2014-11-21

Government Orders
Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
To begin, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau, the official opposition's justice critic, as well as the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is the deputy justice critic, for the important work they have done on this bill and for all the work they do as part of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Many people know that I am a young mother with a 19-month-old baby. Anything that has to do with sexual abuse of children affects me deeply as a parent. It really is a pleasure to speak to this bill and have the opportunity to do so, so that I can share my opinion on what is before us today.
On this side of the House, we have a zero tolerance policy on sexual offences against children. We also respect the principles of jurisprudence and the fundamental laws of our country. We cannot have one without the other. It is very important to mention that. That is why the NDP will be happy to examine this bill very carefully.
As we know, with this Conservative government, the devil is often in the details, and we definitely want experts to let us know whether the measures set out in Bill C-26 will be effective.
I also sincerely hope that the government will not move a time allocation motion on such an important subject as child sexual abuse.
That is extremely important. Why? First, we are in Parliament and we have already had a lot of time allocation motions on important bills. Unfortunately, my colleagues do not often have the opportunity to share their opinions or those of their constituents. However, as parliamentarians, it is our duty to rise in the House and assert those rights.
I sincerely hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House who are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are able to take all the time they need to examine Bill C-26 in order to make it the best bill possible and to hear from all of the experts who have an interest in this bill.
It is very important to have a debate and share our opinions here in the House so that we end up with a better bill, which will include suggestions directly related to Bill C-26 from the various experts who are invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
I hope that all my colleagues in the House will be able to work together to stop the sexual abuse of children. Regardless of which side of the House we are on, no one approves of the sexual abuse of children. I do not know of any reasonable person in this Parliament who would approve of that. We must address it and we must do it together in order to make sure that we end up with the best bill possible.
As the deputy critic for public safety, I work hard to understand our prison system. I do a lot of work with our partners, including the members of UCCO-SACC, the people who work directly for Correctional Service Canada in the field or in a management role.
I am thinking of our correctional officers in prisons across the country who are going through really disruptive changes right now. At the same time, they are trying to do pretty incredible work with the resources they have. 
When I think of those workers, I also think of the various bills that the Conservatives have introduced in the House, many of which have had a very negative impact on our prison system, unfortunately.
In my riding, in Laval, there are now two federal prisons. There used to be three. Unfortunately, the Leclerc Institute was closed following a back-of-the-napkin decision by the Conservatives. The population of that prison, which is now provincial, is growing because of the Conservatives' laws.
There is also the Montée Saint-François Institution, a minimum security institution that specializes in handling sexual predators. The third prison in our riding is the Federal Training Institution. It used to be a medium security institution, but since the Conservatives' reforms of a few months ago, it has become a medium and maximum security facility. New cells were built, and more and more federal prisoners are being sent there. The Montée Saint-François Institution is also accommodating more inmates, and new units have been built there too.
I am saying this because a lot of money has been invested so that more prisoners can be sent to Laval. Even so, the government decided to dispose of the Leclerc Institute, which is an institution in Laval and one of the nicest federal penal institutions in the country. The provincial government got to take over the facility, but unfortunately, data suggest that the institute's population could grow considerably in coming years because of the government's laws.
The sad thing is that the workers still are not getting more resources because cuts to public safety have affected the correctional service. Workers' rights are under attack. I am thinking about the definition of the word “danger” in the Labour Code. What is more, the government is not investing in the reintegration of inmates, which is very unfortunate.
Experts in the prison system and inmate reintegration agree that this is extremely important. The last thing we want, as parents and citizens, is for an inmate to reoffend after serving his sentence, especially when we are talking about sexual abuse against children. We must make sure that we have extremely solid reintegration programs, instead of punitive laws only.
I am not against punitive measures, on the contrary, but we must not have one without the other. As soon as a person is incarcerated, we must initiate the reintegration process and ensure that the person is surrounded by social support. That person has to have the right tools once he has completed his sentence to ensure that he does not reoffend.
We must examine this bill closely and listen to the experts. Are these the right measures? Will they provide solutions to an extremely serious problem in our society? What will this change within our prison system? Will there be more resources? Will prisoners be forced to double-bunk in shared prison cells? What will this change for our correctional officers? What will this change for the people who work on reintegrating inmates? Will they have the resources to ensure that reintegration is done properly? Many questions currently remain unanswered.
I hope the government across the way is giving serious consideration to these concerns regarding the sexual abuse of children. There are some very good programs in Laval, but unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer resources for reintegration.
In closing, I would like to remind the members opposite that we will be sure to study all the details of this bill. We hope to have the time we need to do so. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance for all sex crimes in this country. Let us work together to ensure that we have the best law possible.
Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the things we need to keep front of mind when dealing with matters of a criminal nature and the rehabilitation of criminals and the protection of children is the unilateral federal responsibility for the protection of Canada's indigenous peoples.
As the member has pointed out, the government has made many cuts to programs intended to support aboriginal communities in developing social services, housing, and protection for their children. We have seen the commission on residential schools begging the government to continue funding to support the people who suffered through the abuse in the residential schools.
The member speaks of the cuts and speaks of this loss. I am wondering if she thinks the bill and the government's programs reflect its responsibilities in dealing with those important matters for the protection of indigenous Canadians.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona for her extremely important question. I am happy that she mentioned the specific situation facing first nations communities.
I agree that the government is unfortunately neglecting many files. With regard to the schools she mentioned, the government is completely neglecting its duty and is not honouring the treaties it has signed with first nations. It is so sad to see this. I truly hope that this will get the attention it deserves and that it will be included in the bill, because often the reality facing isolated first nations communities is forgotten.
This brings me to a parallel I would like to draw with the bill we voted on. I introduced Bill C-608 in the House of Commons. It passed second reading. Members voted unanimously in favour of a bill to establish a national day of the midwife. That bill is very important to first nations in particular, because the whole birth experience has been altered among first nations. Women often have to fly out of their communities for weeks, if not two or three months, in order to give birth to their child, when instead we could simply sit down with first nations communities and look at what they need for women to be able to deliver their babies in their own communities.
This bill is along the same lines. We need to make sure that we work in partnership with first nations and that the government has an open dialogue with those communities. 
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comments.
Everyone in this chamber agrees that sexual crimes are among the most horrible crimes in our society and that we definitely have to tackle this problem.
The government is constantly telling us that we also have to protect victims' rights. We all agree on that point, but I would like to ask my colleague if she discovered any measures in this bill that focus on victims' rights. 
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie for his question.
The government does often speak about victims' rights and singles them out when introducing bills. However, it seldom does so appropriately. I can cite an example for my colleague. The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime often appears before the Standing Committee on Public Safety. She has repeatedly told us in committee that when this type of bill is introduced we must not forget that victims' rights are automatically tied to social reintegration. It is extremely important that we not forget that.
It is sad to see that the government opposite often forgets this notion in the bills it introduces, especially when people like Sue O'Sullivan tell us over and over that we must not forget that there are very important aspects of victims' rights that are often ignored by the Conservative government.
When bills are introduced, we must ensure that all aspects of victims' rights are addressed. There are many and, unfortunately, the government often plays politics with this issue, and that is very sad. We need to listen to what the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has to say and include her recommendations in bills such as this one.
Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
The NDP thinks that this bill should be sent to committee to be studied. There are many proposed measures, and we want to ensure that these measures are good ones, that they are constitutional and that they will prevent such incidents. We want to have an in-depth study. We hope to have this discussion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Our NDP justice critics, our colleagues from Gatineau and La Pointe-de-l'Île, will ensure that this bill is properly studied in committee.
This is an extremely important issue. Great care must be taken with bills on topics as important as protecting our children. The committee is equipped to do this and to ensure that we create the best legislation we can to counter this threat. I truly hope that the committee is helpful and that its report shows how effective this bill is.
The NDP is carefully examining the proposals in this bill. We must focus on creating laws that will provide clear ways to protect our children. This means working with experts on the ground and with public safety professionals. I want to point out that we cannot play politics with this kind of bill. Crimes against children are the most heinous of crimes. I think that all members of the House would agree on that. Sex crimes are obviously all heinous, and we are moved by these issues. We want to create good laws to combat these crimes, especially against children, who are some of the most vulnerable members of society. We need to protect them because they are our future. 
 Unfortunately, crimes against children are not decreasing. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Minister of Justice himself pointed out that sexual offences against children had increased by 6% over the past two years. That is very concerning. There has been an increase despite the many tough-on-crime measures that the Conservatives have implemented since 2006. For example, they changed the age of consent, forced Internet service providers to report child pornography, increased sentences for dangerous offenders, and so on. This clearly resonates with this government. Despite all that has been done, there has been an increase in these kinds of crimes, as the Minister of Justice himself said.
It begs the question as to whether stiffer sentences actually prevent these types of crimes. The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan pointed out that what is needed is not just sentences, but also rehabilitation.
How can Parliament, the government, lawmakers as it were, make that happen? We have to make sure that the necessary resources are being provided to the RCMP and for mental health, rehabilitation and reintegration.
For example, we know that our communities need more resources to fight sexual abuse of children. Obviously, harsher prison sentences are not good enough when police resources and aid organization budgets are being cut. We will have to emphasize that when the committee studies this bill.
I also want to bring up what Steve Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, said. He said that the federal government recently announced plans to eliminate the meagre funds provided by Correctional Service Canada. The funds that CoSAs receive from the National Crime Prevention Centre will also dry up this fall. The total annual cost of the program is $2.2 million. Like most community-based victims' services, the CoSA program is not very costly. It has 700 volunteers across the country who meet with offenders after their release and help them find a job and a place to stay. They meet for coffee and help offenders rebuild their lives and avoid reoffending. They help them develop a sense of accountability. 
It is important to ensure accountability and reintegration so that once offenders have gone through the correctional system and are released from prison, they are able to return to society and not reoffend. Furthermore, it is important to know that there is now a publicly available list of offenders who are returning to the community.
It is not that simple, though. Most people alleged to have committed a sexual offence against a child or minor are known to the victim. Indeed, the alleged offender was known to the victim in 44% of cases, and even a family member in 38% of cases. It is important to keep that in mind. It is not just a question of protecting our communities from strangers. Too often, it is someone the victim knows. We must therefore also ensure accountability and protection, which have to do with prevention. To ensure prevention, we need to make sure that police forces, communities and mental health services have the resources they need.
I would also like to talk about the work done by Circles of Support and Accountability, whose budgets have been cut. The mission of these organizations is to make communities safer and reduce the number of victims of crime by supporting and helping people who have committed crimes, as well as holding them accountable, so they can begin to lead responsible, productive lives. They do so in partnership with correctional and police services, in order to make communities safer and help offenders reintegrate into their communities.
It is crucial to point out that, according to studies, the rate of sexual recidivism is 70% lower among those who take part in a Circle of Support and Accountability. According to another study, these kinds of support groups help reduce the rate of recidivism by 83%. What we need, more than this bill, is resources in the community to really protect our children and our communities in the future, as the government claims it wants to do.
We will examine this in committee and see what comes out of that. 
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.
There was one part that she unfortunately did not have time to talk about. By increasing sentences and thus inmates' incarceration, the government will do what the Quebec justice minister deplores: they will incarcerate these individuals in provincial rather than federal prisons. That has been criticized in Quebec and probably also in other provinces. The government is going to offload onto the provinces the additional cost of these prison terms, which are sometimes pointless, as my colleague mentioned, while prevention and rehabilitation are probably the best solutions.
Once again, the federal government is going to wash its hands of the financial implications for the provinces. These federal decisions are going to increase the financial burden on the provinces. What does my colleague think of that?
[Interjection]
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, these are very serious crimes. We have a duty to protect our children and prevent this type of crime in the long term.
It is not enough to pass a bill that will incarcerate more people, because it does not provide the resources. By incarcerating more people in provincial institutions the government is giving more responsibilities to the provinces, but not more resources.
The same thing applies to federal prisons. The government is making cuts to Correctional Service Canada. As my colleague from Alfred-Pellan pointed out, a federal prison was transferred to the province. The government is making cuts to the prison system without providing the necessary resources. It is also making cuts to prevention and rehabilitation.
Thus, this bill is very worrisome because all it does is increase sentences. There are no long-term prevention or rehabilitation measures.
Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP): Mr. Speaker, parents know that at some point, actually at many points, they have to give their kids over to the care of other people, whether it is for sports, education, just plain care, whatever the case may be. It becomes obvious that prevention is an important part of all of this. I appreciated that in my colleague's speech, she referenced concern with the issue of prevention. I also appreciated what she talked about as the specific social circumstances in which sexual abuse crimes occur against children, and it is often by people they trust, being friends, neighbours, et cetera.
Is there anything in this bill that addresses those circumstances? The minister cited the 6% increase in sexual crimes against children, and yet I did not read anything in the bill that addresses the specific social circumstances in which these crimes often take place.
[Interjection]
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely good point. Indeed, this bill does not address those circumstances at all. There will be a database of previous offenders, but how would that help with reintegration? That would not seem to do anything to make sure that those people do not reoffend. It is essentially just a warning for the community; it does not address that problem. All of the other things are just stricter penalties, minimums, and raising the maximum sentence. 
Those things are meant as deterrents, but when we consider the specific social circumstance of the offenders being people that children know in their social circles and sometimes in their families, there is absolutely nothing to prevent these kinds of situations from happening. That is extremely unfortunate, and it is why we need to make sure that there is good funding for organizations, mental health, and society as well.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-26 and its very long title. It is a bill that touches on a number of different pieces of legislation, including the Criminal Code and Canada Evidence Act. It would enact a high-risk child sex offender database act as well, and there would be consequential amendments to other acts. We are at second reading here and it seems that we might as well support this bill's passage to committee so that we can hear from some experts on this subject. 
As suggested by its title, this act seeks to do a number of things. It would increase the maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds. It would increase existing mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children. It would clarify and codify rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences. It would require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children. It would ensure that spouses of the accused are considered competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases. As well, it would increase reporting obligations on sex offenders who travel outside Canada and would establish a high-risk child sex offender database act and other things. It is a far-reaching bill.
What we note about this long list of acts and amendments to existing legislation is that it is more of what the current government has done in the past, more of a turning of the screws in the same direction. We note that the Conservative government in this and previous Parliaments has already implemented new mandatory minimums for assaults where victims are under 16 years of age; it has identified grooming activities as a criminal offence; it has made the use of computers and other telecommunications devices for the purpose of making arrangements to commit a sexual offence against a child an offence; it has amended the sex offender registry already; it has increased the age at which a person can consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16; it has required Internet service providers to report child pornography; and it has increased sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders.
Apart from the wisdom of any of this, the problem presented by this bill is that the Minister of Justice has provided information that sexual offences have increased by 6% over the last two years. That statistic is offered by the minister in support of further action in support of this bill. However, at least equally if not more so, that statistic calls into question the approach taken by the current government to date. It seems to suggest that mandatory minimums, longer maximums, increased scrutiny and surveillance via a sex registry and so on may not be effective responses to this issue. This is worrying because of the particular nature of this issue of child sexual assault or child sexual abuse. It is so incredibly harmful and hurtful, leaving lasting emotional and psychological scars on its victims, things that victims have to live with and cope with for the rest of their lives if they can or do in fact live out their lives with the hurt caused. 
I am the son of two teachers. When I grew up, chat around the dinner table was always about education and teaching and what was going on in the classroom. However, I married a criminal lawyer who did criminal defence work for 14 years before moving over to the crown side, where she has been for six years. There have been lots of stories brought home about crimes that she has had to be engaged with, either on the defence or prosecution side. They are not happy stories, and for the most part not stories to be talked about around the dinner table.
 However, there is a story that I would like to tell that is not related to the many stories I have heard through my wife, but through my own experience as a kid. I had the great fortune of growing up in a lovely, picturesque, and historic Canadian town with a particularly a beautiful downtown in which to live. It is an older and largely more affluent part of the city, filled with old limestone houses, occupied mainly by professionals, doctors, lawyers, professors. As it turns out, it was also the hunting ground of a child sex predator, the choirmaster at one of the local cathedrals. He was a much trusted, highly respected person in the community. He taught music not only through the cathedral but to other kids in town as well. I happened to be a member of one of his non-secular choirs for a very brief time, because I do not have much of a voice. 
Things started to come undone for the choirmaster in 1990 when two families in the congregation alleged publicly, in stories in the local paper, that the choirmaster had sexually molested their sons and that the abuse was directly linked to their sons' suicides. Both boys had hanged themselves, one as a teenager and the other as a young man working on his doctorate at an ivy league university. I played tennis with one of those boys as a kid, and I went to nursery school with the other one. It is a small town.
Ultimately the choirmaster plead guilty to charges involving 13 boys over a 12-year period. Over time more victims came forward, making this story much longer and an ever more complicated one. In retelling the story there may be wounds that get reopened, but I want to use the story to the complicated social facts that surround such matters.
The fact that it is a long and complicated story ought to give us all cause to pause and think through carefully our response to this issue. How does someone like this win the trust of both kids and parents? How does a predator like this find support, even from some of his victims? How does he retain the loyalty and support of a significant portion of the congregation? How did he get pardoned, at one point in time? How does he win the support of a new community and congregation?
These are all questions that in the abstract need to be addressed if we are to protect kids from this kind of predatory behaviour. We need to understand better how these things work, because most of this story is about the pain and harm caused to the kids, harm that includes the suicides of two young men full of great promise.
It would seem useful to take this bill to committee so that we can have that discussion and call before the committee witnesses who, based on their expertise and experience, can speak to some of the issues raised in a case like one I referred to today.
 Perhaps some parts of this bill will be considered useful by those who testify at committee, but the statistic offered by the minister in support of Bill C-26, that there has been of a 6% increase in sexual offences against children, suggests to me that we ought to be discussing at committee other types of resources to counter the sexual abuse of children, other methods of prevention, other precautions to take, other forms or opportunities for education for both parents and kids.
In the 2011 budget, the Conservatives announced $250,000 in funding over two years as part of the federal victims strategy for programs to protect children. Budget 2012 included $7 million over five years to fund child advocacy centres, as well as limited funding for victims services organizations. This seems paltry in light of the scope and seriousness of the problem.
Can the government tell us whether any of this was effective? We know by way of Steve Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for the victims of crime, that the circles of support and accountability program was very effective. That is being cut through cuts to Corrections Canada and national crime prevention centres.
In a hopeful moment, a moment in anticipation of a good faith response by the Conservative government, it seems to me that it would be useful to put this bill and other thoughts and ideas before committee for the purpose of looking not only at the bill specifically, but also at the issue more broadly with a view to thinking through what we can do as members of Parliament to prevent further stories like that of the sexual predator I told today, and to prevent the harm that predators like him do to kids, to prevent the kind of pain that would cause two young men to take their own lives.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very heart-rending speech. Obviously, personal experience is what this bill is attempting to address.
The member clearly supported the need for criminal provisions where we can deal with those who are detected. However, as I understand it, he and other colleagues mentioned the fact that we sadly have a rising rate of sexual offences against children.
I wonder if the member could expand a bit more on whether or not there is a need for the government to also bring forward a compliance strategy when we have reforms to the Criminal Code so that we can also talk about resources and new programs to prevent these kinds of offences. He seems to feel that it is equally as important as punishment after the fact.
[Interjection]
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. While I support this bill moving forward to committee for review and study, I am happy that I managed to convey in my speech that this bill is clearly missing an entire response to the issue of child sexual abuse. Clearly, prevention is the critical piece in all of this. It is what one would hope for and think of as any response to criminal activity. First and foremost, this fundamentally has to be be about preventing these things from happening and harming and hurting people.
The story I told is a story about irrecoverable loss, not just for the boy and young man who ended up committing suicide, but for all of the victims, and there were many in this set of circumstances. These are things that people have to live with for the rest of their lives. They have to live with the pain and hurt. To the extent that we, as members of Parliament, can focus our attention on ensuring that young people in this country never have to experience these things and that kind of pain and hurt, and not have to live with that for the rest of the lives, surely we must put our minds to doing just that.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin my speech on Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
The Conservative government does not have a very good record to start with. We can look at Bill C-10, a piece of legislation that substantially amended the Criminal Code. When that bill passed, the Barreau du Québec said, “Canadian justice is in mourning [and the passage of Bill C-10] is a setback for Canadian criminal law”. Such is the Conservatives' record on changes to the Criminal Code. 
If we look at this from a financial perspective, as I was saying earlier, the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs announced two days ago that the cost of incarcerating offenders has increased by 11%. That expense was passed on to Quebec without the federal government assuming any of the additional cost, which ultimately was created by criminalizing certain elements that were not criminal before and likely could have been resolved either through prevention or by providing support to the people concerned, to ensure that they did not reoffend.
Finally, we have a different vision of the fundamentals of society than the Conservatives do. We want to live in a safer society, with less crime, and we want to be able to prevent crime before it happens. That is not the case for the Conservatives, who always adopt repressive policies and think that imposing longer prison sentences will resolve the problems associated with crime in Canada.
That brings to mind something that the member for Gatineau often says. When an offender is about to commit a crime, he does not bring the Criminal Code with him to read up on what the maximum penalty will be, whether there is a mandatory minimum sentence and whether the trial judge will be able to have him serve his sentence in the community or not. That way of thinking is is completely absurd and out of touch with reality.
The crime rate is dropping as a result of a number of factors, including demographics. The population is aging so crime is dropping, which makes sense in any society. If we want to reduce crime, we need to invest in prevention and in rehabilitation when a crime has been committed. However, the ideal would be not to have criminals or crime.
With this bill, the Conservatives are falling into the same repetitive cycle of behaviour that they always fall into, which involves a simplistic and very election-minded approach. This approach consists of convincing Canadians that they are going to do away with crime by imposing longer sentences, criminalizing activities that were not crimes before and imposing minimum sentences, or in other words, by not putting any faith in the justice system.
One of the methods used by the Conservatives involves playing on the public's frustration. It is true that we are all sometimes frustrated when criminal convictions are not in line with what we personally think they should be. We may be angry about verdicts that we think are too soft considering the seriousness of the offence. However, the Conservatives always play on people's emotions and hope that they will not have any faith in the justice system.
Along the same lines as imposing mandatory minimum sentences or increasing existing minimums, the Conservatives also discredit the judiciary and undermine judges' ability to evaluate criminals' personal situation and ability to reintegrate into society. They play on people's sense of fear, as they do with other issues, especially safety-related issues.
We will clearly support this bill at second reading, because it contains a number of worthwhile provisions that should be studied. My colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice will examine the validity of each of these provisions. However, we still need to remember that our objective should be prevention and that the federal government, which is responsible for enforcing and developing the Criminal Code, should also assume the financial costs associated with creating these new crimes.
One recent example was Bill C-36. Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to speak to that bill because the Conservative government yet again limited the time allocated for members of the House to debate this bill. It was the same thing. Bill C-36 created a criminal offence that had never before existed in Canada's history, in order to give the public the impression that the government was fixing a criminal problem. The problem was one that had never existed before. This bill takes us to the next step in the criminalization of society. The government invented a criminal offence that did not exist before. In a few days, in December, we will see whether police forces enforce this new provision of the Criminal Code that now criminalizes activities that were not crimes previously.
Bill C-36 was one specific example. However, we are seeing the same behavioural pattern here. As was the case with Bill C-36, the government is using children to get the public on board. Of course, the NDP has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to crimes against children. That is a no-brainer, and I think that any Canadian in their right mind would condemn crimes against children. That is a no-brainer. Everyone agrees, and no one opposes virtue. However, the Conservatives always use sensitive issues and bring children into the mix so that their bills will pass. After a more detailed study in committee, the hon. member for Gatineau will tell us whether these provisions are constitutional or not. I leave that to the experts. What I have seen, as someone who is not an expert, is that the Conservative government always wants to criminalize and increase prison sentences instead of focusing on prevention and rehabilitation. Above all, it does not want to assume the related costs.
I will end there and leave it to the experts. It is important that Canadians realize that the government cannot always use children as the justification for getting bills passed. These bills are smoke and mirrors, not a real amendment to the Criminal Code that has been deemed necessary by experts and people who work on these issues.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments when debate on this bill resumes.

Statements By Members
Suicide PreventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, on Survivors of Suicide Loss Day, I am honoured to rise to pay tribute to a friend, an advocate, and a hero: Tana Nash. Tana was honoured this week with the president's award from the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, Canada's national collaborative to prevent suicide. Tana is executive director of the Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council and has worked for years to save the lives of vulnerable people in our community. 
While many credit me with introducing the federal framework for suicide prevention, I have always credited our mental health community for providing the template and the motivation. Tana was at the forefront of that. When she shared with me that three local students, in the space of just one week, had died by suicide in unrelated incidents, that was the tipping point for me.
Tana is one of Waterloo region's gems, and I know I speak for the whole community when I say how proud we all are of her and how grateful we are for her efforts. Tana, God bless.
Regional Economic DevelopmentMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the CEO of Cliffs Natural Resources, which owns the rights to most of the Ring of Fire mining project in northern Ontario, said that he had “zero hope” and that the project was “beyond the point of no return”.
The people of northern Ontario are fed up with having to listen to the Conservative Minister of Natural Resources make endless excuses about why he cannot get this $50-billion mining project, located in his own riding, off the ground. Likewise, they are tired of hearing the Ontario Liberals return the favour. It is like listening to the Keystone Kops; he said, she said.
The people of northern Ontario are good and honest people, and they know when they are being sold a false bill of goods. They are tired, and they want action on the Ring of Fire, not excuses. They know that our NDP leader is a man of action. Just a few weeks ago, he appointed Howard Hampton to be his special advisor on the Ring of Fire. 
In the end, Conservatives and Liberals fiddle while the Ring of Fire burns. The good people of northern Ontario know they can count on Canada's NDP to get the job done.
Municipal ElectionsMr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a little over one week ago, local government elections were held across the great province of British Columbia. In my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, of the six mayors I meet with frequently, only one is returning. The other five are new to the job. We also have a large number of new councillors, many who are younger than their predecessors.
I would like to take a moment to thank the many mayors and councillors who did not stand for re-election. Local government service in small communities is demanding and important and often thankless. I am certain that all members of this place will join me in thanking our former outgoing local government elected officials and in wishing all the best to those recently elected. We will work together and help build a stronger Canada.
Hockey Hall of FameMr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on frozen ponds and backyard rinks, thousands of young Canadians across the country grow up dreaming of their name on the back of an NHL jersey, etched on the side of the Stanley Cup, or resting with the legends who came before them in the Hockey Hall of Fame.
Guelph's Bill McCreary is no exception. Growing up, he played junior hockey, but his path to the NHL took a different route. He was approached to become an official. After spending some time in the Ontario Hockey Association, the Central Hockey League, and the American Hockey League, Bill was signed to an NHL contract and worked his first game 30 years ago on November 3, 1984.
Over the course of a distinguished career, Bill would go on to officiate at 1,737 regular season and 297 playoff games and at the Winter Olympics, international tournaments, and an all-star game, always with his signature puck flip at the faceoff.
This weekend, Bill becomes the 16th NHL official named to the Hockey Hall of Fame, and the second from Guelph, and we congratulate him on an exemplary career.
Oshawa Santa Claus ParadeMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the Christmas season is almost upon us, my home riding of Oshawa is having its annual Santa's Parade of Lights tomorrow evening.
The parade is a great opportunity for families and children of all ages to come and see old Saint Nick and all his little helpers as they leave the Oshawa Centre and travel down King and Bond Streets spreading Christmas cheer to all children throughout Oshawa.
Now I know that there are some people who say that it is too early to talk about Christmas, but I disagree. It is never too early to embrace the love and cheer the Christmas season provides. It is never too early to embrace peace, love, charity, and good will toward men. It is never too early to spend time with friends and loved ones and share in the joy of the season.
I encourage everyone in Oshawa to come down and take part in Santa's Parade of Lights tomorrow evening, which starts at 6 p.m. Even the Grinch is invited.
I would like to wish everyone in Oshawa, all my colleagues in the House, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast a merry Christmas. Ho, ho, ho!
UkraineLinda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has marked today, the first anniversary of the commencement of the historic gatherings of Ukrainians in the Euromaidan, as Freedom and Dignity Day. It began with protesting university students and evolved into an outpouring of Ukrainians of all ages and from all walks of life, following savage beatings and later shooting of peaceful protestors. 
Tens of thousands flooded the public square calling for an end to corruption and abuse of power. Many attributed this monumental event as a protest of the government's refusal to sign an association agreement with the EU, yet the major impetus for taking to the streets was far more profound. It was a revolution of dignity.
 Frustrated by decades of corruption and injustice, they took a public stand for a better future. The more violent the response, the larger the demonstrations grew. These were followed by elections of a new president and a new parliament, and the end of the Soviet presence.
 Many now proudly flourish Ukrainian symbols in a more public way. Many young Ukrainians have been inspired to play a more active role in government. 
At this critical juncture, it is important Canadians support their efforts to forge a strong democracy. 
 Slava Ukraini. 
Canadian Race Relations FoundationMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Canadian Race Relations Foundation for hosting a successful symposium in Ottawa this week titled “Our Canada: Building on Citizenship, Building for Citizenship”. 
This year, the CRRF tackled some important issues facing our country. Over three days, an impressive group of presenters from across the country spoke to over 200 delegates about challenges like integration, extremism, imported conflicts and barbaric cultural practices in an open and honest way. 
The foundation also presented its report on Canadian values to help us understand how Canadians across the country perceived issues related to multiculturalism and Canadian identity. 
I congratulate the CRRF board and staff on contributing to an important dialogue that not only celebrates the successes of multiculturalism in our country, but also looks practically at how we must work to preserve our peaceful pluralism into the future. 
Heart and Stroke FoundationMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the work of the Heart and Stroke Foundation in tackling the growing burden of heart disease and stroke on Canadians and our families.
 Currently, 1.6 million Canadians are living with heart disease or the effects of stroke. Every seven minutes in Canada someone dies from heart disease or stroke. These issues are the biggest drivers of prescription drug use, and they cost the Canadian economy more than $20.9 billion every year.
 An aging population, combined with poor diets, physical inactivity, high obesity and diabetes rates will stall, if not reverse, the progress we have made against heart disease and stroke. 
It is with the intention to curb this phenomenon that I started our national health and fitness day initiative, one that has received strong support, from the foundation. In fact, it is with thanks to the efforts of people like CEO Bobbe Wood, Chris Gray, Zaylin Lalji, Ev Glasser, Kate Chidester, Jackie Zalnasky, Lisa Baldwin and others that a growing number of cities have joined the movement to proclaim the day.
Please join me in thanking the Heart and Stroke Foundation as we work together to improve the health of Canadians, leading to fuller, longer lives.
HockeyMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, like many northern Ontarians, I have been a Montreal Canadiens fan my whole life. Watching our “Glorieux” on French TV is part of our religion.
We had Richard, Béliveau and Geoffrion, and now we have Price, Subban and Desharnais. Just imagine how mad people got this fall when they found out that the new contract prohibited television coverage on RDS and that the National Hockey League declared that northern Ontario was part of the Toronto market. That is misconduct, Mr. Bettman. Getting a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey on Christmas morning—what a dumb idea.
Lots of people called and emailed me about this, so I called the National Hockey League, RDS, the CRTC, Eastlink and other cable networks. I am very proud to say that we now have an agreement with Rogers, Bell, Eastlink and the National Hockey League. Regional French broadcasting of Habs games is back. The people of Sturgeon Falls and the rest of Ontario are very grateful.
Montreal Canadiens fans are passionate. We shoot, we score.
TaxationMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has cut taxes not once, not twice, but 180 times.
We are now in a position to deliver even more tax relief to Canadian families. Thanks to our tax cuts for families, every Canadian family with a child or children will be better off.
We have increased and expanded the universal child care benefit, now worth nearly $2,000 a year for each child under the age of six, and $720 a year for each child aged six to 17. 
The Liberal leader is proposing a high-tax, high-debt program, whether by imposing a job-killing carbon tax or by clawing back the tax breaks put in place by our Conservative government to help Canadian families.
Canadians can trust our Conservative government to lower their taxes and help them keep their hard-earned money in their pockets.
Jean-Michel PépinMr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Montreal's south shore region received a number of honours during the annual Baseball Québec conference last weekend.
Among the recipients was Jean-Michel Pépin, a resident of Delson, who won the Louis-Phillippe Grenier award for volunteer of the year on the south shore.
Mr. Pépin has been the president of the Saint Constant/Delson little league baseball association since 2009. He breathed new life into this organization, which saw its roster quadruple from 92 five years ago to 362 players today. That is quite the feat.
Mr. Pépin also deserves recognition for encouraging more girls to play baseball. This summer, for the first time in Quebec, an all-girl provincial tournament was held in Saint Constant. It goes without saying that this tournament was a great success.
Congratulations, Mr. Pépin. Long live the Saint Constant/Delson little league baseball association.
TaxationMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, now that the “Cars and TVs” campaign is in full swing, we are seeing what we can expect from Liberals in the coming year.
 The Liberal candidate from Banff—Airdrie even said that we should not give money to Canadians because they might spend it on TVs or cars. What is more, the Liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre endorsed prioritizing money in hands of Ottawa bureaucrats, not Canadian families with children.
Only our Conservative government knows that parents, whether they work inside or outside of the home, can be trusted to make the right choices for their families. Thanks to the family tax cut and the enhanced universal child care benefit, 100% of families with children will have more money in their pockets and the freedom to spend it the way they want. We are proud that over four million families will benefit from this measure.
Children's RightsMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was National Children's Day and the 25th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
It also marked the anniversary of the motion of the House of Commons to eliminate child poverty by 2000. Fourteen years later, conditions remain unacceptable for Canada's children.
On poverty, Canada ranks 24th of 35 industrialized countries, with one in every seven Canadian children still struggling to have his or her basic needs met; 36% of food bank users are children; and 40% of all indigenous children live in poverty.
We all share the desire for the well-being of our children, the most universally cherished aspiration of humankind. Every child has the right to survive, develop, be protected from all forms of violence and be protected from adverse economic conditions.
How will the government champion children's rights domestically and internationally, and keep the promise made to our children 25 years ago?
UkraineMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one year ago on this day, Ukrainians took to the streets to speak out against Yanukovych's decision to reverse Ukraine's path toward European integration. Thousands of Ukrainians gathered in Maidan to express their desire for a free and democrat Ukraine. This demonstration became known as the “Maidan protest”. We witnessed the bravery of the Ukrainian people as they stood up against the oppressive Yanukovych regime.
 Our government continues to stand with those Ukrainians who believe in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We have provided funds and technical provisions to help Ukraine with economic reforms and to promote democratic, judicial and social development. Moreover, we have contributed over 300 election observers to monitor the recent parliamentary elections.
Our government will continue to support the people of Ukraine in their aspirations for a free and democratic Ukraine.
Liberal Party of CanadaRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, what is nice about our Liberal friends is that they are unpredictable. We never know what to expect from them.
Their leader said that all his candidates have to be pro-choice, but now they do not. He is accepting everyone. The Liberals initially said they supported reforming the Board of Internal Economy and then rejected this proposal in committee. They are against a combat mission in Iraq, but they support it as well.
The Liberal leader is preparing to meet with his Quebec youth wing in Montreal and will have to explain the latest Liberal notion: supporting the Conservatives and imposing a toll on the new Champlain Bridge. Even though the member for Papineau said he was opposed to the toll, we know very well what that means: it does not mean anything.
When Montrealers go to the polls next time, the choice will be clear: a toll on the new Champlain Bridge with the Conservatives; perhaps a toll, or perhaps not, with the Liberals; or no toll on the new Champlain Bridge with the NDP.
UkraineMr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the website for the member for Halifax is promoting an event which describes NATO's Ukrainian assurance measures as “schemes to use Ukraine as a battering ram and platform on which to foster major aggression against Russia”. I am shocked that a member of the House would promote such an event. It is clear that the NDP is not a mature party and is not suited to lead a G7 country.
It is absolutely shameful that the NDP would give voice to those who accuse NATO of aggression against Russia, after Vladimir Putin annexed sovereign Ukrainian territory.
 Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada is standing up to Putin. As the PM stated, “whether it takes five months or fifty years, we’re not going to drop the subject until Ukrainian territory is returned to Ukrainians”. 
The member for Halifax and the NDP need to explain why this event is being publicized on her website.

Oral Questions
VeteransMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a number of veterans' groups, including the Royal Canadian Legion, want to know why the Conservatives have withdrawn so much funding earmarked for veterans.
More than $1 billion was taken away from veterans and put into the treasury. That is disgusting. That money was promised to veterans.
Do the Conservatives have an explanation for our former soldiers who are still waiting for the services they need?
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the assertion made in that question is absolutely false. All governments always ensure that statutory funding is fully funded to ensure that there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice. 
Veterans Affairs' expenditures have increased from $2.7 billion when the Liberals were in government to $3.5 billion last year.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives suggested that lapsed funding would simply be carried forward. I have a page from this year's public accounts right here, and of the $167 million that was lapsed last year, zero, zilch, not a penny of that money, can be carried forward. The Conservatives misled veterans. How despicable!
The Royal Canadian Legion and Canada's veterans deserve honest answers. Will Conservatives explain why they slashed services and closed offices, and why they pulled away over $1 billion from our nation's veterans?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the assertion made in that question is absolutely false. All governments always ensure that statutory funding is fully funded to ensure that there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice.
As was approved in the last year of the Liberal government, Veterans Affairs lapsed $111 million, which is $111 million in one year from a much smaller budget. 
It is a simple fact that Veterans Affairs' expenditures have increased under our government. 
Peter Julian: Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. 
The fact is, the Conservatives are slashing services for veterans. The fact is, there are fewer mental health professionals helping Canadian Forces members and veterans. The fact is, Conservatives shut down eight regional offices: “Find some help online”, they say to our nation's vets. The fact is, they denied disability benefits to half of our country's disabled veterans. However, they did increase one thing: $11 million on media monitoring for Conservatives while our veterans live in poverty.
When will the Conservatives apologize to those who have served our country, and when will they restore the services they have cut to our nation's veterans?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong record when it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans. 
Our government has spent over $30 billion since taking office in 2006. That is $5 billion more in additional new dollars. We will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans.
International DevelopmentMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives boast about their spending, the fact is that they are hiding the truth. Almost one-sixth of their foreign aid has been returned to the Department of Finance untouched. Will they now admit to Canadians that their so-called “surplus” has been done on the backs of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. There was no cut at all. 
As the member knows, there were unprecedented disasters last year. International Development moved money from the budget for low-income countries to the budget for fragile countries in crisis-affected communities, in order to assist those most in need. We can think about the Philippines, Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic.
 We spent additional money for these countries in the amount of $175 million, as well as the $188 million from our partner organizations, to assist people in need in those crisis areas. This resulted in extra spending of $240 million for people most in need. We call that “effectiveness and pragmatism”. 
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance went to boast about balancing his budget to the financial elite in Toronto. 
What he did not say is that the budget would be balanced on the backs of the least fortunate. This includes the unemployed, the ill and our veterans. The Conservatives even diverted $125 million earmarked for international assistance, as though there was no need in Iraq, Syria and West Africa.
Why is the government trying to save money at the expense of the least fortunate, here in Canada and abroad?
Christian Paradis:  Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. The member is presenting facts that are incomplete and untrue. As I explained, there are places in the world experiencing unprecedented disasters, such as the Philippines, Syria, South Sudan and the Central African Republic. 
We have established budgets for low-income countries, which were sent to the vulnerable affected countries. This resulted in extra spending of $240 million to help these people. We call that effectiveness and pragmatism. People want us to help others who are truly in urgent need of assistance.
Government AdvertisingMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not understand the priorities of middle-class families. They have spent $750 million on partisan ads to improve their chances of getting elected. Even Advertising Standards Canada said that these ads are misleading.
Rather than spending that money to mislead Canadians, why does the government not invest it in infrastructure, in bridges, public transportation and sewage treatment plants, which are things that are important to Canadian families?
Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have actually tripled the investment for infrastructure, and even recently made announcements regarding art infrastructure projects.
When it comes to the priorities of families, it is this government and this government alone that trusts families. We have heard what the Liberals have said previously about families having money in their pockets. We have heard what they have said even recently. We believe that when we give Canadians the money that they deserve, it is their money, and they will spend it on their priorities: their children, their families, and raising their families.
 That is a good investment. That is what we are committed to. The Liberals would take that away.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, investments in public transit reduce commute times and help families to spend more time together. They reduce gridlock, enhance productivity, and drive up business efficiency. Instead, the Conservatives are touting a $2-billion income splitting plan, all from borrowed money that excludes 85% of Canadian households. They do not hesitate to spend $750 million on self-serving advertising.
Why all of this, instead of investing in critical infrastructure that creates jobs, drives growth, and benefits all Canadians?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, we promised Canadians that we would give them the family tax cut. That income splitting will help almost two million families, half of the families in Canada. Combined with the increase and expansion of our universal child care benefit, every single family with children in Canada will benefit.
What we do know is that the Liberals would take that away, not only from families, but they said they would take income splitting away from seniors and pensioners.
Canadians know this: Liberals will take money out of their pockets. We will continue to put that money back into their pockets.
Regional Economic DevelopmentDavid McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, according to Ontario's Lieutenant Governor, the Ring of Fire is the most promising mining opportunity in Canada in a century. Here is what the Conservatives are putting at risk: 5,500 full-time jobs, $60 billion of mineral reserves, $25 billion in economic activity, and $6.7 billion in government revenues.
When will the Prime Minister meet with Ontario's Premier to help secure this enormous opportunity for Canada?
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government supports the development of the Ring of Fire, a project that can provide significant economic benefit to northern Ontario. We have been clear that the new building Canada plan provides significant infrastructure funding for this kind of legacy resource development. It is up to the Province of Ontario to request that funding be allocated to this project.
We will continue to work with first nations, other levels of government, business, and industry leaders to see this project come to fruition.
Veterans AffairsJohn Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, the government can claim that the money will be carried forward, but that simply is not the case. It is gone. The Conservatives spent it on VIP jets for European trade negotiators and tax cuts for their corporate friends.
Now the Conservatives claim that they had to make a $5.3 million cut to close veterans offices, but they had already frittered away $1.1 billion. What is the explanation, and why do veterans in Thunder Bay now have to drive for hours to get to another Veterans Affairs office?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, again, the assertion made in that question is absolutely false. All governments always ensure that statutory funding is fully funded to ensure there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice. Veterans Affairs expenditures have increased from $2.7 billion when the Liberals were in government to $3.5 billion last year.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the public accounts show that the money that was meant for veterans was diverted. Money that should have been spent on programs to help our veterans was returned to the public treasury. That is scandalous. As if that were not bad enough, the Conservatives are cutting services for veterans and reducing the staff responsible for helping them.
When will this government stop trying to save money at our veterans' expense? 
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, that is the same question, and it is the same answer. The assertion made in that question is absolutely false. All governments always ensure that statutory funding is fully funded to ensure there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice, as was proven in the last year that the Liberal government was in power, when $111 million was lapsed from a much smaller budget.
Passport CanadaRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, passports are the Conservatives' new cash cow. Canadians paid more than $460 million in passport fees last year, but we have learned that it cost the government less than $257 million to produce those passports. Canadians are basically paying a $200 million tax just to be able to travel.
When will the Conservatives stop taxing travellers?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, our government introduced a 10-year Canadian e-passport, which is more secure and gives Canadians more value for their money. Canadians purchasing the new 10-year passport will save money. They are paying $160 for the 10-year passport, compared to $174 in the previous system for two five-year passports. When revenues exceed expenditures in the passport program, they are kept in the reserve fund for years when revenues do not cover expenditures.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, this is not a new problem. In 2008, the Auditor General said that the government was charging significantly more for consular fees on passports than it was spending on these services. In six years, this has not changed. Will the minister tell Canadians how much was spent on actual consular services from the consular fees on passports last year, and where the rest was spent?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, the take-up on passports by Canadians has been very strong in recent years. However, for far too long the costs of delivering the program were greater than the fees collected. The new 10-year Canadian passport is more secure and gives Canadians more value for their money. When revenues exceed expenditures in the passport program, as I previously said, the funds are kept in reserve for years for when revenues do not cover expenditures. 
EthicsMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages is trying to get off the hook and suggesting that she did not know that her team was approaching lobbyists who do business with her department. That is a fine excuse.
The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner clearly said that the minister should have given her staff proper training.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages think it is ethical to solicit donations from organizations that get funding from her department? 
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the commissioner found that there was no wrongdoing by the minister. The minister herself referred the matter to the commissioner when she discovered that there could be something that was inappropriate. However, as I said, the commissioner has found no wrongdoing by the minister.
Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was obvious to the ethics commissioner, as it was to everyone else, that this fundraiser was totally inappropriate. The minister is claiming ignorance, saying that she did not know what her fundraisers were doing. Why is it that in scandal after scandal, the Conservatives refuse to take these problems seriously, and do not even bother to explain the rules to their fundraisers, until they get caught, that is? When will the minister take personal responsibility and apologize?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it was the minister herself who referred this matter to the ethics commissioner, and the ethics commissioner has indicated that there was no wrongdoing on the minister's part. 
That is unlike the NDP, which has been found guilty of using funds of this House for partisan political purposes and supporting offices in places where it has no members of Parliament. In addition, the NDP was found guilty of using some $300,000 of union donations for partisan political purposes, which is against the law.
When it comes to ethics, it is this side of the House that takes it very seriously. As I said, the minister herself referred this matter, and the commissioner has found that the minister acted appropriately.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I guess I will take that as a no. The minister will not be taking any responsibility for this.
Do the Conservatives really have no problem with the minister's riding association approaching the very people who rely on her department for funding and hitting them up for cash in return for a chance to talk to her? 
Clearly it is time for the rules to change. When will the President of the Treasury Board bring forward legislation to fix this egregious loophole?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP, this minister did the right thing. The minister herself actually referred this matter to the commissioner. The commissioner investigated and found that the minister did not in fact contravene the act, unlike the NDP, which has been found guilty of using House of Commons resources for partisan purposes to fund partisan political offices in parts of the country where it has no members of Parliament. It has been found guilty of using some $300,000 worth of union money for partisan political purposes, in contravention of the Accountability Act.
 We will certainly take no lessons from New Democrats on—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
JusticeMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, most Canadians know that Louis Riel was a hero, not a traitor. Now even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acknowledges that his trial was a sham and a travesty and did not meet any of the standards of fairness, either then or now. 
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and her government agree with a growing number of Canadians that Parliament should reverse the conviction of Louis Riel so that our history books can accurately reflect that he was never guilty of treason and that his execution was a historic miscarriage of justice?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, we know that this member has, on a regular basis, brought this to the attention of all those in his riding and all those in the country, so we will let him have his day. He has done it again this morning, and certainly I am sure they will appreciate it.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the government's reluctance to deal with this issue. The Prime Minister stood right there and apologized to the survivors of residential schools because it was the right thing to do. Louis Riel was wrongfully tried, wrongfully convicted, and wrongfully executed in a case of both justice and mercy denied. What possible rationale could the government have to fail to refuse to consider the simple, symbolic gesture to remedy this long-standing historic injustice?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, it was this Prime Minister and this government that actually moved on the residential school issue after decades of neglect and decades of not wanting to take action. It was this government that made that apology, and the member is right that it was made on the floor of the House of Commons here.
Any time that member would like to support the justice system that we are working on implementing over the last nine years and for the next number of years, he is welcome to get on side with it. We would love to have his support.
Veterans AffairsFrank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, since 2006 the current government government has deprived veterans of $1.13 billion, all in the name of concocting a surplus and spending $750 million in self-promoting ads. Conservatives claim that veterans got what they deserve and are entitled to nothing more. However, the Conservatives did not ask the veterans they are forcing to drive hours from Brandon because of veterans offices closures or who are fighting for proper compensation or mental health support. They could have helped.
Veterans did Canada an incredible service. Why do Conservatives just pretend to support them? Why are Conservatives making our veterans beg?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, we have a strong record when it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans. The member opposite knows full well that since taking office, we have spent over $30 billion. That is over $5 billion in new, additional dollars. I would like to remind the member, if he cares about Canada's veterans, to please get on board with our government and our initiatives and help Canada's veterans.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, our veterans had every reason to be furious when the government announced that it was closing nine service centres in order to save a few million dollars.
 Now we have learned that Veterans Affairs has returned over $1 billion in unspent funding to the public treasury since 2006. What is the government doing with that money? It is spending $743 million on ads to get re-elected.
If the government really wants to save money, why not make cuts to propaganda instead of veterans' service centres?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, the assertion made in that question is absolutely false.
All governments always ensure statutory funding is fully funded to ensure there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice, as was proven in the last year the Liberal government was in power, when veterans affairs lapsed $111 million. That was $111 million of a much smaller budget for veterans affairs.
The BudgetHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Kevin Page, a former senior Department of Finance official, said that he “disagree[s] vehemently with the Minister of Finance statement that Finance does not examine every new expenditure.” 
He went on to say, “They have to. It would be fiscally irresponsible not to.”
Can the government explain why it killed Canada's long-standing policy to examine every new government expenditure?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since the depths of the global recession, over $1.2 million net new jobs have been created in Canada. We have one of the best job-creation records in the G7. Small businesses have been clear that payroll taxes are the number one killer of jobs. Our plan lowers premiums for small businesses so that they can invest in priorities and create jobs.
At the same time, Canadians know that the Liberals would hurt jobs by increasing taxes with their high-tax-and-spend schemes.
Science and TechnologyMs. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a new OECD report paints a pathetic picture of Canada's standing in research and development. 
We can really have a meaningful impact in the field of innovation, but Ottawa's commitments are disjointed and its investments are non-existent. We are falling behind in scientific and technological development. 
Will the government invest to make Canada a model of innovative and creative entrepreneurship?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here is what the experts in Canada have to say about our investments in research.
 David Barnard, chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, said that budget 2014: 
 ...recognizes that a vibrant, innovative and competitive Canadian economy needs a world-class research system. 
Paul Davidson, president of AUCC, said that with the investments in budget 2014:
 ...Canada is signalling to the leading research nations of the world that it intends to compete with the best.... 

Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think the OECD is not a credible source.
Let us be clear. The government's most recent science and technology strategy is from way back in 2007. A year ago, the government promised to update that strategy, but it has not come up with anything yet.
The government constantly tells us that its priorities are job creation and economic development, but if it does not walk the walk, then its message is meaningless.
When will the government stop making cuts to science and technology?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, the assertions the member makes are absolutely not true.
Our government launched the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, a legacy investment, to ensure Canada's post-secondary institutions remain world leaders in the next decade. We provided the largest increase to the granting councils in a decade. 
Again, more testament to that is that Stephen Toope, then president of UBC, said: 
 I applaud the federal government's decision to spur greater Canadian leadership in global research and innovation. 
Amit Chakma, chair of the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities, thanked the Government of Canada: 
 ...on its 2014 budget and the significant investment of $1.5 billion.... 

PrivacyMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner gave the government a serious warning yesterday: its cyberbullying bill's surveillance measures clash with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Spencer. The court was clear that simple data can be used to develop very detailed profiles and deserves privacy protection.
Does the minister realize that in failing to listen to the Supreme Court's decision, he risks passing a bill that will likely be struck down by the courts?
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's decision in Spencer clearly stated that the Criminal Code provisions dealing with voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant, and our government has continuously said those provisions regarding voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. 
We will respect the Supreme Court's decision.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, you have to love their creative reading.
Like us, the Privacy Commissioner is concerned that the Conservative government is using the fight against cybercrime as an excuse to increase police powers unduly and to infringe on Canadians' privacy rights.
 Why is the Minister of Justice refusing to subject police officers' new powers to judicial review? 
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, this government will not apologize for wanting to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: children. We kept our commitment to ensure that children are better protected from bullying, including cyberbullying, by introducing legislation to combat online crime.
Bill C-13 did not create new police powers to access telecommunications data without a judicial warrant. Judicial oversight prevails and we are protecting our children.
National DefenceMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the website of the member for Halifax is promoting an event that describes NATO's Ukrainian assurance measures as “...schemes to use Ukraine as a battering ram and platform on which to foster major aggression against Russia.”
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence please provide the House with an update on what the government is doing to stand up to Vladimir Putin and for Ukrainian sovereignty?
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me say first that everyone on this side of the House is disgusted that the NDP would give voice to those who accuse NATO of aggression against Russia after Vladimir Putin has invaded sovereign Ukrainian territory. In allowing this to appear under her name, it is clear that the member for Halifax and the NDP are not serious about standing up for the rights of Ukrainians.
Our party and this Prime Minister will remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine until the day its territory is returned, whether it takes five months or 50 years. Our government will always condemn Russian aggression against Ukraine. As our Prime Minister said to Putin, “You need to get out of Ukraine.” 
Natural ResourcesClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, northern Ontarians are looking for leadership to rescue the Ring of Fire, but all the Conservative minister does is point fingers and say it is someone else's problem. 
Thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investments for my region are on the line, and still the Conservatives fail to act. The CEO of Cliffs Natural Resources called the Ring of Fire “beyond the point of no return.”
Does the minister agree? Has he given up, or will he invest in northern Ontario to secure our economic growth?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to responsible resource development. Cliffs has made a private business decision, and our thoughts are with those who are affected by this closure. Our government remains committed to building on our successful job creation record and building the conditions for companies to succeed in Canada. 
According to KPMG, Canada boasts the lowest overall tax rate on business in the G7. This has given us a distinct competitive advantage in the extractive sectors, and we will continue to build on this action.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Cliffs Natural Resources is no longer able to do business with this Conservative government. Every investment it has made here was a disaster. The Conservatives mismanaged the situation so badly that the company is now saying that it wants to walk away.
People are losing their jobs in Quebec and job opportunities are disappearing in Ontario.
Where is this government's strategy to secure and support investments and jobs?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we welcome the Ontario government to support the Ring of Fire. What it needs to do is to be clear that this is a priority for it. 
We will continue to work with first nations, other levels of government, business and industry leaders to see that this project comes to fruition.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of payment protection for produce sellers, in October, agribusinesses in Canada lost their privileged access to the United States.
Will the government stop hurting fruit and vegetable farmers and harmonize its policies to better protect fresh produce companies when their clients go bankrupt?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of how vulnerable the fresh produce industry is and how much it contributes to the economy.
That is why we introduced clear legislation to provide a single dispute resolution body that would help reduce issues of non-payment faced by the fresh produce industry.
We are also consulting widely on Canada's bankruptcy and insolvency laws, and Parliament will be involved in that consultation.
Our government is committed to supporting Canadian producers and exporters. We are going to continue to look at this issue.
Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the fresh produce industry is extremely vulnerable to non-payment issues because of the perishable nature of the goods. When a client goes bankrupt, it is impossible for producers to take back their goods, which results in losses. That is why they need better payment protection. The Fresh Produce Alliance is therefore calling for a trust mechanism comparable to what exists in the United States.
Will the government finally grant the alliance's request and help our produce growers?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I just explained, the government is very aware of the contributions of the horticulture and fresh produce sector to Canada and to Canadians' economy. We are also well aware of the high-quality products they export to the United States.
My colleagues and I, particularly those on the agriculture committee, just met with producers and representatives from the horticulture industry this week. We offered a number of different solutions within the discussions. 
We have done a number of things. One of the things we did was to introduce clear legislation, which the opposition voted against, that would put in place a single dispute resolution body to help with payment-type problems.
JusticeHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in less than two weeks Justice Louis Labelle will retire from the Supreme Court, yet Canadians remain in the dark about what, if any, process has been undertaken to replace him. As was the case with the last appointment, it appears that there will be no published protocol consultation, no selection panel, no parliamentary review, no public engagement, no transparency, and no accountability. 
Will the minister tell us what, if any, process has been initiated to fill the upcoming vacancy?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, our judicial appointments are based on one criterion and one criterion only: whether an individual is qualified for the job, determined by merit and legal excellence. 
When making all appointments, our government conducts broad-based consultations with prominent members of the bar and the legal community. These appointments have always been made by the executive and they will continue to be so.
InfrastructureHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the cultural infrastructure deficit stands at no less than $40 billion, putting this infrastructure category in the worst position by far. Instead of wasting half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money on a so-called tax credit that will create only 800 jobs, $740 million on self-serving propaganda and over $2 billion on tax cuts for the wealthy, why is the government not investing that money in our theatres, our cultural institutions and our community and recreation centres, which are in a pitiful state? 
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. Since we formed government we have tripled our investments in infrastructure. The new building Canada plan is the largest and the longest infrastructure investment in Canada's history. 
I have not even mentioned the gas tax fund, which delivers $2 billion directly to municipalities every year, and this includes arts and culture.
CBC/Radio-CanadaMr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every day I meet with people who want to talk about the cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada. People care about their local newscasts and local programming. CBC/Radio-Canada does an excellent job keeping an eye on what is happening around us and making it relevant to our everyday lives. Local content is what makes CBC/Radio-Canada our broadcaster.
Why is the minister cutting our public broadcaster's budget?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the member may be right about the uniqueness of the CBC. He is certainly completely offside and wrong about the funding for the CBC.
As Hubert Lacroix said, there are “challenges of a rapidly changing media environment to which no conventional broadcaster is immune”. The CBC's viewership has declined, despite getting more than $1 billion in direct subsidies from the federal government and taxpayers. Changes at the CBC are the result of declining viewership in certain demographics and lower than expected advertizing revenues. That is the issue, and that is what CBC is working on.
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government does not understand anything. It is because of government cuts that CBC/Radio-Canada has been unable to fulfill its mandate.
There is a reason why, last Sunday, hundreds of people came out in Sherbrooke to support CBC/Radio-Canada and speak out against the dismantling of the crown corporation. Last Wednesday, Mr. Lacroix was in Sherbrooke and the employees of Radio-Canada Estrie refused an award that was to be given to them directly by Hubert T. Lacroix.
When will the minister stop attacking CBC/Radio-Canada and give it the resources it needs?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the opposition members say that we should not interfere and then ask us to interfere. I think before they get to the end of a question, they should determine which and what it is they want. 
Any suggestion of political interference is completely untrue. The CBC is solely responsible for its day-to-day operations, including decisions with respect to programming, with respect to human resource management, and with respect to the actual work it does on a daily basis on behalf of the country.
TaxationMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal candidates across the country are coming out and saying that tax cuts are a bad idea because Canadians will spend the money on the wrong things, and even that bureaucrats deserve more money, not Canadian families.
Would the Minister of State for Social Development update the House on what meaningful tax cuts this government is providing for Canadian families?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, we are on track to balance the budget. We are also fulfilling our commitment to Canadian families. We have expanded and increased the universal child care benefit. That means that the $100-a-month cheque for every child under six years old is expanded to $160, and we are also giving it to families with children over six-years old.
We know what the Liberals think. They think that if we give families money, they will waste it. The Liberals and the NDP do not trust Canadian families. Canadian families should not trust the NDP or the Liberals.
International DevelopmentHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Conservative government announced it would freeze foreign aid for five years to balance its budget. Then in 2012, further spending cuts were announced, padding its surplus. We have now learned that the government has also deliberately underspent Canada's aid budget for poor countries by $125.9 million. Development assistance for people who need it the most is being slashed. These countries overseas have some of the highest infant mortality rates. They need our help.
Why are the Conservatives allowing this to happen to these poor people in the world who need our help?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, we spent in total $240 million more than was planned because of unprecedented crises in in Philippines, Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, which all happened at the same time. In these kinds of cases, instead of looking at one planned expenditure in a column of the budget like the opposition does, we just go on a pragmatic and effective basis to help the people most in need.
Under this government, Canada now finally pays what it pledges and fulfills all of its international commitments.
YouthMr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at a time when youth unemployment is high and skilled trades are in demand, apprenticeships provide an important opportunity for young workers to get a good job. The hammerheads program connects underprivileged youth with training and jobs.
In Budget 2013, the Conservatives promised to support the use of apprentices in infrastructure projects receiving federal funding, but eight months later, young Canadians are still waiting.
When can we expect the minister to finally deliver on Jim Flaherty's promise to connect infrastructure spending to training more young Canadians?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, every single measure that we have introduced to encourage and help young people with apprenticeships, the NDP has voted against.
Here is what we have done when it comes to apprenticeships: the Canada summer jobs, our youth employment strategy; the apprenticeship completion grant: the apprenticeship incentive grant; the textbook tax credit; expanded RESPs; and Helmets to Hardhats. That is a huge list of what we have done to help connect young people with available jobs. We agree that it is in skills, it is in trades. In the trades, we have introduced the Canada job grant.
Every one of our initiatives that we introduced, the NDP votes against and criticizes. It is unbelievable getting a question like that from the NDP.
The EnvironmentMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has always said that climate change is a global issue that requires a global response. 
The green climate fund should become one of the primary sources of multilateral financial support to help the world adapt to climate change.
Would the Minister of the Environment please update the House on the action we are taking to protect the environment?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Orléans. I know of his practical commitment to the environment where he has planted 52,000 trees. 
The green climate fund is expected to encourage significant private sector investments to address climate change. This fund is transparent, accountable, and results based. Yesterday, I was pleased to announce that Canada will be contributing $300 million to the green climate fund. Canada's contribution shows our continued leadership toward establishing a new international climate agreement in Paris in 2015, which will include binding obligations from all emitters. 
We are proud of the concrete actions we have taken on climate change, and we have done all of this without imposing a carbon—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Montcalm. 
Canada PostMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the drop in gas prices and the resulting devaluation of the Canadian dollar clearly show that the health of Canada's economy is closely linked to natural resource development and that Canada is unfortunately caught in a trap of circular logic and would do well to diversify its sources of revenue.
That being said, how can the government ignore the proposals that would allow Canada Post to have better revenues and thereby contribute to our collective assets?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, Canada Post is experiencing a major transformation in its business case, not unlike postal agencies all around the world. People are changing their modes of communication and as a result Canada Post delivered 1.2 billion fewer letters in 2013 than it did in only 2006. The result of this is a financial crisis at Canada Post, one that it is addressing with a five-point plan. I encourage the member to support Canada Post's efforts. 
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, we know that private companies are trying to put themselves in a favourable position to take over Canada Post's home delivery service, suggesting that this service, which the public appreciates, can be profitable.
In their efforts to radically transform the government and its public services, the Conservatives will soon be leaving the people of Terrebonne and Mascouche without home mail delivery service.
How is the Conservatives' market transformation of crown corporations going to benefit the general public?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that Canada Post is an independent, arm's-length crown corporation with a responsibility to operate in a fiscally sustainable way. It has a five-point plan, taking measures to return the corporation to a sound business case, getting its revenues back in line.
While she is fighting for door-to-door delivery for one-third of Canadians, it is fighting to preserve daily mail for all Canadians. 
The EconomyManon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, in addition to not adequately diversifying our sources of revenue, the government is downloading its financial responsibilities to the provinces. Passing Bill C-10 increased the inmate population in provincial prisons by 11%.
The legacy this Prime Minister's government is leaving us is disastrous: slashed public services, devastated environment, abandoned workers—the list is long. 
Do the members of this tired government intend to right the ship before it is too late?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, federal support for the provinces has reached historic levels of nearly $65 billion, and will continue to grow every year. Federal support for health, education, and social services has increased by over 56% since we formed government. We have also made changes to ensure that transfers grow in line with the economy, allowing the program to remain affordable and sustainable. 
On top of this, I am happy to say that we are on track to balance the budget and to have a surplus next year.

Routine Proceedings
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMs. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2013 annual report on the RCMP's Use of the Law Enforcement Justification Provisions.
Government Response to PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions
Republic of MoldovaHarold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That this House reiterates Canada's continued support for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world; reaffirms Canada's support for the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova and the inviolability of its borders; encourages the efforts of the Republic of Moldova to further their advancement of democratic reforms; affirms the Republic of Moldova's sovereign right to determine its own partnerships free of external coercion and pressure; notes the Republic of Moldova's signature of an Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free trade area with the European Union on June 27, 2014, and the ratification of the agreement on July 2, 2014; and welcomes the Republic of Moldova's choice to pursue the path of European integration. 

The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. member:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first is a petition from a number of constituents in and around the Kitchener area who are concerned about our foreign aid assistance, protecting small family farmers, and the exchange, preservation and use of seeds by small family farmers.
The petitioners want our aid policies to be consistent with those concerns and to be developed in consultation with small family farmers.
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is yet another petition from many people across Canada who call on Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
The petitioners note that 92% of Canadians believe that it should be illegal, and that there are over 200 million girls missing worldwide.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions.
The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to launch an independent national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, because of the more than 1,200 cases, and the need for a deeper understanding of the magnitude and the systemic causes of this grievous condition.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the other three petitions relate to Canada's approach to Gaza.
 The first petition, from Albertans, calls on the Government of Canada to reinstate the development aid to Palestinians by once again contributing to UNRWA. 
The second petition calls on the Government of Canada to publicly revoke its one-sided, unequivocal support for Israel and to condemn the killings of civilians on both sides of the 2014 war.
The third and final petition, from Albertans, calls on the Government of Canada to speak out to end Israel's blockade of Gaza.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, violence against women is an abomination, yet in communities across Canada, women and girls of all ages face violence every day. Violence drives over 100,000 women and children out of their homes and into shelters each year.
The petitioners call upon the government to work in partnership with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a national strategy and action plan to end violence against women, and to hold a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, petitioners from Saskatchewan and Alberta note that prostitutes are forced into the sex trade and trafficked, and that we have this void in Canadian law now because the sex trade is not addressed in the Criminal Code. 
The petitioners request the House to legislate that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament here assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. They point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined, yet asbestos is not banned in Canada.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to ban asbestos in all of its forms; end all government subsidies to the asbestos industry both in Canada and abroad; and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention. 
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many residents of Ontario.
The petitioners call upon members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today with respect to local food, which is signed by constituents in and around my riding of Beaches—East York.
The petitioners point out that buying local food cuts down on transportation and greenhouse gas emissions, that buying local foods gives Canadians access to fresh and nutritious food and that federal departments and agencies should lead by example and support Canadian farmers by buying local food.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to require the Department of Public Works to develop a policy to purchase locally-grown food for all federal institutions.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by residents of Fraser Valley who believe that current impaired driving laws are too lenient and would like to see them strengthened by the implementation of minimum sentencing for those convicted of impaired driving causing death.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 742 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. 
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Hon. Irwin Cotler:  With regard to the process for filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada that will be created by the retirement of Justice Louis Lebel: (a) when did the government learn of Justice Lebel’s intention to retire on November 30, 2014; (b) how did the government learn of Justice Lebel’s intention to retire on November 30, 2014; (c) what steps has the government taken to find a replacement for Justice Lebel; (d) when were each of the steps in (c) taken; (e) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to developing a process to find Justice Lebel’s replacement; (f) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to choosing Justice Lebel’s replacement; (g) when did the consultations in (e) occur; (h) when did the consultations in (f) occur; (i) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to developing a process to find Justice Lebel’s replacement; (j) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to choosing Justice Lebel’s replacement; (k) when will the consultations in (i) occur; (l) when will the consultations in (j) occur; (m) what date has the government set by which Justice Lebel’s replacement must be nominated; (n) what date has the government set by which Justice Lebel’s replacement must be appointed; (o) by what date does the government intend to nominate Justice Lebel’s replacement; (p) by what date does the government intend to appoint Justice Lebel’s replacement; (q) when were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (r) who set the dates in (m) to (p); (s) based on what factors were the dates in (m) to (p) set; (t) if no dates have been set regarding the nomination or appointment of Justice Lebel’s replacement, why have no dates been set; (u) has the government examined the consequences, legal and otherwise, of allowing a Supreme Court seat to be vacant; (v) what are the results of the examination in (u); (w) when did the examination in (u) begin; (x) when did the examination in (u) end; (y) who carried out the examination in (u); (z) if the government has not carried out the examination in (u), why has it not done so; (aa) will the government examine the consequences, legal and otherwise, of allowing a Supreme Court seat to be vacant; (bb) if the government will not carry out the examination in (aa), why will it not do so; (cc) based on what criteria has the government evaluated candidates to replace Justice Lebel, or, if no evaluations have occurred thus far, based on what criteria will the government evaluate candidates to replace Justice Lebel; (dd) how do the criteria in (cc) differ from those used to evaluate candidates in the appointment processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon; (ee) what materials have been sought from the candidates to replace Justice Lebel; (ff) what materials will be sought from the candidates to replace Justice Lebel; (gg) how do the materials in (ee) and (ff) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of (i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon; (hh) if the materials in (ee) and (ff) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, and Gascon, (i) why were changes made, (ii) who decided to make these changes, (iii) when was that decision made; (ii) when did the “reconsideration” of the appointment process referred to in the government’s response to Q-543 begin; (jj) who made the decision to reconsider the Supreme Court appointment process; (kk) on what date was the decision in (jj) made; (ll) what has the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process entailed; (mm) who has been involved in the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (nn) what has been the role of each of the individuals in (mm) in the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (oo) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments have been consulted as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (pp) were parliamentarians consulted as part of the reconsideration process, and if so, whom; (qq) what meetings have occurred as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process, (i) on what dates, (ii) with whom present, (iii) with what goals, (iv) with what outcomes; (rr) what documents, memos, briefing notes, or other materials have been created as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (ss) what are the dates of creation and file or reference numbers of the materials in (rr); (tt) who developed the materials in (rr); (uu) to whom have the materials in (rr) been distributed; (vv) what research, reports, books, articles, or other reference materials has the government consulted as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (ww) what are the objectives of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (xx) when did the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process end, or if it is ongoing, when does the government intend to end it; (yy) if the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process is ongoing, (i) what will the remainder of the reconsideration entail, (ii) who will be involved in the remainder of the reconisderation, (iii) what will be the role of each of the individuals, agencies, organizations, and governments involved, (iv) when will parliamentarians be consulted, (v) in what way will parliamentarians be consulted; (zz) when did the government last engage in a reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; 
(aaa) in what way is the current reconsideration similar to or different from the last reconsideration; (bbb) what are the results of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (ccc) when will the results of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process be made public; (ddd) what has been the cost of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; (eee) what is the breakdown of the cost of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process thus far; (fff) if the reconsideration is ongoing, (i) what will be the total cost of the reconsideration, (ii) what is the breakdown of the cost; (ggg) what process has been or will be used to evaluate candidates and make an appointment to replace Justice Lebel; (hhh) in what way have parliamentarians been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Lebel; (iii) what goals have been served by parliamentary involvement in previous Supreme Court appointment processes; (jjj) how will the goals in (iii) be served in the process to replace Justice Lebel; (kkk) in what way have members of the legal community been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Lebel; (lll) other than parliamentarians and members of the legal community, who has been or will be involved in the process to replace Justice Lebel, and in what way; (mmm) what steps has the government taken, or what steps will the government take, to ensure that Justice Lebel’s replacement is eligible to fill one of the seats reserved for Quebec pursuant to section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; (nnn) who has carried out, or who will carry out, the legal analysis to ensure that Justice Lebel’s replacement is eligible to fill one of the seats reserved for Quebec pursuant to section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; (ooo) when was the legal analysis in (nnn) carried out; (ppp) what has been the cost of the analysis in (nnn); (qqq) what is the breakdown of the cost of the analysis in (nnn); (rrr) what has been, or what will be, the cost of the process to replace Justice Lebel; (sss) what is the breakdown of the cost in (rrr); (ttt) in what way will the process to replace Justice Lebel be (i) transparent, (ii) accountable, (iii) inclusive; and (uuu) will the process used for the appointment of Justice Lebel’s replacement be used for future appointments?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague from Saint-Jean spoke today about this bill from the Conservative government.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about my earlier comments on reintegration. I know that he cares a lot about reintegrating offenders in this country and protecting the public and our children from any potential repeat offences.
What does my colleague think about the Conservatives' cuts to public safety within our prisons? Since 2012, the government has cut millions of dollars in this area. Furthermore, more and more rehabilitation and reintegration programs are unfortunately being eliminated because the resources are no longer there to run them.
Could my colleague share his thoughts on that?
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for her question.
That is something that we have a tendency to neglect because when we talk about safety and protecting children we tend to look only at the punitive side, and that is the trap that the Conservatives are trying to have us step into.
In fact, my colleague is right. There is a financial aspect to this problem. Increasing the number of people who go to jail, as she mentioned, increases incarceration costs, not just for the federal government in the case of sentences of more than two years, but also for the provinces for sentences of less than two years. We have seen that. An MP asked a question today about the 11% increase in prison costs.
It is our duty to speak out against the cuts made by the Conservatives to federal prisons and the fact that not only are these cuts not warranted, but the federal government is also not investing the money it should in prevention and rehabilitation. These are two things that will allow us to have a safer society.
We cannot live in a society where there are more people incarcerated. We want to live in a society where everyone has their place, where those who commit a crime, however horrible, can reintegrate into society and participate in and contribute again to the economy and our society. That is the society we want to live in.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I am rising again to ask a question because I love to hear the hon. member for Saint-Jean. I know that he is very familiar with a number of files and speaks very eloquently in the House. I am pleased that he is speaking to Bill C-26 today.
I would like to mention another topic that is related to Bill C-26 and many other bills as well, unfortunately. I am talking about the fact that there are so many time allocation motions. Debate is often limited for various bills in the House. I am also thinking about committee work, which is very difficult at times, particularly, and oddly enough, when we are talking about bills that have so many important details to discuss with experts.
Can my colleague talk about his experience in committee, namely how it works, and the wish list he is hoping to take to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when this bill is studied?
[Interjection]
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Yes, time allocation motions are a problem that we have had in connection with many bills. There have been so many that I have lost track.
 In the committees that I belong to, the Conservatives have always tended not to give us enough time to study bills. That was especially true in the case of Bill C-377 at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, but it happens in other committees too. 
There is another technique the Conservatives use often: meeting in camera. Anytime they want to discuss something and use their majority, but they do not want the conversations to be public and available to Canadian citizens, they go in camera. 
My colleague is absolutely right: we have to condemn this situation because we are here to discuss serious bills that will have serious consequences for the lives of people in jail and for the public purse. That is true not only at the federal level, but also at the provincial level.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this government bill, the short title of which is the tougher penalties for child predators act, which does not make Canadians any safer but does make the penalties longer and more arduous for those who commit these crimes. 
I would say at the outset that we support this bill and will be supporting it at second reading in order to study it at committee. We need the ability at committee to determine whether the provisions in this bill would make Canadians safer. We need the ability to hear from experts in the criminal justice system, experts on sexual crimes, and experts in the medical and psychological systems to determine whether this kind of approach is an effective way to deter crime and treat criminals and to make sure that this kind of crime goes down and becomes less of a burden on Canadian society.
Since this Parliament began, we have noted that when the Conservatives become tired of something or when they determine, for some reason unto themselves, that they wish to end debate, they institute time allocation. As this bill was introduced first in February, nine months ago, we hope that time allocation will not be necessary. It is entirely within the government's control to determine when this bill will be debated. The government controls that agenda. To suggest that we have had enough time, when we have only debated it on a couple of occasions since it became a government bill, is a phoney and unbelievable approach, so we hope that will not happen.
Because this is an important measure and issue, we also hope that at committee, there will be lots of time to hear from lots of witnesses who can talk to us about what changes to this bill may be necessary. We also hope the Conservatives will listen to those witnesses at committee and to the opinions of the experts in the field about what needs to change in this bill. 
We have also noticed an alarming tendency on the part of the Conservatives to suggest that only changes they agree with are changes worth making and that any changes proposed by any member of any opposition party are absolutely not to be included in any bill. Their tendency in everything, unless there is a clerical error, is that they are right, without any kind of criticism on the part of the opposition parties.
The NDP has a zero-tolerance policy for crimes of a sexual nature against children. That goes without saying. That has been our policy and our practice. What we would rather do is prevent them. Prevention of crimes against children is obviously the most important thing we should be doing. If it can be shown that increasing penalties, which is what this bill essentially does, would somehow prevent crimes against children, that would be great. I would love for that to be the case. I would want to hear what the experts have to say, but up to this point, that has not been the case. 
Clearly, we have seen a government whose approach has been to increase penalties, to increase jail time, to introduce mandatory minimums, to introduce longer maximums, and to introduce a period of time spent in jail as a way of protecting Canadians.
 All the people who are convicted of these crimes will get out. They will all be released into society. Unless and until appropriate medical and psychological treatment is given to these individuals while in prison and beyond, we will have done nothing to make Canadian children safer by introducing mandatory minimums. 
 The facts speak for themselves. Since 2006, there have been new mandatory minimum prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code offences, including assault, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault where the child is under 16. The government has made it illegal for anyone to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence against that child; made it illegal to use computers or other means of telecommunication to agree with or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child; strengthened the sex offender registry; increased the age of protection, the age at which a young person can legally consent to sexual activity, from 14 to 16 years of age; put in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory; and strengthened the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders.
These are all acts that have been taken up by the government since it came into power in 2006. What is the effect of longer sentences and more minimum sentences and of introducing new crimes to the Criminal Code? The effect has been that the crime rate has actually gone up for these offences.
The Minister of Justice stated, on supplementary estimates, that sexual offences against children has increased 6% over the past two years. According to Statistics Canada, that is pretty much the only category of crime that has gone up in the past years. In fact, in the case of sexual violations against children, luring with a computer rose 30% in 2013. Sexual exploitation rose 11% in 2013.
I am not the expert who needs to testify at the committee on what these effects will be, but I can see with my own eyes, from the evidence the minister brought to the supplementary estimates and from the evidence that appears to be in the Statistics Canada reporting, that the Conservatives' actions to date have had a negative impact on the number of crimes of a sexual nature being reported by children.
If one bashes one's head against the wall and it hurts, does one keep doing it? Does one actually keep taking the same wrong-headed approach every time, thinking things will be different? Does one keep introducing more mandatory minimums or longer jail terms and think it will be different? That is one of the things we hope to discuss at committee. One of the things we expect the experts will tell us is that it is not necessarily so.
 What is necessary, both in prison and after, is treatment, both psychological and medical, of the individuals to properly return them to society, because they are going to be returned to society. It is not good enough to just say that we will keep watching them. That may make the Conservatives feel good. It does not make me feel good to know that individuals who need treatment are not getting it.
I am the father of seven children and the grandfather of four. The four grandchildren are young Canadians under the age of 15. I do not want them facing an increase in child exploitation. I do not want them to feel less safe in Canadian society as they get older. I want them to feel more safe. If the actions of the government do not do anything to make them more safe, then we are doing something wrong.
We have seen the government do other things that make Canadian children less safe. We want to make sure, when we study and debate this bill, both here and in committee, that we are doing things to it to correct the mistakes the Conservatives have made in the past. We want to actually make a world in which children can feel safe and are safe, not one in which the Conservatives can go to a fundraiser and say, “Look at me, I have just increased the mandatory minimums for sexual offences”, if, in fact, the rate of sexual offences goes up.
No one wants to be a victim. No one wants their children to be victims. If we cannot prevent the crimes in the first place and prevent recidivism by treating these people once we have found them, then we have not done our society a justice, and we have not done our children a justice. We will not have corrected the wrongs to our society.
I look forward to questions from my colleagues.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for York South—Weston for his reasoned and effective speech on the bill. 
Beyond the bill is the lack of resources, under the Conservative government, that actually counter criminal acts, whether it is the abuse of children or others. We have seen the government slash the National Crime Prevention Centre. It has severely cut back on crime prevention programs generally across the country. It has cut back on addiction treatment and on community resources to protect children from abuse. All of these areas where it has slashed resources have resulted, as we have seen and as the Minister of Justice has admitted, in an increase in the overall level of abuse.
The government is now providing another bill, which we will support and certainly will look at. However, beyond that, everything else that would lower the rate of abuse against children has been slashed and destroyed by a government that either does not understand or that thinks that somehow tax cuts are more important for the rich than protecting children.
 With all the cuts to crime prevention and the ending of the National Crime Prevention Centre, does the member for York South—Weston think the government has an overall approach that would contribute to doing what I hope we all share, which is lowering the rate of abuse against children?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. Sex crimes are driven not by greed or financial gain but by impulse, and those impulses need to be watched and controlled and treated. By removing the resources from our communities, from our prison system, and from our corrections system generally, those individuals who could be helped are not being helped. They are not being corrected. Just putting them in jail does not change their behaviour. Announcing to the world that the penalties will be higher is not going to change behaviour. What are needed are more resources than the government has put forward and a return of the kinds of resources that are required to prevent these crimes in the first place.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He talked about the fact that the Conservatives have acknowledged in recent years that incarcerating various types of criminals for longer periods does not reduce crime rates. I would like to know how he interprets that.
Does he believe that the Conservatives are simply thinking that if they leave criminals in prison longer, at least they can delay the day when the criminals come back and reoffend in society in the absence of any help or support, or does he think that this is purely about electioneering and they are using children because they know that people are sensitive to that subject? Is this simply a way to win votes, because they know that everyone is incensed at the thought of children being abused?
I wonder whether he could share his opinion and what he thinks of the Conservatives' strategy. Is it a question of delaying criminals' release from prison or is this an electioneering strategy that exploits people's emotions?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, the tough-on-crime agenda of the Conservative government belies the fact that it is not smart on crime. We on this side of the House want to be smart on crime. We want to prevent crime before it happens instead of merely announcing that we are going to punish people for longer.
 I, as a Canadian, would rather that there were fewer crimes against children than more, but the evidence is there in front of us, and the minister agrees, that sexual crimes against children have gone up. As Statistics Canada reports, it is one of the very few crimes in the entire ambit of crimes against Canadians that has actually gone up in the past few years. The overall rate of crime is going down generally, but somehow, we have it wrong, and I mean “we”, because we are all parliamentarians. We have not successfully managed to find a way to treat the crimes in such a way as to prevent their happening in the first place or to prevent the recidivism that goes on when these criminals are eventually released.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-26. As members know, the NDP will be supporting this bill at second reading to send it to committee. We believe that legislation can play an important role in preventing child sexual abuse, as it can help to deal with and counter crimes in a whole range of areas. However, where we disagree with the Conservatives is that this is all that it does. I will be pointing out in the 10 minutes I have that a number of other actions that the Conservative government has taken actually contribute to a rise in certain criminal rates. 
Legislation can certainly help to deal with it in part, but when the resources are no longer available, there can be a counter effect. As the justice minister has admitted to, the government, which has been in power now for almost a decade, in this case has put in place a range of things that have tragically contributed to an increase in the rate of sexual offences against children.
New Democrats will be supporting the bill going to committee. As we always do, we will be bringing forward reasoned amendments, after listening to witnesses who come before committee, to make sure that the bill is as good as it can possibly be. That is our responsibility as parliamentarians. We would all agree on that. 
This bill is important, and we hope that the government will consider amendments at the committee stage. We certainly hope that government will take a very thoughtful approach on this bill. This is an extremely important issue, one that all Canadians feel parliamentarians should be working together on to achieve and resolve, which is lowering the rates of child sexual abuse in Canada. There is no doubt about that.
To do that, the government can offer legislation, which is what it has done. New Democrats have responded by saying we will support this legislation going to committee, and now it is back to the government side to accept the amendments that will be offered. New Democrats work very hard in committee. We thoroughly examine the evidence and bring forward the best possible amendments. However, tragically, we have seen in case after case that the government has refused those amendments. It has simply said that it is not going to accept any amendments on bills. 
As a result, so far this year, we have seen that half a dozen pieces of legislation have been rejected by the courts. If the Conservative government had accepted the amendments offered by the NDP, the legislation would not have been recalled. However, because the government has an “our way or the highway” attitude on so many pieces of legislation, the courts have said that legislation does not hold water and cannot undergo the careful scrutiny that courts require.
New Democrats hope that this will not be the case on Bill C-26. Since we are supporting it going to committee, we hope that the government will say it will look at the reasoned amendments that can make a difference to improving this bill. 
However, it is not just a bill and not just legislation that will lower the rates of child sexual abuse in this country. The rise of 6% over the last couple of years is a very disturbing trend. 
What are the other decisions that the government has made that may have contributed to that rise? I mentioned earlier, in speaking with my colleague from York South—Weston, about the ending of the National Crime Prevention Centre, a centre that did good work across the country in seeking to achieve a lowering of the crime rate. That is something that has happened over the last few years, and I have risen in the House before to speak to it. It is a slashing of funding. There have been tens of millions of dollars that have been taken out of crime prevention funding. This is wrong-headed, for the simple reason that for every dollar invested in crime prevention programs—and other countries have seen this, the Scandinavian countries, and countries in Europe—we save $6 in policing costs, courts costs, and incarceration costs.
Let us look at that formula. As a society, we had $100 million in crime prevention funding slashed by the current government, and yet for every dollar that was invested in crime prevention, we saved $6 as a society in policing costs, court costs, and incarceration costs. However, even more, the greater benefit is the fact that the crime is not committed in the first place. We are not only investing our money prudently, as a society, to reduce the crime rate, but we are also avoiding having the victims in the first place. That has to be the result that all members of Parliament share. Certainly on this side of the House, the NDP has been the foremost proponent of investing significantly in crime prevention programs. We see the benefit of not having the victims in the first place, and we see the benefit of investing that $1 to save $6 in policing, court, and incarceration costs.
For the government to slash crime prevention, as it has over the last few years, has been simply wrong-headed, and I believe we are seeing some of the results. There is a 6% rise in child sexual abuse when crime prevention is slashed. I believe there is a connection between those two things.
 That is not all that has been slashed under the current government. The government side may say that it is a question of resources, but the reality is that we all know what the government is investing in heavily right now: tax cuts for the very wealthy in society. We believe that veterans deserve services, that costs to veterans should be paid, and that crime prevention should be invested in. Those are choices on the part of the government. We also make choices as a society. However, rather than investing billions of dollars in tax cuts for the very wealthy, we say that it makes a lot more sense to put that money into things like supporting services for veterans, as we saw earlier today, or putting crime prevention programs in place.
It is not just crime prevention; it is also addiction programs that have been slashed under the current government. That is another tragedy. The government is slashing both crime prevention and addiction treatment. At the same time, the Conservatives are asking why child sexual abuse rates are rising. However, that is not all. The community resources that are supposed to counter the abuse of children have largely been cut as part of the overall cuts to crime prevention programs.
As well, the whole issue around policing is something on which we disagree with the government. The government promised to put more police officers on the streets of the cities across the country, and the current government has manifestly failed in providing that kind of support. When I talk to my local police officers, a problem that they continually raise is the underfinancing of policing. 
On that note, there is the issue of the public safety officer compensation fund, an NDP initiative that I brought forward in 2006. The Conservatives voted for it. It is now 2014, yet we still do not have a public safety officer compensation fund in place to support the families of fallen police officers and firefighters who die in the line of duty. The Conservatives voted for it before they became government, and they have now waited for eight years and have still not brought that in. On this side of the House, we say that is a shame. The public safety officer compensation fund needs to be put into place, and the families of fallen firefighters and fallen police officers need to be taken care of.
The record of the current government goes beyond the concern that the Conservatives seem to have expressed in bringing forward Bill C-26. They brought forward the bill, which we support, but they are not doing the other things that could do much more, along with the bill, to reduce the child sexual abuse rates in this country. The current government has put in a number of pieces of legislation on a wide variety of issues, and yet it is not having the impact that was obviously intended. That is because legislation is only a small part of how we combat crime, reduce crime rates, and put in place an effective crime prevention strategy.
We are going to be in an election in less than 11 months. In fact, the election date is already set for October 19, 2015. Canadians will be putting the current government aside and looking for a change of agenda in Ottawa. That is what the NDP offers. We will be investing in crime prevention programs. We will be investing in and keeping commitments around policing. We will be putting in place addiction treatment programs. We will be providing community resources to counter abuse of children. That is the kind of platform that people can get around, to ensure that we lower the rates of abuse against children.
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the wide-ranging remarks of the House leader of the New Democratic Party, which were often not on the child predators act that is before the House.
This shows the fundamental difference between that side of the House and this side. They cling to only one element of sentencing and criminal justice principles in Canada, which is rehabilitation. That is important, but as the Criminal Code also outlines, principles like deterrence, denunciation, and public safety are also very important to our criminal justice system. I find it shocking that those principles, particularly when we are dealing with crimes directed at children, would not be paramount to principles of rehabilitation and the sorts of things that are the traditional areas for the NDP in criminal justice.
When it comes to crimes against children, I would ask the House leader of the NDP whether it is not more important to ensure public safety, denunciation of the actions, and those elements of our sentencing and criminal justice system.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary obviously did not listen to a single word that I said. This is why Canadians are so put off by the government. He did not listen to a single word. He has his talking points that respond to something that the Conservatives thought the NDP might say. 
We have had a very thoughtful discussion and statements from this side of the House, yet the parliamentary secretary went back to his talking points rather than listening to what we have been saying. 
What we have been saying, of course, is that legislation is a part of dealing with that, but if the Conservative government had actually taken effective measures, the child sexual abuse rate would be going down, not up. 
Why is it going up? As I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives have cut and slashed crime prevention funding. They have not kept their funding commitments to police officers across the country. I hear about it often in my riding from police officers themselves. They have cut community resources to counter abuse of children. They have slashed addiction treatment. They have repeatedly taken actions that are not helpful to what should be our common goal. 
I am sure that he shares the ultimate goal. I have no doubt that reducing child sexual abuse rates is something that all parliamentarians share. However, when the Conservatives then say, “All we need to do is this. We don't need to do anything else. We can slash crime prevention rates. We can opt not to keep our commitments to police officers. We can reduce resources available that counter sexual abuse of children—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has more than exceeded his time for reply to that question.
The hon. member for Alfred—Pellan. 
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster is passionate about this issue. Unfortunately, there are a number of things this bill does not address.
My colleague mentioned the Conservative government's chronic underfunding, which leads me to what happened at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during a study on social finance. The government's idea was to offload some of its responsibility for funding community organizations and relegating it to private organizations. It is ridiculous.
In committee, we heard from representatives of a very effective support agency that works with people who are at risk of reoffending in our communities. They gave us a good example of their work.
Among other things, they ensure that there is social support for the people who seriously reoffended in the past, including committing sexual offences against children. Funding helps the agency to reduce, even completely eliminate, the rate of recidivism. Unfortunately, the Conservative government decided to stop funding that agency.
Beyond the fact that the agencies working to prevent recidivism are underfunded, what does my colleague think of the government's decision to stop funding these agencies?
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan does excellent work in the House and I very much appreciate her question. She focused precisely on what I have been arguing for the past several minutes.
The Conservatives made cuts to all the programs that help reduce the rate of abuse against children in Canada. The bill is not really going to change much. The government must change the other measures it has taken and it should start by restoring funding for these programs.
Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. As we can see, this bill affects a number of laws and amends many sections in those laws. It is rather complex and therefore it is vital that it be properly studied by experts in committee.
The NDP will support this bill at second reading stage so that it goes to committee. We hope that the Conservatives will be open-minded enough to listen to the testimony of experts and the many people—I hope—who will come and speak about the important subject of protection for our children and families. Consequently, I hope that the Conservatives will open their ears and are receptive to what they have to say. 
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am not qualified to speak about the technical aspects of this file, but I do want to say that it is important to understand that this bill must be amended and improved in committee and that we must sit down with experts on the subject. My colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who does an excellent job, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and other NDP members have clearly explained this.
We will study these proposals carefully. We hope to see measures that will protect our children in practical ways and make our communities safer, not measures that just sound good at news conferences. That is not the goal. We also know that our communities need more resources to deal with the sexual abuse of children. Increasing prison sentences is not enough. That is the direction we hope to take in our discussions. Of course, the devil is in the details. When it comes to the Conservatives' laws, it is important to listen to the experts in the field.
I am the member for Drummond, and I represent, to the best of my abilities, the people who voted for me and all the other residents of Drummond. It is very important to focus first and foremost on prevention, as other members who spoke before me also mentioned. Obviously, we need to prevent crime. That is very important. Many organizations and stakeholders in the greater Drummond area are doing excellent work. I would like to name a few to show what a dynamic community Drummond is, and to give members an idea of what the Conservative government could do to support these organizations.
CALACS La Passerelle de Drummondville was one of the first organizations to work on addressing sexual violence. It provides free and confidential assistance and outreach services. These services fall under three main categories, namely help and outreach, advocacy and prevention. I am mentioning this organization because it also does prevention work. It informs victims of the recourse available to them, helps them deal with the consequences of a recent or past assault, helps them take back control of their lives, and supports them in whatever steps they decide to take, whether it be medical, legal or some other type of action. This organization also visits schools—which is wonderful—to teach children and youth about verbal, psychological and sexual abuse. Boys often learn how to behave toward women and girls at a young age. It is all about prevention, learning and education. This Drummondville organization and its staff are doing excellent work. I am very proud of them and wanted to mention the contribution they make to my region.
 CAVAC is another organization that is doing excellent work in Drummondville, in central Quebec. It provides assistance to victims of crime, their loved ones and even people who witnessed a crime, whether it is a break and enter or any other crime. The staff at the Centre-du-Québec CAVAC can help people cope with what they are going through and the physical, psychological and social effects. They can also help people seek compensation for damages.
The CAVAC in Drummondville has an excellent team that provides amazing support to the public. The team is made up of a criminologist and three forensic social workers, and we are proud to have them there. They are able to provide excellent follow-up for victims. It is important to be there to support them.
Another important organization is Commun Accord, which focuses on alternative justice. Traditional justice is not needed in all cases, and that is where Commun Accord comes in. Its mission is to foster the development and practice of alternative justice and educational activities to promote harmonious relationships within the community. This is another organization that focuses on education and prevention among young people and the general public.
We can certainly look at how to bring people to justice, but we also need to look at prevention and education. The Conservative government does not do that at all, unfortunately. All it cares about is its criminalization policy.
I would like to mention another organization, since there are so many in Drummondville. La Rose des Vents conducts prevention and awareness activities in schools and the community in order to demystify and condemn violence and show how it affects both the victim and the aggressor. The workers answer people's questions, tear down prejudices and support caregivers. They also try to identify victims before it is too late.
That is another important organization that works very hard and stresses the need to break the taboos surrounding sexual violence, for example. There is currently a campaign encouraging people to talk about incest and break that taboo. We need to support these organizations, which do incredible work in our communities. I am proud of these organizations, the workers and all of the volunteers.
I would be remiss if I did not mention one last Drummondville organization and highlight the diversity and significant contributions of these organizations. L'Envolée des mères is a new organization that started up in Drummondville in early 2014. It is an 18-unit housing project that will give young single moms and their children access to housing, support, employment and education, and to a nearby day care centre. This support will help young moms with all kinds of problems who want to take control of their lives. 
I am proud to say that l'Envolée des mères asked me for a personal donation and I was delighted to oblige. It was my pleasure. One of those units will be named after Jack Layton, and I am very happy to support it for young mothers. Social housing was a priority for Jack Layton.
I am very pleased that one of the units will be named after Jack Layton thanks to my personal donation and my contribution to the community. I made a small contribution to that community, and I am very proud of that. I would like to thank all of the organizations in Drummondville for the hard work they do in the name of prevention and education.
Mr. Rob Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I heard from my colleague across the floor that it is all about provincial program funding for rehabilitation. To put it simply, I come from an RCMP background where we had to study, know, and enforce the Criminal Code. In Parliament, and as parliamentarians, we create laws that go into the Criminal Code to protect young children. I have had to investigate many sexual assaults. It is not pleasant to see young children who have become vulnerable to the predators on the Internet who are going after them. It is great that my colleagues want to support this going to committee stage, but what they should be doing is supporting it throughout by unanimous consent. This is a good bill for all the kids out there. For once, let us do something right. Will my colleagues support it unanimously?
[Interjection]
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am sure he has seen some pretty nasty things, since he has had to investigate crimes of a sexual nature. I completely agree that we will be supporting this bill at second reading to send it to committee.
Why send it to committee? As I said at the beginning of my speech, this bill amends many sections of existing laws. I am not an expert in criminal matters, far from it. I therefore do not want to pass judgment on the fundamental principles of this bill. However, I do want the experts to have a chance to do so. It is important that the bill go to committee so that the experts can analyze it.
The member is quite right; it is important to take action once an offence has been committed so it does not happen again, but prevention and education are also important to stop crime before it happens.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond. I was especially touched by what he said regarding community involvement in dealing with these issues. He also told us about the excellent work being done by community organizations in Drummondville. That is so important.
This brings me to a question I had about the community aspect of the reintegration of offenders after they have served their sentence. 
What does my colleague think that offenders need in order to reintegrate into society? Does he agree with the approach taken by this government, which has been making cuts to the very important funding needed by communities to support reintegration? 
[Interjection]
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan who is doing excellent work on her files. I listened to her speech earlier, and she has a very good grasp of this issue.
Of course, we need to do this one step at a time. We must first ensure that prevention and education are being offered in our communities and in our schools, and then make laws after that. I definitely understand the need to have strict laws. However, once offenders have served their sentences, they must be reintegrated. It is therefore important that they have proper support from the time they enter the correctional system. There needs to be training and programs in place that facilitate social reintegration and follow-up. This will help keep people safe. Indeed, that is what we are talking about here—keeping our children and our families safe.
I fully support the position of my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who knows this file very well.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, November 24, 2014, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would request consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentMr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP):  moved:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the federal government, in exercising its jurisdiction, should submit natural resource development projects to a broader consultation with First Nations and citizens in communities and urban areas affected by the establishment of such activities, and that public willingness should be a criterion in obtaining a development permit to the same degree as impacts on human health, ecosystem maintenance, employment and economic development. 
Mr. Speaker, the motion that will be debated in the House is the culmination of the environmental citizenship initiative that began in Manicouagan in 2009.
Why 2009? That is the year I became active in environmental issues after my band council, where I was legal counsel, received a visit from a Romanian engineer who had come to inform us that a company was prospecting for uranium on our land. The people on my band council were quite amazed to learn about it because no one had been informed. Ultimately, there was an outcry about this situation.
Thousands of citizens—about 2,000— marched in the streets of Sept-Îles in the middle of the winter, to speak out against these activities. They were protesting the lack of transparency and the secrecy surrounding the activities, rather than the mining itself, although the mining, even at the exploratory stage, could cause problems for the water tables and the Moisie River watershed, which is nearby.
The public spoke out against this mainly because there was a lack of transparency and of will. An economic entity had acted in secret.
The company's stock price plummeted after this protest. Ultimately, the company fled the Côte-Nord, and its shares were decimated. 
Other areas in the north have supported the claims that the public should be involved in the decision-making process associated with industrial projects. Grassroots mobilization is now significant and can be assessed due to the multiplicity of action-based measures and tools put in place by citizen advocacy groups. When I talk about citizen action, I will be contrasting it with the significant financial clout of industry players, such as the major industrial lobbies.
For example, three days ago a document surfaced. It was from a group that was hired by TransCanada as part of the energy east project. The document revealed that the industry players in 2014 are not even hiding it anymore and are prepared to put it on paper: their desire to muzzle the public is so strong that they are willing to pay up to $7.75 an hour for people to speak out publicly against those who are questioning the legitimacy of the project and how it will impact the environment.
The industry players in 2014 are prepared to invest money in these tactics rather than working together, trying to listen to the public's claims and coming to an agreement. In fact, they operate behind closed doors and are prepared to spend serious money. We see the disparity and the lack of balance here, since the public has little financial clout. Big business is willing to pay $7.75 an hour, which opens Pandora's box, so to speak. In short, we can see that there is a serious imbalance of power. 
The only tool people have left is mobilization. In the past, that particular tool has not been very good for investment. In 2009, Terra Ventures' share price dropped dramatically and ended up being worth nothing, and the company had to leave the region because it did not start by including people.
I feel that citizen participation is indispensable. Genuine listening and paying attention are critical to securing public willingness, which is one of the main points of this motion. Citizens must be involved from the earliest stages of any given initiative. If citizens are not involved, eventually they will get up in arms, and that is bad for the industry and the economy in general.
The fundamental basis of all these demands is noble indeed. Citizens are entitled to expect to be more involved in processes related to natural resource extraction undertakings. 
As I said, in 2009, a public education campaign about the Lac Kachiwiss project ultimately led to mobilization. Now, in 2014, public participation has increased dramatically and is not happening just in Sept-Îles or on the North Shore. It is happening across Canada.
In fact, that is what the TransCanada report indicated. In Quebec, activism on environmental issues is going strong, and there are more ecologists. Is that a bad thing? Time will tell. Still, more and more people are mobilizing about this. 
That is why industry players now have to pay through the nose to hire the services of big communications firms. I have a message for National, the firm that is currently operating just outside Sept-Îles: we are keeping an eye on you and the Arnaud Mine, given that the same modus operandi is being used on the north shore. The local people are on to you.
The public awareness raising that began in 2009 has paid off because still in 2014, we are seeing incredible mobilization and citizen involvement on the north shore. We have even been cited as a national role model. It is for the common good, after all.
The message to industry players that has been developed over the years is that actively seeking public approval for proposed mining activities is a guarantee of a stable climate that is conducive to investment, unlike the view the government takes. 
The Conservatives and successive governments have seen citizen engagement as an obstacle to Canada's economic growth. That is where they err in fact and in law, since citizen engagement is a guarantee of stability and good for the economy and investment. If people are involved from the early stages of a given initiative, this greatly diminishes the chances that they will end up demonstrating in the streets to make their voices heard, sometimes more assertively than not. When 2,000 people are outside when it is –25 degrees Celsius, with small children, dogs and placards in tow, that is not good for investment or the country's international reputation.
Rather than investing in communication programs designed to repress people, industry players would be much better off working in a truly inclusive manner. That does not mean just saying on paper that they held consultations, when people's concerns have not been taken into account, the public really has only secondary influence, and industry players are trying to sideline people and pit community groups against each other. 
That is what is happening right now in Sept-Îles with National, the firm I mentioned earlier. The industry behind this is creating its own community groups and then pitting them against existing groups. Rather than dealing with the situation directly and involving people who may have dissenting opinions, the industry is trying to pit other community groups against them so that these matters are dealt with in the streets. That is not a very progressive idea.
Given that people have leverage when it comes to natural resource extraction initiatives, it was important for me to place the concept of the expression of public willingness in the context of decision making. The public should be involved when economic incentives and environmental impacts are being examined.
Implementing natural resource extraction initiatives has an effect on economic development and the environment. In the future, the best approach would be to hold some sort of plebiscite to get the public's approval and make sure that people support the project. That is just as important as any other social, economic or environmental considerations. People need to feel as though they are involved and their opinions are taken into account.
When I was writing my notes and the motion, I felt it was crucial to stay away from older concepts such as sustainable development and social accessibility. It is sad, but these concepts have been recycled and are now trademarked. That is why I chose instead to use the concept of the expression of public willingness.
When I eat my cereal in the morning, it says “sustainable development” on the box. It has become a trademark. The industry has appropriated these concepts and they are now devoid of all meaning. Claims are being made left and right. There are sustainable development experts in 2014. It means nothing now, and people are not stupid. That is why I put forward this new concept of the expression of public willingness.
How long will it take for the industry to recycle that concept? That is what I am asking. I know one thing for certain, and that is that it is very clear: expression of public willingness, public approval and, finally, acceptability. This is where true social acceptability lies. A plebiscite must be held to determine whether the public really agrees with the proposed idea and initiative.
When I was writing this motion, I tried to distance myself from worn-out social and environmental concepts in order to offer a completely innovative vision for the Canadian people who are looking for another voice in Parliament.
In a certain way, the public is rejecting the government's initiatives. Cynicism has seeped into society, partly because of how essential and defining concepts, such as sustainable development, have become watered down. It started out as a noble concept. It is still somewhat noble today, but it has been overused, especially since our environmental safeguards have been ignored and gutted. Take, for example, the Navigation Protection Act. The legislation included environmental protection, but it was gutted and the only tool available to people now is mobilization.
Once again, there is the misconception that public mobilization and engagement are a barrier to economic growth. Yes, that is how it is in 2014. Indeed, when people take to the streets with signs, that attracts attention. The media pay attention, and that influences stock prices and value. If companies invested as much in including people as they are currently investing in suppressing public opinion, we would not have the level of public outcry or the troubling situation that we have right now. 
The disillusionment and the gradual rejection of government initiatives in this country by a growing segment of the population—not only in Quebec, but across Canada, contrary to what the TransCanada communication plan indicated—are closely tied to feelings of powerlessness regarding public protection measures that have proven to be meaningless. We must face the facts: public powers, under constant pressure from industry money, have managed to ignore social and environmental public protection mechanisms for the most part.
For members' information, over the past three years, mining lobbyists have come to see me six times at my office. I am a nice enough person and I will not show them the door. I work with them, but they know that I am not really in favour of the proposed measures. They even had the audacity to show up with two lawyers who took notes and an army of legal experts and stakeholders. The last time they came, I did not have enough room in my office to offer all of them a seat. Now they come in groups of six. I continue to open my door. I cannot refuse. The mining industry is important to Manicouagan. We can see where things stand with someone who is not really in favour of the measures being proposed in 2014. Imagine someone who is open to what they are proposing; they must always be in their office. These people have rented an office not far from Parliament. They are close by and they are ever-present on Parliament Hill. If they came to my office six times, I can hardly imagine what it must be like for the Conservatives. They must have a red phone, like Batman, to have a direct line to them. I submit this to you.
I talked about the constant pressure from big industrial lobby groups. I think one thing should be perfectly clear to those who oppose this idea and to my colleagues in the House: citizen involvement is a guarantee of stability. It is good for the market. The parties need to involve citizens, not disingenuously say that they are being consulted. Citizens' concerns and goals must be genuinely taken into account. Stability flows from a genuine desire to include people. They are on the wrong track now. Suppressing public opinion is the wrong way to go, and TransCanada's communication document was a bad idea. There really has to be a desire to include people.
I submit this respectfully.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member has brought forward an incredibly important motion at this point in history on how we are addressing energy projects in this country.
The member, I am sure, has noted that the Minister of Natural Resources just this week committed to engaging communities in environmental stewardship in reserve decisions, and yet it is a year almost to the day that the government commissioned a report by Douglas Eyford looking at how the government failed to consult first nations on the gateway project. Mr. Eyford delivered four or five pages of recommendations on how the government could improve and yet we have seen no progress. We are going backward with respect to constructive consultation.
I wonder if the member would speak to that and the lack of the government's credibility in claiming to be committed to more constructive engagement.
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. 
I think that the crux of the matter in this case is that the other side has the wrong idea about consultation. If first nations were truly consulted, we would not have near-riots on Parliament Hill, where dozens of chiefs tried to break down the main door to be heard. If there were true consideration of aboriginal interests and prerogatives, we would not have these problems.
I think that the government is mistaken about the notion of consultation and consideration of the results in particular. If it holds consultations and then shelves the results, aspirations and concerns, that really is not consultation. The government has to follow through. I hope, and they have one year because there will be an election for everyone in 2015, that the Conservatives change their approach. We are going to assume that they will show goodwill in the future.
This does not just concern first nations. This concerns all Canadians because clean air and the environment are vital to the Canadian people.
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I do believe I heard the member say that if a local group is opposed to a project, then the project should not go forward. I am sure that everyone is aware that projects should be in the best interests of all Canadians.
I am wondering if the member is aware of the benefits of developing our natural resources here in Canada. Could he comment on why the NDP seems to be opposed to developing those resources?
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. 
If people are protesting and taking action in 2014, it is because they do not have any other recourse and the only thing they can do is to band together.
Opposition to resource extraction is not widespread. There is an industrial initiative set to begin soon in Port-Cartier. Although it does not involve the extraction of natural resources, it is a progressive project. We are going to give the company the benefit of the doubt and believe that it has good intentions.
However, given what we are seeing and what we have seen to date, history has taught us that, all too often, natural resource extraction and mining projects open the door to abuse. Companies work behind closed doors. They work in a vacuum. They make sure to talk to just one group. No information is shared. Environmental reports are given only to government. People are left in the dark. That is why people are protesting and these protests can end up interfering with a company's plans and slow down its project. If economic development is based on fraudulent practices and a lack of public consent, it will eventually hit a wall.
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Motion No. 533. This motion proposes that natural resource projects undergo a broader consultation with first nations and citizens in areas affected by development activities. While I am sure that the member has good intentions with this motion, he must be unaware of the extremely rigorous consultation process already in place for resource projects.
I would like to take this opportunity to outline our review process for the House. Canada currently has three organizations managing review processes at the federal level. These are the National Energy Board, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. All three operate at arm's length from the government and they all address the concerns raised in this motion. Invariably, the reviews they conduct involve a rigorous and comprehensive environmental assessment. This requires technical analysis of potential environmental impacts of a project, as well as measures to avoid or mitigate impacts on affected communities. 
In every case, project proposals brought forward by proponents are scrutinized through a rigorous and transparent process. All regulatory reviews are supported by high-quality science, technical knowledge, and expertise from numerous federal department and agency experts. Evidence brought to the review bodies' attention by all participants is tested for its veracity and comprehensiveness to ensure that final decisions are based on hard facts, not public sentiment. This is important.
While the NDP is all too willing to make important decisions based on ideology, our Conservative government relies on scientific and fact-based reviews to inform our decision-making. In fact, it was the Leader of the Opposition himself who said:
 There are some things that some people would send to the NEB that we would say no to. 
Canadians deserve better than that, which is why our government only makes decisions once an independent scientific review is complete.
 Members of the House can rest assured that there is ample opportunity for Canadians to take part in these review processes. Indeed, members of the general public and aboriginal groups who are directly affected by projects or who have relevant expertise are encouraged to participate. For example, community and aboriginal traditional knowledge are explicitly recognized in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or CEAA, from 2012.
There are multiple avenues for individuals, communities, and aboriginal groups to express their concerns in these reviews. These include public comment periods, engagement and consultation meetings, and letters of comment and public hearings. Of course, participation requires more than just an expression of support or opposition: people's views need to be substantiated with evidence. 
Furthermore, there are provisions in the legislation governing all three regulatory processes to promote transparency. This ensures that Canadians have access to the necessary information to reach an informed opinion on a project. Take the example of the CEAA registry. It is an Internet site that contains key information about environmental assessments conducted under the act. This information is available to the public and ranges from background technical documents, environmental assessment reports, and comments filed by the public to records regarding any follow-up program or mitigation measures to be implemented.
As hon. members can see, there is truly a transparent process in place for Canadians.
I would like to underline that all projects are subject to regulatory permitting, monitoring, and compliance activities following an environmental assessment. Ultimately, independent organizations like the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission make recommendations and decisions in the Canadian public interest. This is essential in order for the government to reach a balanced and informed decision regarding whether Canada would be better off with or without a development project.
The key is balance. The review process considers environmental, economic, and social considerations related to a potential natural resource based project.
I know all members on this side of the House have not forgotten that Canada's natural resources sector is a significant contributor to national, provincial and territorial economies, enabling Canadians to enjoy high living standards. We know that if the NDP had its way, it would shut down resource development entirely. 
This is how the NDP's plan would affect our Canadian economy.
 The natural resources sector provides nearly 20% of our GDP and supports 1.8 million jobs. All of this activity generates royalties and revenues for governments to provide important social programs, from health to education to pensions for Canadians. When we see the dramatic economic benefits of natural resource development for Canada as a whole, it becomes clear that the impacts of a project extend well beyond a local area to the country at large. Our government understands this and Canadians know they simply cannot trust the NDP to look out for their best interests. 
Topics as important as responsible resource development, which generates economic benefits, while protecting the environment and accommodating the needs of affected communities, cannot be reduced to a popularity contest. The exhaustive process of considering and balancing evidence based on science could be rendered irrelevant if there were a test of public willingness. Such a test could essentially provide a local veto over the project, regardless of the recommendations resulting from a fact based, comprehensive review process. In essence, this would negate evidence and expert testimony provided in favour of public opinion. 
This proposal is poorly defined in the motion and it simply cannot be assessed and challenged in the same way as detailed evidence of potential environmental, economic and social impacts, the foundation of the review process we have in place right now. 
Canada already has an extremely rigorous regulatory regime in place to consider major resource projects. These projects are subject to comprehensive review processes based on environmental, economic and social considerations. Recommendations on projects are then made by independent regulators, based on the entirety of evidence collected. 
The process is established through legislation. It includes the assessment of environmental effects, timelines for governing review and decisions, and the participation of interested and affected parties. As we have always said, projects will only proceed if they are proven to be safe for the environment and safe for Canadians, based on science.
 For this reason, our government cannot support this motion.
Mark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Motion No. 533, which calls on the federal government to subject natural resource development projects to a broader consultation with first nations and local communities. One would think that should be a given, but apparently it is not.
In Nova Scotia, we have 13 Mi'kmaq first nations communities. One of the smaller ones is in the Annapolis Valley. It has almost 300 people. The largest one, Eskasoni, is in my riding. It has over 4,000 people. In Nova Scotia and in Cape Breton, first nation people make a big contribution not only to our economy and to our well-being but also to our whole social fabric. 
We have seen time and time again that the Conservatives do not have a good relationship with first nations communities. A core responsibility of the federal government is to facilitate a meaningful consultation on resource development projects. Over the long term, this is the only way to leverage our natural resources in a way that is sustainable, maximizes economic opportunities, and strengthens first nations and local communities.
I will give two examples of major events in my riding that show how first nations communities have taken more charge of events and have received more out of the natural resources around them.
The first example relates to Donald Marshall, Jr. The House may not remember him, as he is not with us anymore, but he was wrongfully committed to jail for murder. He was later cleared. When he was in jail, he did a study on all the treaties and rights of first nations. When he came out of jail, he went eeling. He was catching eels for his family. He was charged, because apparently that was not allowed by legislation, but he fought that charge and he got his treaty rights.
 He made a big change for many first nations people and first nations communities, not only in Cape Breton but in Nova Scotia and across Canada. In the areas of fisheries, forestry, and natural resources, first nations have treaty rights to own or participate in the resources in their communities.
The second example had to do with the Sydney tar ponds, an extremely toxic area that was located in my riding. We had to clean it up. It was a $400 million cleanup. When we embarked on that, the Liberal government was in power, but then there was a good Conservative government in Nova Scotia, under the leadership of Premier John Hamm. We worked together with them. He was what we would call a red Tory. We worked well with him, and we got $400 million to clean up the tar ponds.
My point is that the first nations community stepped up to the plate. The first nations community got a 10% carve-out from that project, so they were part of the cleanup process. They had their people educated and trained in trades to help us clean that up. They benefited.
My point is not only that they deserve a part of the resources but also that they can step up to the plate when asked to. They are able to get the big jobs done that we need to do.
The Conservative government has proven time and time again that it is not interested in input from anyone else. Everything comes down from the Prime Minister's Office. It comes down from the top. Conservatives do not work with others.
There is a need to consult on issues such as resource development. The message from the Conservatives has been clear: people are either with them or against them. There is an old saying that when the only tool in the tool belt is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That is exactly the way they operate. That is the approach we are seeing when it comes to the government's approval process.
Let us reflect on the Conservatives' track record on progress with resource development. After eight years under the Conservatives, we are further behind on creating sensible policies. The government has failed on one of the most important infrastructure projects of our generation. Many people from my riding in Cape Breton work out west on the oil patch. When we see the Keystone XL pipeline not going anywhere, it is another example of how the Conservatives are not getting the job done. It is because of their relationship with others.
Needlessly, the Conservatives have these bad relationships. We see it with the country of origin labelling.
I am on the agriculture committee, and the beef and pork producers are losing the market in the United States, which is all due to bad relationships with our biggest trading partner. Especially now, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of International Trade should be working with the new senators, congressmen and governors to get our beef and pork moving there, but that is another problem with the Conservatives' relationship with others.
Many people do not know about this, but there is what is called preferential access to the perishable agricultural commodities act. To put it plainly, right now when produce farmers from Canada sell into the United States, the Americans have a bond in place so if Canadian growers do not get paid, it ensures they do. What happened? Over a year ago, the Americans said that it needed the same in Canada, which makes sense. If they are protecting our growers there, why is Canada not protecting their growers here? Nothing was done by the government to help our producers. Now we have a stalemate, which is another example of a bad relationship where things do not get done. 
For average Canadians, the government appears to be chasing a different project every time they turn around, rather than fostering better relationships with our key partners in opening up new markets in a sustainable way. All of this contributes to a lack of confidence in Canadians on the government's transparency and accountability.
The responsible development of our natural resources is clearly in the national interest, but it must be done through building partnerships among industry, first nations and civil society. A core responsibility of the federal government is to facilitate meaningful consultation on resource development projects. Over the long term, this is the only way we will leverage our natural resources in a way that is sustainable, maximizes economic opportunity, and strengthens the first nations and local communities. We have seen that with the cleanup of the tar ponds, which should be a template for other projects right across our country.
In improving natural resource projects, the federal government has a crucial responsibility to balance economic development, energy security, and environmental and socio-economic factors to arrive at a decision that is in the best interests of first nations and Canadians. It sounds so practical. The Liberals believe we need to create a regulatory regime that is balanced, one that creates growth and protects the environment. We can do both at the same time. 
Unfortunately, as mentioned in the House in the last hour or so, under the Conservatives, the National Energy Board has become kind of an advisory board to cabinet and the PMO. The Liberals recognize this and are fully aware that first nations communities desire greater accountability and transparency from the federal government.
 Moving forward, natural resource development must adhere to the most stringent environmental assessments and reviews, and must fully respect aboriginal and treaty rights. It takes a lot of hard work and leadership to pull this off, but when it comes down to resource development, it is crucial to build partnerships among industry, first nations and civil society.
I would like to remind Canadians that the Conservatives have gutted environmental protection and oversight in the interest of resource development at all costs. Resource development that is not done in full consultation and collaboration with impacted aboriginal communities is just not responsible, and it is unconstitutional. Aboriginal communities rightfully expect governments to involve them in the early stages of a project's planning and decision making. There is the odd good Conservative, and it is too bad that when one goes over to that side, he or she drinks the Kool-Aid, and things do not go very well. 
At the end of the day, we have to recognize our first nations people. They were here first. Many times they know how to treat our resources properly. They want to move forward with our economy. Working in partnership with impacted aboriginal communities is not just a question of legal obligation, but a tremendous opportunity. We must return to the original respectful and collaborative partnership with our aboriginal communities, including recognition of their inherent treaty rights.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to stand in the House to speak to the motion by my hon. colleague from Manicouagan. The people of his riding can be proud of his passionate representation on their behalf. Along with our colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, the member is an outstanding champion for his own Inuit and first nations communities.
I am on my second term as MP for Nickel Belt, but it was in this Parliament, with the election in 2011 under our former leader, Jack Layton, that our party saw the election of so many new young and gifted members from Quebec. This motion today is his commitment to put people and their communities and their rights first and foremost when it comes to natural resources projects.
I come from Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, home of the largest nickel basin in the world. I worked for 34 years for Inco, a mining company. I have seen the good and the bad that mining can do in a region. I absolutely support public consultation and real efforts to get public support for these projects. I will address that shortly.
First, as chair of the 20-MP NDP mining caucus, I will say a few words about our strong support for mining when it is done right. My party and I recognize the importance of mining in our communities. In 2013, over 380,000 jobs were in mineral extraction, smelting, fabrication and manufacturing in our country. Mining is an economic and investment driver for Canada, paying $71 billion in taxes and royalties to Canadian governments in the past decade. I am told the mining sector is the largest employer of aboriginal people.
My region of Greater Sudbury is now being called “Canada's mining superstore”, given all of the technology, research and innovation in the Greater Sudbury region. The Mining Association of Canada estimates that upwards of $160 billion in mining projects are presently proposed in Canada, including multi-billion dollar investments in Nunavut; Northwest Territories; B.C.; Alberta, Saskatchewan; Manitoba; Ontario, especially with the Ring of Fire; Quebec; and Newfoundland and Labrador. That underlines the importance of the motion before the House today.
 The member speaks often of social licence for those natural resources projects. In plain language, we want people and their communities to have current and future generation concerns addressed before they say yes to these projects. They want to see that the mining companies are taking seriously their responsibilities and understanding all of the implications of mining or other exploration. These holes in the ground, the blasting and the excavation also have consequences for drinking water, our health, our noise, our pollution and much more that touches on the daily lives of citizens. When companies move into a community with their well-paying jobs, they are welcome.
 There can be other social and health consequences that are not so good. More and more, I hear mining companies talking about corporate social responsibility, making progress in this regard. That is a good thing. My leader met with the Mining Association of Canada representatives this week. We urged the companies to continue to work on social licence and to continue to work on this corporate social responsibility. We know from news stories about bad behaviour abroad from some Canadian companies. We also have to be vigilant that here at home we hold our companies to higher standards too.
Cases in point are Osisko's Malartic mine, the tensions triggered by the prospect of uranium mining on the north shore in Quebec; the controversial oil pipeline and tanker port projects in British Columbia and Quebec, including the one in Cacouna; and the Mine Arnaud project in Sept-îles, which dealt a blow to the local social climate. I meet with mining company officials, and I hear more and more of their work and their commitment to this responsibility.
Advance public consultation is a positive and innovative measure because it makes it possible for three things to happen.
First, it puts the public at the heart of the decision-making process. Civil society stakeholders have long called for real, direct public consultation and for the public's wishes to be considered in natural resource development projects. This motion would put the public at the heart of the decision-making process as opposed to the public being told about it after the fact. 
Second, advance public consultation helps ensure that the federal government's historic commitments to members of the first nations are fulfilled. The federal government must respect first nations' rights on traditional territories and must submit development initiatives to members of the communities affected.
Third, consultation would ensure that economic development is in sync with the public's vision for the land. If the public's wishes are respected, it will help appease the communities that are struggling to make decisions about contested economic development projects, which would thus create a good environment for investment and for promoting better projects that protect the environment and the communities. 
The motion fits well with the NDP's basic position on the environment:
 Protecting the environment as a common good by creating a legal framework to ensure that people have the right to live in a healthy environment with access to natural spaces. 
We say here today that we want what Canadians want in their communities on these projects: transparency, consultation, and consent.
I have introduced a number of private member's bills regarding foreign ownership transactions, the kind my region of Sudbury has experienced. My bills call for this same transparency and public consultation.
I want to say something about consultation.
I am following very closely the Ring of Fire project in northwestern Ontario. There has been nothing more than a back-and-forth blame game going on between the Conservative government here in Ottawa and the Liberal government in the province of Ontario. Northerners are fed up.
Our first nation communities are reminding those governments, yet again, what the duty to consult actually means. It is more than providing information. It is more than giving an hour's notice of big announcements coming out. It is what the NDP and our leader have articulated clearly: a constitutional responsibility to do full, real, and meaningful consultation. 
That is why we support a nation-to-nation approach. At the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada's mega-convention earlier this year in Toronto, my leader made it clear that he supports the Ring of Fire project, if done this way. 
Our leader said:
 The Ring of Fire project is an important development for families in Northern Ontario today and for generations to come. Unfortunately, Conservative policies have undermined the government's ability to oversee that all social and environmental regulations are being fully understood and addressed. 
Citing his cabinet experience in Quebec, he told the mining companies that the Ring of Fire project can only move forward when public confidence and real partnerships with first nation communities are secured. He also underscored the long-standing NDP commitment to deal nation to nation with first nation governments to build relationships that benefit people, business, and the land.
This not a playing of the economy over and against the environment, as we see the current government do. It is finding a way to be both for the economy and for the environment. This is a win-win situation, especially for first nations and other communities. It makes smart business sense, too, as more mining companies are discovering.
The purpose of the motion is to make it mandatory for the government to consult Canadian citizens and first nation members before implementing a natural resource development project on their territory or in their living environment. Public willingness should be a criterion in obtaining a development permit to the same degree as impacts on human health, ecosystem maintenance, employment, and economic development.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to comment on Motion No. 533 and to reinforce my colleague's comments that much of what it proposes to do is already being accomplished. Indeed, Canadians can take pride and have confidence in our world-class safety standards, which our government has worked so hard to improve in recent years. 
We have introduced multiple measures to strengthen the regulatory process for major resource projects. Among the most effective is our plan for responsible resource development, which has led to economic growth, increased environmental protection, and enhanced consultations with aboriginal peoples. This policy is rooted in our commitment to develop our natural resources in an environmentally and socially responsible way. This means ensuring that natural resource development benefits all Canadians, including the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
As a result of our plan, our natural resource sector is among the most stringently regulated in the world. Specifically, we have strengthened environmental protection by ensuring that no natural resource project will receive federal approval unless it is safe for the environment and for Canadians. For the first time, our government has introduced enforceable environmental assessment decision statements. Components of major projects now have to comply with conditions set out in these decision statements; if not they could face tough financial penalties, which I will talk about more in a moment. Our government is also providing federal inspectors with the authority to examine whether conditions set out in an environmental assessment decision statement are met.
As well, we have introduced tough new financial penalties to preventively address contraventions of environmental laws quickly under the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Act, so that larger issues do not arise in the future. Especially important is the fact that responsible resource development has an entire component dedicated to ensuring that consultations with aboriginal peoples are consistent, accountable, meaningful, and timely. For example, consultations with aboriginal peoples are integrated into the new environmental assessment and regulatory processes. We also provide significant funding specifically to support consultations with aboriginal peoples. 
We have also designated a lead department or agency as a single crown consultation coordinator for each major project review. This reduces the previous redundant consultations that frustrated many aboriginal communities. Not only that, we also negotiate consultation protocols or agreements with aboriginal groups to establish more clearly what the expectations and level of consultation should be. Better still, we know that resource development cannot thrive without the contributions of our aboriginal peoples. We have taken significant action to facilitate greater participation of aboriginal people in resource projects. This is being accomplished through initiatives such as the major projects management office–west, which we recently set up in Vancouver. The office is working with aboriginal peoples and first nations to ensure their meaningful involvement in assessing and managing the environmental safety of proposed projects. 
Therefore, as members can see, our improved regulatory regime for major natural resource projects is not only among the most efficient, effective, and competitive in the world, but is also among the most inclusive, ensuring that there are numerous opportunities for active public participation. As proud as we are of this approach, we are determined to do even better. That is why our government has also addressed safety concerns by implementing world-class pipeline, rail, and tanker safety systems that all Canadians can trust. As just one example, we have given the National Energy Board the necessary resources to double the number of annual inspections of pipelines. The board also doubled the number of annual comprehensive safety audits to identify pipeline issues before incidents occur. The NEB now can issue administrative monetary penalties of up to $100,000 a day per infraction for companies that do not comply with safety and environmental regulations. Ironically, but not surprisingly, that member and the NDP voted against these enhanced pipeline safety measures. To us that does not make sense.
There are more tough measures on the way. We have announced plans to give the board even greater authority so that it can strengthen incident prevention, preparedness, response, liability, and compensation. Even though more than 99.999% of the oil and gas transported on Canada's federally regulated pipelines arrived safely between 2008 and 2013, we are committed to trying to achieve zero incidents. 
As more and more energy products are being shipped by rail, our government has also announced measures to improve railway safety and ensure the safe transportation of dangerous goods by rail, including the introduction of new regulations for DOT-111 rail cars. This includes thicker steel requirements, as well as the addition of top fitting and head shield protection. 
We also have nine acts of Parliament governing marine safety. These laws complement and reinforce international regulations established by the International Maritime Organization, and we are always working to improve them.
 For example, we proposed new regulatory oversight and enforcement capabilities provided under Bill C-3,  the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. These measures underline that when it comes to transporting our natural resources, whether by pipeline, rail, or tanker, our government will not compromise on public safety or environmental protection.
We all know that some in the NDP are opposed to all forms of resource development for the benefit of Canadians. They are opposed to the building of infrastructure that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and to projects that would generate billions to fund critical social programs. Further, some would rather see our resources stranded and our legacy squandered. Again, it does not make sense. A lot of jobs come from these projects.
Our government understands the enormous benefits resource development can provide to all Canadians. This is why we have implemented such a rigorous review process for projects and have ensured that local communities and aboriginal peoples can actively participate in and benefit from resource development.
I simply cannot see a need for this motion, when clearly, as I stated, our current regulatory review process is already robust, independent, based on science, and among the best in the world.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more to be said on this motion. 
I certainly commend my colleague for bringing forward the motion and for being a strong force in his Innu community in this place. I appreciate his expertise in criminal law from his practice in that area representing his people very well. I appreciate that he has brought that knowledge to this place and has shared a lot of that knowledge in this motion he has brought forward, which is based on his personal experience and the frustration of his community members regarding having a voice in major energy projects.
The member's motion is essentially calling for the Conservative government to step up to the plate and finally support a genuine process for the engagement of Canadian communities, including first nation and Métis communities, in decision-making on major energy projects. This includes the potential impact on human health, the ecosystem, employment, and economic development. 
The member has three key messages that I think are important and that surely everyone in this place would support: that citizens should have a central place in the decision-making process, particularly when projects might impact their health and environment; that there should be respect for the historic commitments made by the federal government to first nation peoples; and that we should ensure that economic development is in tune with citizens' perception of their territory and that they, and not people who live far from the site of those projects, genuinely benefit from that development.
It is very important to note that the call for greater action by the government is not something that just my colleague has raised. It has actually been voiced by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. In his report just this fall, he slammed the government. He determined that the federal government has been clearly ignoring its duties to ensure that first nations and Métis are engaged in environmental assessment and monitoring in major energy projects, in particular oil sands projects. The commissioner determined that, first, the government has failed to collect and consider important traditional ecological information. Second, it has ignored its duty to consult. Third, it has made it harder for aboriginals to participate in decision-making on major energy projects impacting first nation and Métis lands, water, and people.
My colleague has raised some skepticism about the concept of social licence, and I think that is a fair comment. Each time we reach some kind of consensus that we need to move forward with, the terms “participation”, “consultation”, “social impact assessment”, and “social licence” often become perverted because those principles are not really applied in good faith. The member's call to the House is that we need to agree that we are genuinely committed to enabling a constructive voice for Canadians in decision-making on major energy projects. We should go beyond the brief mention of a concept and give some reality to it so that it actually includes genuine environmental impacts, social impacts, and local impacts. That consultation should be a precondition in deciding if a project is in the public interest. 
We hear members on the other side talk about how we have a perfect review process. They say that all they need to do is consider what is in the public interest. However, what is the public interest? If we are not genuinely considering the issues and concerns of the locally impacted people, how genuinely can we really say we are considering the public interest in making decisions to accept or reject a major energy project?
I look forward to continuing to speak on this at a later date, and I appreciate the time to at least rise briefly in support of my colleague's very important motion in this place.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have six minutes and ten seconds left when the debate on the bill resumes.
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
It being 2:05 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:05 p.m.)