond providing Christmas dinners, the money raised at kettles is also used to provide clothing, shelter, food, toys, financial assistance and counselling year round. 
As a volunteer, it is absolutely heartwarming when I see young children and teenagers come up and give what they can. Therefore, when people hear those bells of hope, please give generously.
René ChartrandMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the remarkable life of René Chartrand.
 For 21 years, from 1987 to 2008, René was a constant presence on Parliament Hill, caring for the colony of cats that lived behind the Centre Block. Every day, rain or shine, through lockdowns and holidays, René came to feed and care for the cats. As he said, “I'm not allowed to get sick -- the cats would get angry if I missed a day”.
 He greeted visitors from around the world, in both official languages, with a smile and an open heart, and became legendary as the “Cat Man of Parliament Hill”. In 2003, he received the Heroes for Animals Award from the Humane Society of Canada.
 René Chartrand died this week at the age of 92. René's commitment and empathy are an inspiration.
 I know all members will join me in celebrating his contribution to life on Parliament Hill.
Criminal CodeMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to report that private member's bill, BillC-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), passed third reading in the Senate yesterday. I would like to thank the members of the House and the Senate for supporting the bill. 
The bill deals with release provisions for escorted temporary absences of offenders serving life sentences. Now offenders will remain under the control of the National Parole Board for the duration of their term. This means that the families of victims will retain having their concerns heard and taken into account when decisions regarding escorted temporary absences are being made for those serving sentences for the most heinous crimes. The bill also ensures that decision makers are accountable to the public for the approval or refusal of an escorted temporary absence. 
I would also like to especially thank Kim Hancox, the widow of Detective Constable William Hancox, for all of her time, effort and support for this bill. I look forward to seeing it become enacted into law soon. 
Jewish RefugeesHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we recently commemorated the 67th anniversary of the UN partition resolution, the first ever blueprint for two states for two peoples. Regrettably, Arab leaders declared war on the nascent Jewish state, and repressed and expelled their Jewish nationals, resulting in two sets of refugees—Palestinian Arab refugees and some 850,000 Jewish refugees, the forgotten forced exodus.
Canada can be proud that Prime Minister Paul Martin was among the first western leaders to recognize the plight of Jewish refugees, recently joined by all parties in the House. This past November 30, Israel observed its first annual national day of commemoration to mark the exile and expulsion of Jews from Arab states and Iran.
Regrettably, this forgotten exodus has been expunged and eclipsed from the international and Middle East peace and justice narrative for 67 years. It must now be affirmed, acknowledged, and acted upon in the interest of history, justice, and peace.
In this spirit of peace, I take this opportunity to wish all members a happy Chanukah, a merry Christmas, and a happy new year.
Invasive SpeciesMr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced proposed new aquatic invasive species regulations that will create new regulatory tools to help prevent the spread of invasive species, such as freshwater zebra and quagga mussels. 
South of the B.C. border, there are a number of infested lakes that, given the popularity of B.C. as a freshwater boating destination, could pose a serious threat to the many pristine freshwater lakes in British Columbia. Make no mistake, invasive freshwater mussels can destroy drinking water intakes. In fact, they can destroy entire aquatic ecosystems. Establishing these new regulations will serve as an important first line of defence at our B.C. border crossing.
 I would like to take a moment to recognize the good work of the Okanagan Basin Water Board and the many constituents bringing this important matter forward. I would also like to thank my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country and the minister for their strong support in ensuring that these new regulations become reality.
Our government will continue to protect the interests of British Columbia from invasive species, and support our environment and infrastructure.
Claude Huot AwardMs. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on December 10, the sixth Claude Huot award ceremony was held in Saint-Raymond-de-Portneuf. This award, created by the Saint-Raymond heritage society, acknowledges efforts to protect and conserve heritage buildings in the municipality.
I want to congratulate the 2013 award winners, Marcel Gilbert and Pierrette Genois, the proud owners of a magnificent, eclectic Victorian home built in the 1920s.
This year, the award ceremony was especially moving because the man who inspired it passed away on September 29 at the age of 89.
I want to offer my deepest condolences to Daniel Dion, the mayor of Saint-Raymond, and Christiane Huot, Mr. Dion's spouse and Mr. Huot's daughter, and their entire family.
Claude Huot was passionate about history and geography and was the founder of the Saint-Raymond heritage society. He was known for his phenomenal memory and his great love for his home town, which he shared with us through his many writings. We paid a rather emotional tribute to him on December 10.
Thank you for everything, Mr. Huot. Through the Saint-Raymond heritage society, your work will live on.
VeteransRoyal Galipeau:  Mr. Speaker, while the opposition has been playing politics at the expense of our veterans, the government has been working hard.
Through eight budgets, our government has earmarked over $5 billion in new funding to improve the benefits and services for veterans and their families.
Our 2014 economic action plan allocated $2.1 billion to veterans and their families.
The veterans affairs committee introduced the enhanced new veterans charter act moving forward, which was unanimously adopted.
Thanks to a partnership with Service Canada, our veterans have access to more than 600 points of service across the country.
We invested $65 million to enhance the funeral and burial program by simplifying the program for veterans' estates, and by more than doubling the current funeral services rate from $3,600 to $7,400.
I would like to wish a very merry Christmas to all our Canadian Forces members and veterans and to all the wise people of Orléans.
Please join us for breakfast tomorrow morning at the Royal Canadian Legion, the friendliest Legion in the region.
The Marsden TheatreMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons today to mark the end of an era in radio broadcasting in the Durham region and, indeed, across Canada. This weekend will feature the final episodes of The Marsden Theatre, hosted by legendary broadcaster, David Marsden, the “Mars Bar”.
 He has been a pioneer in radio broadcasting in Canada, starting in the 1970s and 1980s with the spirit of radio at CFNY in Toronto. He was an early champion for Canadian music in Canada, including helping to create the CASBY Awards, or Canadian Artists Selected By You. For the last decade, at 94.9 The Rock, in Oshawa, he has hosted one of the final live-to-air radio programs in North America.
I want to thank David Marsden for being a decades-long champion of Canadian music. I want to thank him for his eclectic mix of music and his cheeky humour. I hope he stays curious and that he knows that all of us will be listening this weekend.
Conservative Party of CanadaMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first of all, on this last day of the 2014 session, I would like to wish all the people in my riding of Laval—Les Îles a merry Christmas and a wonderful 2015 filled with happiness, love, health and prosperity.
Second, I would also like to congratulate them for having put up with successive Liberal and Conservative governments in recent years that have not looked after them. We have seen the loss of quality jobs, record household debt, increased poverty, especially among children and seniors, cuts to public services and the complete abandonment of the middle class.
Those are just a few of the difficulties that my constituents, like people in many other countries, have had to face with courage and strength of character.
I hope that all my constituents will be able to hang on for another few months until fall 2015, when they will finally have a government that looks after them, their needs and their interests—an NDP government.
TaxationMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Liberal leader would raise taxes on them, making life more expensive for families. Last month, prospective Liberal candidate, Bill Casey, confirmed that the Liberal leader would raise taxes for families and cut programs to pay for the Liberals' costly schemes. This is the same Bill Casey who once upon a time said, “federal surplus money should go back to Canadians in the form of meaningful tax cuts for families...”. Voters will see right past this opportunistic stunt by Casey to further his personal vendetta.
 The people of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley know that they can count on their Conservative member and this Prime Minister to lower taxes and stand up for Canadian families.
Julia TurnerMr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday, December 16, the Welland minor hockey midget teams will join members of the community for a good old hockey game and to remember the life of Julia Turner. Julia tragically lost her life to cancer three years ago at the age of 15. She was an avid hockey fan and worked at the arena every Sunday night, where she would watch her friends play. Now, every year, her friends come together to play in her memory. They all wear purple, Julia's favourite colour.
Julia was committed to helping those less fortunate in our community. She was so young, but for much of Julia's life she gave selflessly to her community. To celebrate her life and work, those who attend are asked to bring non-perishable food items to donate to the HOPE Centre in Welland, a cause that was very special to Julia.
I would like to thank the organizers of Julia's hockey night in Welland, especially her family and friends, for their touching tribute to a remarkable young woman. I would also like to remind all members of the House and all Canadians to think of those less fortunate as we enter the holiday season, and perhaps to donate to a local food bank. I know Julia would be smiling on all of us.
TaxationDavid Yurdiga: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy is ranked among the best in the world, despite weathering a global economic crisis. Our government has significantly reduced the tax burden for Canadians by implementing smart, sound financial policies that reduce government spending and increase returns for Canadians.
 We refuse to weigh down the economy with another tax on Canadian families, unlike the New Democrats and the Liberals who have repeatedly called for increasing taxes on Canadians. It is no secret that the opposition would like to bring in a job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price on everything from fuel costs in Victoria to groceries in Inuvik, to home heating in St. John's. This is a tax that no Canadians want. Our government will never punish Canadians with the job-killing carbon tax called for by the opposition.
National FlagHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the adoption of our national flag. On the evening of December 14, 1964, MPs gathered to conclude a controversial and sometimes acrimonious debate on the commitment made by then Prime Minister Pearson to adopt a distinctly Canadian pennant
Today, everyone loves our flag. It has become a proud symbol of our Canadian identity, our values and our hopes. I encourage all members of the House and all Canadians to discover the history of our flag in all its splendour.
The results of a free vote that took place at 2:15 a.m. on December 15 are as follows: 125 Liberals voted in favour and one voted against; 6 Progressive Conservatives voted in favour and 73 voted against; 19 Socreds voted in favour and 3 voted against; 13 New Democrats voted in favour and one voted against.
In all, 163 MPs voted in favour and 78 voted against.
In conclusion, I hope that we might all agree that 50 years ago the House of Commons acted decisively and did the right thing.
TaxationMr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, families in Mississauga and all families with kids across Canada will benefit from our new family tax cut plan. The average benefit is over $1,100 per year, and most benefits will go to low- and middle-income families. We are putting decision-making power into their hands.
However, notwithstanding his lack of experience, the Liberal leader has shown that same old Liberal arrogance by pledging to reverse our tax breaks. The Liberals would take this money away from Canadian families.
 Let us be clear, the Conservative Party is the only party in the House whose members trust Canadians to make their own decisions. Now that we are in a position to balance the budget, we are proud to be helping families balance theirs.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, under the Conservative government, Canada has lost over 400,000 jobs. Employment growth has been less than 1%. Youth unemployment is at 13%, and yet all they gave us this year were more omnibus bills, more shutting down of debate, and more ethical scandals. The Prime Minister will not even meet with provincial leaders. 
That is why more and more Canadians are counting on the NDP to take on the Conservatives every single day. We fought for fair elections, even when the Liberals were ready to fold. We fought against the Conservatives on the war in Iraq. Day in and day out, we held them to account on corruption, on their job-killing policies, and on their mistreatment of our veterans. 
Better days lie ahead. We are only one election away from change, with an experienced leader who will fight for a $15 an hour minimum wage and $15 a day child care. 
This new year, let us resolve to toss these Conservatives to the curb. 
TaxationMs. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thanks to our work, Canadian families can be assured that their hard-earned money is making its way back into their bank accounts. Soon, families in my riding will receive just under $2,000 annually for children under the age of 6 and $720 for children age 6 to 17. 
Instead of bureaucratic spending, we offer a simple time-tested plan. We are investing directly in families. We trust parents to invest in their children and spend their money as they see fit. We want families to be better off and we will continue to put forward measures to ensure that.
 As this is the last member's statement for 2014, I would like to take the opportunity to wish all Canadians a very merry Christmas, and to especially thank the hospital workers and first responders who will not be able to spend that day with their families. 
Merry Christmas.

Oral Questions
National DefenceMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last night, Canadians heard the grim news that yet another Canadian soldier has been lost to suicide. We all extend our heartfelt condolences to the grieving family of Corporal Scott Smith of CFB Gagetown. 
Corporal Smith is the 16th Canadian Forces member to die by suicide this year alone. When we have lost more soldiers to suicide than we did to the Taliban, we have a sacred obligation to ask why. When will the minister recognize the crisis in front of him and acknowledge that his government has not done nearly enough?
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Corporal Scott Smith, which is dealing with this very tragic loss.
This matter is under investigation. Any loss of a Canadian Armed Forces member is a tragedy that affects all of us right across the country. 
The Department of National Defence ensures that all members of the Canadian Armed Forces receive mental health support throughout their careers.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, the minister ignores the Auditor General, disregards veterans, and seems more interested in photo ops than in helping veterans. 
Now the Conservatives take money from General Dynamics, one of the world's biggest weapons manufacturers, to pay for our military mental health research.
 Do the Conservatives not understand that when our soldiers sign on the dotted line, for unlimited liability, to put their lives on the line, it is the government's sacred duty to provide proper care for them? Do they really not understand their duty to our nation's veterans?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to providing the best possible care for our soldiers. These funds will help our soldiers and our veterans. I do not understand why the NDP and the opposition have a problem with that. 
The last thing we want to do is discourage private sector donations to hospitals like The Royal Ottawa mental health centre foundation.
Unlike the Liberals and the NDP, I am going to take this opportunity to thank all our private sector partners for their commitment to supporting our armed forces through charitable giving.
Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are trying to save money at the expense of our soldiers and veterans, many of them are struggling with post-traumatic stress and some are even putting an end to their own lives.
Yesterday, Corporal Scott Smith committed suicide in Gagetown. He is the 16th member of the Canadian Forces to take his own life this year.
What will it take for the Conservatives to wake up and give our soldiers and veterans the support they need?
James Bezan: As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a tragedy, and our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Corporal Scott Smith. This is an investigation that will be reported back in time.
I would like to remind the House that our government has increased the annual mental health budget for the Canadian military by over 20%. We have added additional mental health workers. There are over 415 now. Most recently, we have provided additional support to the Canadian Institute for Military and Veterans Research for further mental health studies.
Correctional Service CanadaNycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the inquest into Ashley Smith's death painted a troubling picture, yet Conservatives have taken a year to even respond.
Instead of listening to the jury, the government is rejecting key recommendations. Conservatives will not even agree to reduce solitary confinement for the mentally ill.
Instead of recycling old announcements, will the minister acknowledge a problem, listen to the inquest, and put an end to the use of solitary confinement for the mentally ill?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what happened in this case was in fact a tragedy, and our thoughts remain with the Smith family in this instance.
To answer the opposition's question, the government has actually already implemented over half of the recommendations in the coroner's report. We stand very proud on that particular record.
In fact, earlier this year, our government launched a mental health action plan for federal offenders that includes action on timely assessment, effective management, sound intervention, ongoing training, and robust government oversight.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, her parents have waited a year for nothing, a year for the same old thing. Nevertheless, the jury was clear:
 That there should be an absolute prohibition on the practice of placing female inmates in conditions of long-term segregation, clinical seclusion, isolation, or observation. Long-term should be defined as any period in excess of 15 days. 
The jury is not alone. Leading human rights experts, such as the Honourable Louise Arbour, are calling on the government to put an end to its dependence on solitary confinement.
Why does the minister insist on defending the indefensible and why is he refusing to put an end to this abusive practice?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, administrative segregation is a common practice that is used in many western countries, not just here in Canada.
I would like to speak again about the mental health action plan for federal offenders. 
It is a five-pillar strategy that was introduced earlier this year. It actually builds on our strong record in the Conservative government of ensuring faster mental health assessment, which is critical, as well as improved staff training and extended psychological counselling.
VeteransMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from spending more than $1 billion that had been promised to veterans, and now we have learned that they plan on spending $1.7 billion on a new plane.
National Defence spends its entire budget, but the Conservatives make sure that the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot do the same.
Why do the Conservatives always put veterans last?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberals who oversaw and neglected our armed forces through the decade of darkness, and the NDP who would prefer to never purchase any military equipment, we support our military and give it the equipment it actually needs. 
Under the previous Liberal government, our soldiers and Disaster Assistance Response Team would have to rely on other countries for strategic airlift or use SALIS Antonovs to get around the world. When we were first elected, we fixed this very embarrassing situation by purchasing four new C-17 Globemaster strategic airlift planes, 17 new C-130J Hercules tactical airlift planes, and 15 new Chinook heavy-lift helicopters.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, Conservative priorities include a new $1.7 billion airplane for the military while our veterans suffer the effects of Conservative gutting of front-line programs which provided financial, disability, health, and transition support. Just yesterday, we lost yet another soldier to suicide. 
The Minister of Veterans Affairs continues to pathetically defend this abuse of our veterans. Veterans do not respect him. Canadians do not trust him, and this entire country is disgusted by his rough treatment of our brave veterans.
When will he resign?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, as I said, our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Corporal Scott Smith, and this tragedy is being investigated.
I would also like to remind the Liberals that their math is not very good. We actually bought four C-17 heavy-lift planes for $1.7 billion. They should get their math straight.
We will continue to make the investments in both mental health research and mental health support for Canadian soldiers and veterans. We will collaborate with academia and private sector to ensure that we utilize all of the resources available to us, so we can get the best possible results in mental health for our military.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the treatment of our veterans by Conservatives is a national disgrace. The minister has clawed back over $1 billion from veterans. He has gutted the department, firing 1,000 front-line staff who delivered critical health services. He told those who suffered from PTSD to take a number. He closed nine specialized service centres. Canadians are appalled by this shameful Conservative neglect of veterans.
The government has a sacred obligation to veterans, and it failed. When will the Prime Minister stop defending and fire this minister?
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government makes absolutely no apologies for eliminating big government bureaucracy and backroom offices, and making a substantial investment when it comes to investing in front-line services and resources.
 Here are a couple of examples. We eliminated nearly 100 positions after we stopped requiring veterans to submit receipts for expenses like snow clearing, yard maintenance, and home cleaning. 
We will continue to eliminate red tape to serve Canada's veterans for the benefits and services that they deserve.
The EnvironmentMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of the Environment talks about the importance of traditional knowledge at the climate change conference in Peru, here at home the chief scientist for the High Arctic Research Station is not even allowed to discuss traditional knowledge. Conservatives even went so far as to delete the very words “traditional knowledge” from their new high Arctic research act. 
When the minister gets back from misleading the world, she can maybe explain why she is happy to use traditional knowledge to cover up for her inaction in fighting climate change, but prevents government scientists who are working in the Arctic itself from actually applying traditional knowledge in our science to fight climate change here at home.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. The minister is hugely supportive of using traditional knowledge. 
To update the member about leadership, yesterday, in Lima, the Minister of the Environment met with Ban Ki-moon, who expressed his appreciation for Canada's efforts to address climate change and that the country would continue supporting the process toward securing a meaningful universal climate agreement in Paris in 2015. He also thanked Canada for its recent contribution to the green climate fund. 
That is leadership, and that is without a job-killing carbon tax the NDP would like to put in. 
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have established that they will not show leadership. They have established that the NDP voted against bad Conservative budgets that failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What they have not established is that they are even trying to meet emission targets. Copenhagen targets simply cannot be met without oil and gas regulations, the single fastest-growing source of emissions. 
For the sake of the planet, will they reconsider the Prime Minister's shortsighted announcement not to regulate the oil and gas sector?
Colin Carrie: Again, Mr. Speaker, to be clear, the Prime Minister said that Canada would not take unilateral action and impose taxes and monetary penalties on the oil and gas sector. 
What is very clear, though, is that the NDP would take unilateral action and put our Canadian companies at a competitive disadvantage. As well, what is very clear is that the opposition would put in a job-killing carbon tax. What is also clear is that it would gamble with 275,000 Canadian jobs. We are not going to do that. We are going to support hard-working Canadian families.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Secretary-General of the UN told the Conservative government that it needed to do more about climate change, but the Conservatives responded by announcing that they would not regulate emissions from oil companies. Other sectors will have to do more to make up for excesses in the oil and gas industries.
Why do the Conservatives refuse to demand that these industries do their part in combatting climate change?
Colin Carrie: Again, Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. Just yesterday, Ban Ki-moon thanked Canada for its contribution.
This is a North American issue that needs a North American solution. We always said that we were going to work collaboratively with the Obama administration on reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector. We are the first government in Canadian history to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while supporting economic growth. We are going to do it without an NDP and Liberal job-killing carbon tax, and we are going to do it without taking unilateral action and imposing taxes and monetary penalties on the oil and gas sector.
Canada PostMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, most residents of Laval will lose their home mail delivery service in the coming months.
Like thousands of Canadians, the people of Alfred-Pellan refuse to let their mail delivery disappear for ideological reasons. The Conservative government is well aware that seniors and people with reduced mobility are the primary victims of these measures.
Why then is the Conservative government supporting these cuts and doing nothing to restore postal services in Laval?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that two-thirds of Canadians currently do not receive door-to-door delivery at their homes. 
Canada Post has taken action with respect to a five-point plan. It is precisely because it is delivering far fewer letters, 1.2 billion fewer in 2013 than in 2006. It posted three years of major multimillion-dollar losses as well. It has a legislative responsibility to be financially self-sustaining. Taxpayers expect it to do that, and we do as well.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Conservatives decided to put an end to home mail delivery and raise the price of stamps just before Christmas.
They turned their backs on seniors and people with reduced mobility and told them to fend for themselves since there are private businesses that can provide that service for $30 a month. What a mess.
One year after the rollout of this irrational reform began, have the Conservatives heard the public outcry? Will they restore home mail delivery services?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, that is the second consecutive question sponsored by CUPW.
I will remind the member that Canada Post is an independent, arm's-length crown corporation. It has taken action under its five-point plan to address three consecutive years of multimillion-dollar losses due to the significant decline in individually stamped letter mail, 1.2 billion fewer pieces in 2013 than in 2006. That is common to postal agencies around the world because of e-substitution. It has to operate on a financially self-sustaining basis. Taxpayers expect it to do that, and so do we. 
Intergovernmental RelationsMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were elected, they promised anyone who would listen a flexible federalism where the provinces would be respected. For Quebec, the blind cuts to employment insurance have resulted in an increase in welfare claims. The unilateral reform of health transfers represents a net loss of $36 billion. Once again, the provinces have to foot the bill.
Is that what the Conservatives meant by flexible federalism? 
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government works closely with all the provinces, including Quebec. We transferred record amounts to the provinces because of the fiscal imbalance. This year, $19.6 billion will be transferred to Quebec. We are going to continue to support all of the provinces that need help.
InfrastructurePeggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, the new Union-Pearson express will cost over $27 each way and is using dirty diesel trains. That is a pretty sorry excuse for public transit. 
Gridlock is costing our city $6 billion a year. Infrastructure throughout the province is in desperate need of repair, but instead of working together in the interests of Ontarians, Conservatives and Liberals are waging a partisan war of words. 
Why are the needs of Canadians taking a back seat to the Conservatives' childish battles with the provinces?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the new Building Canada plan has been open for business since March. Under that plan, the provinces are empowered to identify their infrastructure project priorities and in fact are responsible for doing so. 
We are pleased that we received the list from Ontario this week. We have been waiting for that list. Ontario has an infrastructure envelope over the next decade of almost $11 billion. We look forward to working closely with them and to collaborating with Ontario to renew infrastructure. 
International TradeMr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the federal Conservatives needed Newfoundland and Labrador to give up local processing requirements to get a trade deal with Europe. After two days, an agreement was struck. The Province has the documents to prove it. 
The deal was not for compensation for losses, but a research and marketing fund to create a fishery for the future. That was publicly announced 14 long months ago. Now, lo and behold, the Conservative government says Newfoundland and Labrador has it all wrong.
The obvious question is, why did the government not say anything back then, before now?
Hon. Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), CPC): Mr. Speaker, we welcome Premier Davis and his delegation to Ottawa today. We look forward to a productive meeting later this afternoon.
It is ironic that this question is from the same member who opposed our free trade agreement with the EU before having read one word of it. It simply reaffirms that the NDP does not like trade and does not understand trade. It ignores the fact that the EU is the world's largest consumer market, with 500 million consumers and a fish and seafood market worth $25 billion a year.
The member needs to get on board with an agreement that will provide immense benefits to his province. 
Ryan Cleary: Mr. Speaker, “read one word”? The deal is not out yet.
The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has come to Ottawa today to call on the Prime Minister to honour the commitment he made to my province. It is well known that this Prime Minister is no friend to Newfoundland and Labrador, but he made a commitment to our province, and this Conservative government has an obligation to honour that commitment. If he thinks that New Democrats in this House will just stand by and let him break that promise, let him break yet another promise, the Prime Minister had better think twice. 
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, fish and seafood is one of Newfoundland and Labrador's largest industries. Nine thousand Newfoundlanders and Labradorians depend on the industry for their livelihood. Canada's free trade agreement with the EU will eliminate tariffs as high as 25%, providing fishers with even greater opportunities to sell their products into the largest fish and seafood market in the world.
When will the member start standing up for the fishers in his province?
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly failed to live up to its promise to bring in 1,300 government-assisted and privately sponsored Syrian refugees by the end of this year. Today there is a report suggesting that the religion of refugees may be a factor in their selection and that Canada will only accept religious minorities, which would exclude, for example, Sunni Muslims. 
This is the government that created the position of ambassador for freedom of religion. Is the Government of Canada now denying refugee status based on religion?
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard the heart-wrenching stories of minorities being persecuted in Iraq and Syria. They are being persecuted because they are ethnic and religious minorities. To suggest that we are only going to focus on one group of people is categorically false.
 That said, we have seen countless examples in recent years of people being persecuted for their religious beliefs. We will prioritize persecuted ethnic and religious minorities, those at demonstrated risk, and we will make no apologies for that.
Correctional Service of CanadaWayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the government's response yesterday, with respect to the Ontario coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, was nothing short of shameful. How many reports, how many inquiries will it take to get the government out of the dark ages?
Retired Supreme Court Justice Arbour slammed the practice of solitary confinement as a barbaric cultural practice. The inquiry recommended that indefinite solitary confinement be abolished. 
How could the government reject that key recommendation?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier in question period, this case is indeed a tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the Smith family. 
The question that has been asked is what the government has done. We have implemented more than half of the recommendations from that coroner's report. In fact, we are going through many of the other recommendations and looking at up to three-quarters of them at this very moment.
However, what our government did earlier this year was launch a mental health action plan for federal offenders, which includes action on timely assessment, effective management, sound intervention, ongoing training, and robust governance and oversight.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the government rejected the key recommendation. Beyond Justice Arbour's point that solitary confinement was a barbaric cultural practice, the Correctional Investigator said that using solitary confinement to manage mental illness was unsafe and should be prohibited. His finding showed 14 of the 30 suicides reviewed occurred in segregation cells.
When will the minister realize the correctional action he allows is killing people under his care and custody?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, the member knows well that administrative segregation is a common practice in many western countries, not just in Canada.
Having said that, I again want to speak for a moment about the mental health action plan for federal offenders, which is a five-pillar strategy. As part of that strategy, and we saw this earlier this week, is a two-bed memorandum of understanding between Correctional Service of Canada and a local facility. Two in-patient beds are be available for people with the most serious mental needs in women's penitentiaries. That is in addition to the 32 that are already across Canada, including Saskatchewan and Quebec.
National DefenceÉlaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, it has been five week since Canadian fighter jets started bombing Iraq. It is difficult to believe, especially considering the government's silence.
There has been no update on the costs or the possibility of extending the mission past the original six-month timeframe. We do not even know if the mission is achieving the objectives set by the government. In fact, we do not even know what those objectives are.
Why are the Conservatives refusing to be accountable to Canadians regarding their military mission in Iraq?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is this government that brought forward a resolution to Parliament and had a full debate in this place. We called the foreign affairs committee back early. I, the Minister of National Defence, the ambassador for Religious Freedom and officials were all there. We have been regularly accountable for the mission in the House. The Canadian Armed Forces have had many public briefings to ensure that Canadians are informed of this exercise.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been involved in a war in Iraq since September. Four months later, we still do not know some basic facts. We do not know whether the mission will be extended. We have not been told how much this war is costing, or even beyond counting bombs and targets, what impact the air strikes are actually having on the ground.
Why, after four months of war, are Canadians still left in the dark by the government?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I have been here every day this week during question period to be accountable and the member for Ottawa Centre has not asked a question, I do not think, in four months.
We said from the outset that we would report to Parliament in the normal way about all the associated costs. With respect to extension, no decision has been made. We will go through this day by day and, obviously, make our contribution.
Evil people are doing barbaric things, and the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are trying to stop them.
Citizenship and ImmigrationPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Syria has created millions of vulnerable refugees who are in absolutely dire need, yet reports today reveal that the Conservatives are refusing to make new commitments because they are only looking to accept religious minorities. We heard that just a second ago. Whatever people's religion, ethnicity, or creed, it is a Canadian value to help everyone in need. Can the minister confirm if he is applying religious discrimination to refugees?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, the member has been sitting in the House and heard me respond to that question just before. To suggest that we are only going to focus on one group of people is categorically false.
That member and his party should reflect on their actions in the House. They vote against every measure we have put in place that would actually assist these very vulnerable people around the world. It is shameful that they are behaving like this in the House.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we consider everyone to be equal, no matter what their religion. We do not turn our backs on people in need simply because they do not share the same religion.
The Conservatives want to choose refugees based on their religion, but no matter what they think, all Syrians need our help. Their approach is shameful and outrageous.
Will the minister commit to accepting more Syrians refugees without imposing religious conditions?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have been very clear so far today, and I will say it again. To suggest that we are focusing on only one group of people is categorically false. That said, we have seen countless examples in recent years of people being persecuted exactly for and because of their religious beliefs. We will prioritize persecuted ethnic and religious minorities, those who demonstrate they are at risk, and we will not apologize for that.
What is shameful is that the NDP continues to vote against every measure we bring to this House.
TaxationBob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, our government knows that Canadian families know best how to spend their own money. This is a fundamental difference between our party and the Liberals. That is why our government has taken real action to reduce taxes on Canadian families, including the family tax cut.
Can the hard-working Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment  please update the House on which tax cuts the Liberals would take away if elected?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the stellar hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for his hard work on lowering taxes for Canadian families across this country.
We are delivering on our promise to balance the budget, and now we are in the position to make targeted tax cuts for Canadian families so they can balance theirs. The majority of these benefits will go to low- and middle-income class Canadian families. For example, a single parent making $50,000 a year with two children would get about $1,000 in benefits from these tax cuts. 
The Liberal plan is to take these tax cuts out of the pockets of Canadian families and use them to hire bureaucrats—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, due to Conservative cuts, yet again the CBC board had to make difficult choices. Communities across Canada will see their local supper hour newscasts reduced by almost half. Smaller communities will be the hardest hit, including anglophones in Quebec.
How can the minister allow her reckless policies and cuts to jeopardize local news? Does she not believe that all Canadians deserve quality and local public broadcasting?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as Hubert Lacroix said, there are “challenges of a rapidly changing media environment to which no conventional broadcaster is immune”. Changes at the CBC are the result of declining viewership in certain demographics and lower than expected advertising revenues.
The CBC is responsible for its own operations. We on this side believe that. I wish the opposition would agree.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the six o'clock local news is an institution. That is the only time that the people of eastern Quebec hear anything about themselves and their community.
The cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada had so far managed to spare regional news programming. We have to be realistic: when the government slashes $115 million, we cannot expect our public broadcaster to do everything everywhere.
When will the minister finally realize the impact her misguided policies are having on the people of eastern Quebec, who love their public broadcaster?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I know there is one group on the other side of the House that certainly does like to speak about itself.
The changes at the CBC are the result of declining viewership in certain demographics and lower than expected advertising revenues. We understand the important role that the CBC plays in remote communities across the country. It is the CBC's responsibility to deliver those services, and we let it do it.
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just does not get it. CBC/Radio-Canada has had to make cuts because the Conservatives have cut its funding. What is happening in Sherbrooke is not the same as what is happening in Montreal. If a one-hour local newscast is cut by 30 minutes, the math is simple, our region's voice is being cut in half. CBC/Radio-Canada is there to keep us informed, and it belongs to all of us.
Will the minister ever understand that the people of the Eastern Townships, like all Canadians, care deeply about their local news?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, we certainly understand, from a remote and smaller community perspective, that services need to be delivered. That is why the CBC receives over $1 billion a year from the federal government and from its revenue in order to deliver services.
The best part of all of this is that the CBC is responsible for the services that it delivers, and we leave it in its hands to do so.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, whether in Moncton or Fredericton, the regional news is sacred. It is sacred because it tells us about what is happening in our own language. Urban centres have the right to that; the regions should have the same right.
There is a reason why the federal court confirmed in September that the CBC/Radio-Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act. It is a means of promoting our official languages. Gutting it will harm the development of Canada's linguistic duality.
When will the minister finally understand that Radio-Canada belongs to all Canadians and that it is their responsibility?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that the government does understand the CBC belongs to all Canadians. It is a public broadcasting institution.
Our government expects the CBC to fulfill its duty to provide quality programming to official language minority communities under the Official Languages Act and the Broadcasting Act. The CRTC has expressed authority to ensure that the CBC is fulfilling its mandate under the Broadcasting Act, as well.
HousingAdam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, it is not just the CBC losing jobs at Christmas time. CMHC today announced that more than 200 people are being laid off in this city today.
Close to a quarter of a million in the country are homeless, and what does the government do in the middle of a housing crisis? It lays off the very people responsible for providing housing.
In the minister's own province of Manitoba, close to 10,000 people will lose their housing in the next 5 years. Most of them are seniors.
Listing agreements the government has already signed is not acceptable. The status quo is not acceptable. When will the government stop cutting and start building housing again?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, first, we pass on our condolences and thoughts to people who lose their jobs around the holiday time.
CMHC is a crown corporation and it makes its own administrative decisions.
 As far as housing goes, we are engaging housing first, which is an evidence-based program to provide housing from coast to coast to Canadians. This is a program that has shown great results. The opposition should get on board and support a program like housing first, because it is delivering for Canadians.
Air TransportationMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as oil prices fall, Canadians are wondering why airfares are riding high. In 2011, Canadian airline companies used higher oil prices to justify increasing airfares. Today, the cost is not going down. That is odd. 
Will the government ensure that there is price transparency in Canada's airline sector, especially so that people living in remote areas such as Abitibi-Témiscamingue will stop being taken advantage of by airlines?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that under the flight rights Canada initiative, we have introduced a code of conduct for Canada's airlines. We have taken a number of measures to make pricing transparent. These are decisions by individual airlines, which are private companies.
 However, I will tell members what would raise the price of an airline ticket drastically. It would be a $21 billion NDP carbon tax.
Government AppointmentsAdam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, the government spoke about wanting to hand out pink slips. I have a couple of suggestions for it.
Last week, I asked the Prime Minister about Mark McQueen, the chair of the Toronto Port Authority, a man who has made illegal campaign contributions to his party. Under the guidelines for Governor-in-Council appointees, it is expressly forbidden to make campaign donations. Let me be clear. The Prime Minister's hand-picked cronies cannot and must not make political party contributions.
Now it seems that not only did the chair of the port authority make donations, but another member of the port authority has made donations too.
My question is very simple. This is a kickback scheme. Will the Conservative Party return these prohibited donations, and will the Prime Minister fire these two people who do not, will not and have not followed the rules?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the long-standing feud between Mr. McQueen and that member continues, only now it is in the House. The ethical and political activity guidelines for public office holders do not state that political activity is against the guidelines. He should read them.
Employment InsuranceMs. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, not only have the Conservatives managed to backlog the Social Security Tribunal, but they have also created a totally unrealistic requirement.
Unemployed workers now have to have a lawyer representing them at the tribunal. When people are unemployed and do not have any income, how are they supposed to pay for a lawyer? 
Will the government act quickly to fix this mean-spirited stupidity and let Canadians choose how they want to be represented, as in the old system?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tribunal is delivering for Canadians. We are ensuring that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, many of whom have severe disabilities, are getting the money they need. We are working to ensure this happens in a timely fashion. We are going to ensure that the Social Security Tribunal continues to provide excellent service for Canadians, particularly at Christmastime.
International TradeMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as 2014 draws to a close, Canadians will be able to enjoy their holidays all the more, knowing that their government is focused on their priorities: economic opportunities and creating jobs. Our government's global markets action plan is a pro-job, pro-export plan that is delivering results. 
 Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade please inform the House why this was such a historic year for job-creating trade and investment in Canada?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank that hard-working member for his work on export markets for Canada.
The year 2014 saw us continue to eliminate tariffs and grant preferred access to Canadian businesses. In this year alone, exporters and Canadian investors became more competitive in Europe, in Africa, in China, in South Korea, in Honduras, and in Chile. It was a record year for trade.
In this next year, in 2015, we will continue to support Canadian exporters and the one in five jobs that they bring to our economy. We will continue to help them to compete and win around the world.
InfrastructureTed Hsu: Mr. Speaker, let us picture ourselves stuck in traffic again, wasting time. In Ontario, we remember how the Prime Minister will not meet with our Premier to talk about infrastructure. 
Let us picture ourselves needing a better job and remembering that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create jobs in the Ring of Fire. In Ontario, we need all levels of government to get together on major infrastructure to create jobs, make us more competitive, and improve life for our families. It does not have to be a whole fishing trip, but why will the Prime Minister not meet with the Premier of Ontario?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, picture this: our government has made record investments in public transit by investing over $8 billion since 2006. This includes, of course, the Ottawa LRT under the advocacy and the leadership of our Minister of Foreign Affairs. Public transit is an eligible category under every component of our new Building Canada plan. Public transit is an important investment for infrastructure. It helps to create jobs, make our cities more livable, and enhance the quality of life.
Public SafetyMr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the release of the U.S. torture report is a critical moment for all countries to reaffirm the absolute categorical rejection of torture, yet under the Conservatives, Canadian security agencies have gone from rejecting information obtained by torture and having policies in place to identify tainted information to an order that allows such information to be used and shared, even at the risk that it will lead to torture in other countries. 
Why does the minister continue to condone torture by proxy through this directive?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. Our government does not condone the use of torture and certainly does not engage in it. 
The primary responsibility of Canadian security agencies is to protect Canadian life and property. If we do get a tip from any source that Canadians' lives are in danger, we will act to save those lives, and we will continue to ensure that intelligence is reviewed and assessed by Canadian intelligence experts before it is acted upon.
Government PoliciesDave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, around the world, we see economies struggling and political gridlock paralyzing decision-making. Last night, we saw a gridlock in the U.S. Congress bring the American government to the verge of a shutdown that was averted only at the last minute.
On this last sitting day of 2014, can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us how our Parliament's productive, hard-working, and orderly approach contrasts with the economic uncertainty, political gridlock, and paralysis we see outside of Canada?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, job creation, lower taxes, and free trade were key elements of our government's economy-focused agenda this year. We built on our record of creating over 1.2 million net new jobs. 
We doubled the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000. We expanded the universal child care benefit to $160, up from $100 a month. 
We delivered free trade with South Korea and Honduras, and a massive new trade deal with Europe. 
We moved to tackle crime, protect victims, support veterans, strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship, cut red tape, and fight terrorism.
Canadians can see clearly that running this country is a serious job, one that requires strong leadership.
Canada PostMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Conservative government agreed to let Canada Post get rid of home mail delivery, citing cost-effectiveness. However, Canada Post posted a net profit of nearly $40 million for the first three quarters of 2014. 
Yesterday, TVA reported that the money was being used to buy presents for journalists, who received tea, coffee, stamps, socks and even little trucks before Christmas.
Journalists blew the whistle on what was a ridiculous attempt to soften them up. Does the minister support Canada Post's move, or will she call the corporation on the carpet and make sure that it puts the services that people are entitled to first?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that Canada Post is of course an independent, arm's-length agency. The decisions it makes, including that one, are its own.
TransportationMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, in the field of passenger transportation, an international company, Uber, has set up a system that promotes the underground economy and ignores the rules for collecting GST and provincial tax in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. This is unfair to taxi drivers and owners who pay their fair share to the government.
Will the Minister of National Revenue take action and have Revenue Canada develop a Canada-wide action plan to rein in Uber and regulate all the individuals who transport passengers to ensure that they pay their fair share to the government?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at CRA we take tax evasion very seriously. We expect all Canadians to pay their taxes here in Canada. We expect all companies and all individuals to pay their taxes, and we will take all measures to make sure that happens.
The EnvironmentJean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, COSEWIC is recommending that belugas be considered an endangered species, but the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans says that we need to wait for consultations and analyses to be done.
Consultations with whom? Oil magnates? Who is going to conduct a more credible analysis than scientists? When will the minister smarten up and put belugas on the endangered species list?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting the environment. That is why we have launched a new national conservation plan that will enable Canadians to conserve and restore lands and waters, and enhance the connections between citizens and natural spaces.
We have also created two national marine conservation areas, three marine protected areas, three national wildlife areas, four national parks, and one historic site.
It is shameful that the opposition does not support the creation of national parks. We learned through the media, for example, that they even oppose the Rouge national park. It is shameful.
Presence in GalleryThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Paul Davis, Premier, and the Hon. Keith Hutchings, Minister of Municipal and Intergovernment Affairs and Registrar General for Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Points of OrderMr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I noted during question period that there were two instances when the government referred to the absence or presence of members in the House. I would like to remind members of long standing in the House that they cannot refer to the absence or presence of members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I thank the hon. member for his intervention. 
I do not recall the particular instances that he refers to, but we appreciate the advice and suggestion of the hon. member. I am sure that members will be cautious in avoiding those references in the future.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
PetitionsMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to table a petition regarding the rights of small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange, and use seeds. The signatures were collected by Development and Peace, an organization that continues the important mission of promoting social justice. I am very pleased and honoured to present this petition on behalf of concerned Canadians, and I look forward to the government's response.
David Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in my hands from dozens of Canadians, who ask the government to increase, with the greatest possible urgency and sacrifice, Canadian efforts to help the Yazidi people, as well as Kurds, Chaldo-Assyrians, Mandaeans, Baha’i, Shabak, Turkmen, and other religious minorities under attack by ISIS.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition regarding the reduction of Canada Post services. 
The elimination of home mail delivery and the increase in the price of stamps will have a major impact on my riding of LaSalle—Émard, which is densely populated. The petitioners, hundreds of my constituents from LaSalle—Émard, are calling on Canada Post to explore other options and especially to keep home mail delivery services.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table, signed by a number of people in Regina, across Saskatchewan, and from other locations in the country, expressing concern about changes to the Seeds Act and issues related to plant breeders' rights. They call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, signed by citizens of the greater Vancouver area, who believe that our current impaired driving laws are too lenient and should be strengthened by the implementation of a new mandatory minimum sentence for those convicted of impaired driving causing death.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present in the House a petition signed by my constituents calling on the Government of Canada to pass legislation to create an ombudsman for the corporate social responsibility of Canadian extractive corporations in developing countries.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first petition calls on Parliament to pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to change the charge of impaired driving causing death to the offence of vehicular manslaughter.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of people from my riding, Brossard—La Prairie. The petitioners are calling on the government to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced service and to explore other options for updating the crown corporation's business plan. 
I would like to thank all those who participated in the day of action and who continue to collect signatures for petitions.
Questions on the Order PaperDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and I believe that you will find unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 1:15 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Rouge National Urban Park Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, be read the third time and passed. 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, December 4, 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, Bill C-40. 
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, January 26, 2015, at the ordinary hour of the daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can advise that there have been additional consultations that have occurred among the parties, and if you seek it, I do believe you will find unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 2:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  On behalf of all of those in the precinct, I hope that all families and members enjoy a wonderful break in the six weeks ahead and that they have a safe voyage home.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, January 26, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:13 p.m.)