2014-11-28

Government Orders
Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the idea behind Bill C-35—protecting service and law enforcement animals—is a good one.
The NDP is in favour of studying the bill because law enforcement animals are often injured by criminals who could have injured a police officer. Quite often, a police dog is stabbed or shot instead of the police officer. If the criminal had done the same thing to an officer, he would be accused of attempted murder of a police officer. However, since the individual shot at a law enforcement animal, the line of thinking seems to be that he was just shooting at an animal, which is not the same thing. That is why we need more specific protection for these animals.
Service animals are also becoming more common in society. I am not just talking about guide dogs for the blind. For instance, therapy animals give autistic children contact with the real world. Clearly, these animals are not just stray dogs. They may become the eyes of a blind person or the opportunity for an autistic child to communicate and connect with society as a whole. For these reasons, these animals need very specific protections.
Hurting any animal for fun, deliberately and unnecessarily, is terrible, cruel and mean. We should not tolerate that type of behaviour in our society. However, we need to recognize that the harm caused to our society in general when a service or law enforcement animal is injured is a more significant crime.
Personally, I like service dogs. I am always tempted to pet guide dogs whenever I see them. I know you must never do so, but I am always tempted. I almost always have some chocolate in my pockets. Unfortunately, the member for Terrebonne—Blainville takes them from me, which is good for me and works for her. However, I could easily see myself giving a chocolate to a police dog or horse. The police officer might not be okay with that, but I would really like to do that. I adore animals and would never hurt them. 
It is important to discuss this bill in committee with experts and with people in these situations, so they can tell us when it is really important to give these animals special protection in the Criminal Code. We need to have this discussion, which is especially important now because these animals are being used more and more. Unfortunately, some terrorist attacks have been committed using explosives. Sniffer dogs are one of the primary resources used to protect the public from these attacks with explosives.
These animals can also help with certain social phenomena, such as children with autism. We want to reintegrate these children into society, and service dogs are being used more and more to help with this. They are also being called upon more and more to help seniors. There will be many such animals, and they will become more and more helpful. Depriving someone who needs the assistance of a service animal is appalling. That is a serious crime. Attacking someone's animal is the same as attacking the person, since the animal is like an extension of the person, helping them with their senses or their mobility. 
Clearly, then, yes, it is important to protect these animals, but as usual, the NDP has a few concerns regarding the minimum penalties. This will be discussed in committee.
I have the sinking feeling that the government is not listening to the Supreme Court when it renders decisions or to the great legal minds when they say that minimum sentences do not work. We should let the judges do their jobs and not try to give them so little discretion that they feel uncomfortable.
All of the courts, including the Supreme Court, have rendered decisions before. I am thinking, for example, of the minimum sentence for possessing a prohibited weapon. Let us look at one of the cases on which a judge ruled. An individual went to visit friends and they were a bit drunk. They were having fun. One of them pulled out an illegal revolver and began playing around with it. Another friend filmed the whole thing on his telephone. The person who was holding the weapon committed a criminal offence. He was charged and faced five years in prison because that is the minimum sentence.
The judge said that it was clear that this person was not particularly bright, and everyone can agree that what he did was not a good idea. However, putting an individual in prison for five years because he played around with an illegal revolver at a friend's home does not make sense.
The judge said that he was not going to take into account the Criminal Code provisions dealing with possession of a prohibited firearm. I am sorry, but he was right. Imagine putting someone in prison for doing something stupid for 15 seconds. That person did not threaten anyone with a firearm and did not commit armed robbery. He simply held a firearm when he was a bit drunk at a party and was filmed doing so.
One of my colleagues from British Columbia was saying that a minimum sentence should be imposed for kidnapping a minor. We want to protect children and doing so is a good thing. However, he proposed a rather harsh prison sentence, and that could cause problems. 
A young man who is 18 years old and therefore considered an adult has a 16-year-old girlfriend and they break up. He is not happy. He wants to talk to her, so he takes her by the arm and drags her to his car. That becomes kidnapping because it involves an act of violence. He dragged her to the car by force. Clearly, this young man has problems and needs to change his behaviour. He completely deserves to get a strict talking to by a judge.
Still, do insensitivity and boorish conduct merit 15 years in prison? If a young man, just 18 years old, snaps and does something stupid like this, should he be sent to jail for 15 years? That does not make sense. The punishment has to fit the crime.
That is why we are against minimum sentences. We have to let judges judge. They are the ones who hear all of the information about the case and every possible defence.
If a young man kidnaps his girlfriend because he wants to force her to listen to him, not a lot can be said in his defence. However, he might say that he is in university and will do volunteer work. He might ask for a lesser sentence so that his whole life does not end up going down the drain because of that one time he did the stupidest thing imaginable. That kind of behaviour does not deserve the social stigma associated with a disproportionate prison sentence.
We have every reason to send this bill to committee, where members can listen to what the expert witnesses have to say. One of these days, the government will have to listen to the message judges have been sending them about how displeased they are with minimum sentences. The government will have to listen to that message, pay attention and act accordingly.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time understanding the NDP sense of justice when it comes to sentencing for crimes that are committed.
The NDP seems to blame the government. In fact, it is because sentences from the judges who sit on the benches, in so many cases, do not reflect the severity of the crime. I will give a good example, and I know this one personally.
Up until the year 2000, the sentence for killing while impaired was 0 to 14 years. The sentences given were always in the one- to three-year range. That was expanded to zero to life in prison, where factors were present. The average sentence given is still one to three years. No matter how many times someone has been convicted or suspended, if they are out driving and kill someone, they are still getting the same sentences.
Something is not being addressed here.
[Interjection]
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the member's remarks because self-induced intoxication is not a defence. If a person gets himself intoxicated and kills someone, that is premeditated murder punishable by life in prison. The minimum sentence is 25 years, which means he is condemned to life and will spend 25 years in jail.
I do not know that particular case, but self-induced intoxication is not an acceptable defence. The Supreme Court stated as much in the case of a man who got himself intoxicated and raped an 88-year-old woman. Just imagine. In his defence, the individual said that he drank so much he became mentally ill. The insanity plea was rejected. People who deliberately get themselves intoxicated will be found fully responsible for actions they commit while intoxicated. That makes sense. 
I do not know the case, and I would be happy to talk about it with the member, but I do know that self-induced intoxication is not an acceptable defence. 
Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, for his speech. I have spoken to this government bill, Bill C-35. We have spent several days and hours on it. In the meantime, we have a budget implementation omnibus bill that we have asked the government to split so that we can discuss it in greater detail.
Is the hon. member not a bit concerned about the fact that we are taking so much time to discuss Bill C-35? I am not trying to take away from its importance, but there seems to be an imbalance in the priorities for this country, whether we are talking about the economy, job creation or adequate public services. Right now we are talking about Bill C-35. Could I have the hon. member's comments on this?
[Interjection]
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, the problem with omnibus bills is that they contain 20 to 30 statutes. If we could discuss each one, we could support or reject each one. In the case of an omnibus bill, even if there are aspects that we find worthwhile, we are forced to reject them because there are other aspects that we simply cannot support. That is the problem with omnibus bills. They get pushed through far too quickly.
To come back to the bill before us, I would like to see more bills that are better focused. I must say that when I go door to door and I walk with people, it is surprising to me how many people have dogs and cats. Some people even have snakes and lizards as pets. Companion animals are important. We will listen to the criticisms and we will respond to them.
The problem is not that we are spending too much time on this bill. The problem is that we do not spend a reasonable amount of time on the omnibus bills. In fact, far too often what happens in the House is that the government imposes closure. That means we have to vote in a hurry on 30 or so statutes that are poorly cobbled together in a single bill.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to stand in the House to represent the people of Timmins and the James Bay region as we deal with this bill, Bill C-35, Quanto's law. The bill would bring in mandatory minimum sentences for people who are mean to police dogs.
We have spent a lot of time in this House talking about police dogs, and we have seen the government members sit together and get very teary-eyed when they talk about the treatment of police dogs.
It is seven years almost to day that we stood in this House on another motion, Jordan's principle, which passed on December 7, 2007. It was named after Jordan River Anderson from the Norway House Cree first nation, a young child who had never been able to go home because of his complex medical needs. The federal government refused to pay for his health coverage unless he was in a foster care situation.
Jordan's principle is that all children in Canada, regardless of their race, have a right to equitable health care. The House of Commons stood up, just as it will probably stand up on Quanto's law, and voted for Jordan's principle, and then nothing happened.
 When I was thinking about the bill on police dogs, I thought of Sergeant John O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police who, on August 17, 2014, found the body of Tina Fontaine in the Red River. He told the media, “She's a child. This is a child that's been murdered. Society would be horrified if we found a litter of kittens or pups in the river in this condition. This is a child.”.
It says something. This is nothing against dogs and cats; I have dogs and cats at home. However, when a police officer has to point out that a first nation child who was murdered and dumped in a river would have received more attention if she had been a litter of puppies, it says something.
I want to just compare the values that we are seeing in this House, in terms of mandatory minimum sentences.
I would like to read from draft No. 11, dated November 21, 2012. It is entitled “Jordan's Principle, Case Conferencing to Case Resolution, Federal/Provincial Intake Form”. It is tab 420 in the factum of evidence in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on first nation child services that are being denied by the federal government. 
The quote is the following:
 Previously healthy 4 year old First Nation Child suffered cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury while undergoing routine dental extraction. The child is totally dependent for all activities of daily living and requires significant medical and equipment before she can be discharged from [health services]. 
The items that it said she needs are a Hill-Rom bed for a child, a specialized stroller, a mattress to prevent skin breakdown, a trapeze bar, a portable lift, a bath frame, a Hoyer lift. That is what is needed to look after this child and give her mother the support.
There were over a dozen child welfare agencies looking at what needed to be done to get this child back with her family.
When it came to the bed, the bed that would keep her from suffocating, the specialized bed she needed, the non-insured health benefits of Health Canada said absolutely not; they were not paying for a bed for a child who might suffocate otherwise. 
We see in the notes that it was the director of the hospital who had to pay out of his pocket for this child to get a bed because the government had written into its policy that providing that child with a life-saving bed was not a priority.
Yet, here we are today talking about mandatory minimum sentences if we are mean to a police dog.
I would like to read from another report, entitled “Jordan's Principle, Dispute Resolution”, dated May 22, 2009. It is tab 320 in the factum of evidence that has been brought forward against the federal government:
 A child with multiple disabilities and/or complex medical needs requires a wheelchair and stroller and requires that a lift and tracking device be installed in his/her family home. [Health Canada] will provide children with only one item every five years. If the item is a wheelchair, [non-insured health benefits] supports the provision of manual wheelchairs only, which must be fitted with special seating inserts in order to accommodate small children. 
 They would not even pay for an electric wheelchair for a completely incapacitated child. It is in the policy.
Yet, here we are talking about mandatory minimum sentences for people being mean to police dogs.
I will read from an internal government report from British Columbia, INAC and Health Canada, Gaps in Delivery Services to First Nation Children in B.C., dated November 6, 2009, which states:
 More and more, dentists and other care providers refuse to deal with Health Canada directly because of very long delays in receiving payment.... 
There is no funding for basic dental care, even in emergency situations; no money for “basic equipment, e.g. hospital bed”. We have already talked about the fact that it will not pay for hospital beds for children: “too bad, so sad”.
There is no funding for special diets for children who cannot eat solid foods, and no funding so that the guardian can travel with a child to a special needs appointment.
I am not making this up. These are in the tabs. Costs for medications are not approved by the federal government, even though the pediatricians prescribe the medication for the child's condition.
It states:
 Children in care are not accessing Mental Health services.... If these children cannot get necessary mental health service, [including assessment for fetal alcohol syndrome], they are unable to access [other education programs]. 
I will point out that in my region of Treaty 9, the issue of not being able to access mental health services has left us with horrific levels of suicide. If children or young people come forward to say that they are depressed or suicidal, the only option is to put them into foster care and take them away from their community. Any other community would provide counselling, but that is not allowed because it is not in the policy. Yet, we have mandatory minimum sentences being discussed today for being mean to police dogs.
I would like to talk about this idea of mandatory minimum sentences.
 In the New Brunswick region, we have an internal document entitled “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships”, dated November 2012, tab 298.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The member for Oxford is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, there has to be some relevance to the bill before the House. This member has been going on about issues that have nothing to do with Bill C-35, Quanto's law. It is certainly high time that he got back to the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The member for Oxford raises the issue of relevance. I have listened carefully to the member for Timmins-James Bay. I have heard him make reference to the bill that is before the House, but he is talking about other matters that may be related to it. It is the opinion of the Chair that the member has not strayed beyond the normal practice of relevance to this point. However, the Chair is waiting to hear the member bring this back to the matter that is specifically before the House.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues get upset any time that we talk about first nation children or first nation victims in the House. However, I was pointing out, as the member stood up, that I was referring to Bill C-35 and the six-month minimum sentence for abuse of police dogs, and I was comparing this to other government policy. In Bill C-35, we are being asked to talk about invoking minimum sentences for the mistreatment of police dogs, and yet, over on that side, the mistreatment of first nation children under their watch is “too bad, so sad”.
A New Brunswick region internal document entitled, “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnership”, dated November 12, 2012, warns in two sections of the report of the risks, including death to children, through underfunded child welfare programs. It states:
 ...the continuance of inadequate service delivery in the Agency could lead to exposure of First Nations children to serious harm. [...] 
 [Further], there would be a significant backlash if a child died as a result of federal funding not being available.... 
I have seen the House in this last session of Parliament turn into a Potemkin democracy. Important issues of the day are not allowed to be discussed, or they are pushed through in omnibus legislation. However, we have all the time under the sun to talk about the mistreatment of police dogs. I would never support the mistreatment of a dog or cat—I have had dogs and cats my whole life—but I see internal documents that say the government knows that children are at risk of death because of its deliberate underfunding, and the government puts in writing that it would absolutely not give children basic health care and beds that children need so they do not die.
Let us talk about minimum sentences. How about some minimum sentences for the people who have the fiduciary responsibility to look after children under their watch and who leave them with no support? The number of children who have been lost, given up, suffered death, committed suicide, is appalling. 
I will go back to the opening statement that I made, from Sergeant O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police when he found the body of Tina Fontaine. She was an innocent child who had been taken out of her family and put in child welfare and then lost in the system. He said if it were a litter of puppies or kittens, society would be appalled. 
We have seen a response from the federal government. Its response was to go after Cindy Blackstock, who brought forward the Human Rights Tribunal case. Its response was to spy on her, to follow her, to break the law in trying to get evidence on her, and to fight these issues all the way through the Human Rights Tribunal.
I will end my speech on this one last case of Pictou Landing, Maurina Beadle, whose son suffered from cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus, and autism. The family fought all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal to get home care for this child, and the government wanted the family to pay legal costs. That is the kind of situation we are dealing with in the House today.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I found his point of view refreshing.
I think we need to compare Bill C-35, Quanto's law, to other bills and the penalties being imposed in other bills. Is today's bill fair compared to others?
Some bills have gone too far. For some time now, it has been common to see court challenges of the penalties the House of Commons imposes in bills. The government must then rewrite the bills because they often go too far. The courts have been clear about this.
In many cases, the government should perhaps take time to consider and debate bills in committee and hear from experts. This government often does not listen. That is why I think the points my colleague raised were worthwhile and very interesting.
I would like him to comment on the time we are spending on this bill compared to the time we have spent on other bills. Budget implementation bills have been sped through, yet we are taking a lot of time to study bills that have a very narrow scope. Could he speak to that?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. We are in Parliament to review legislation and to assure the people of Canada that any bills that are brought forward and become law have been fully reviewed, so that we understand if there are problems. Whatever bills do, they can create unintended consequences.
 Yet under the current government, we see that serious pieces of legislation are blown through. There is time allocation and debate is cut down so that review is not given. We have had more and more bills rejected by the Supreme Court, bills that are unconstitutional, and even had bills turned back in the Senate, because they are obviously failures. We could spend all day, weeks and months, on a bill about being mean to police dogs.
I would like to point out to my colleague the example of the stripping of the navigable waters act. Right across Canada there was no review of that. That was so the Conservatives could get the pipelines through. Now we see in Ontario and Quebec, the push-back on Energy East. If the government had done this in a proper manner and reassured the public, there might not be this kind of resistance we are seeing in Burnaby to the northern gateway pipeline and that we are seeing to Energy East.
The lack of due diligence on these bills has huge implications for development in this country.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is really with a great deal of disbelief that I listened to the members opposite complaining about how there is inadequate time to debate bills, and yet when given the opportunity to debate this bill, Quanto's law, the member opposite does not even speak about it. I listened very carefully to his comments and I waited for him to talk about the sections of the bill that he liked or did not like. Instead, all I heard him talk about were other issues. 
Quite frankly, I think this contributes to a lot of the disillusionment across the land, when people tune in and see these kinds of antics. When they see a member such as the member opposite trying to distract people and discussion from the matter at hand and see him wasting time talking about unrelated issues rather than addressing the bill before us, people get cynical about what goes on in this place.
 I would be interested to see if the member could stand on his feet and just for 30 seconds talk about two or three provisions of Quanto's law.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, is it “antics” to talk about Tina Fontaine's body being found in the Red River? However, I guess because she was an indigenous child, to speak about the mistreatment of aboriginal children in the House the Conservatives think is “antics”. They have absolutely zero interest.
 The Conservatives would rather we talk about the treatment of police dogs because they have zero interest in the fact that, under their watch, children are being denied wheelchairs. They are being denied wheelchairs because there are two sets of laws in this country: one for the rich old white people and another for the aboriginal children who are being denied hospital beds, denied access to dental treatment, denied access to medical services. The Conservatives say that when we raise issues of indigenous rights, it is an antic. Damn right.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. Before we resume debate, the Chair would like to clarify for all members the issue of relevance. There is a responsibility for members to address the matter that is before the House at any time. As has been said many times from this chair, a significant amount of latitude is given to members in how they do that, including referencing other pieces of legislation or previous pieces of legislation.
Having said that, this is not licence for members to say “We have this matter before the House today, but I think we should be talking about another matter”, and then talking exclusively about that. I just would urge all hon. members to keep the spirit of the principle of relevance central to their speechmaking, and for members to be tolerant of their colleagues who may choose a detour or a circuitous route to get to the point. Having said that, that only makes sense if and when the member actually does come to the point. That is how that is done.
This morning, this issue has been raised a couple of times, but I just want to remind all hon. members that the speech device of saying that that “We are talking about A, but I think we should be talking about B” and then talking about B ad nauseam, regardless of how the member may personally feel about issue B, is not really in the spirit of relevance. With that, I anticipate that we will be able to carry forward with the debate today.
 The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I took a lot of exception to the member's use of the term “rich old white people”. It was the disdain in his voice when he uttered that comment. He may not like rich people and he may not like old people, but the House of Commons is no place for him to voice his disdain for that group. Parliament represents rich people and old people. If they happen to be one and the same, maybe they worked for it. That member should be ashamed of himself for using that term in such a derogatory fashion and should apologize.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, some people might consider me a rich old white guy. If I said anything derogatory, I retract it. The fact is that there are two laws and indigenous children do not seem to matter to the government. I will retract any unnecessary comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Thank you. The Chair appreciates that from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
In terms of the initial point of order raised, the Standing Orders also ask hon. members to conduct themselves in such a way in this place that they do not cause disruption. There are times when members are quite passionate about what they say and they say it in such a way that it incites passion
Again, I would urge members to be cautious in their choice of words and the way they make their points, including when they are speaking about matters they are very passionate about.
Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank you for the reminder you just gave us.
I would like to begin by saying that, despite the comparisons that were just being made between the government's treatment of aboriginal children and the bill before us, it is important to note that the NDP condemns all forms of animal cruelty. We have long defended that position, and the legislation and bills we have introduced clearly demonstrate that.
It has been said before, but I will say it again: every time this government introduces a bill, the devil is often in the details. I will come back to that in my speech.
 We are supporting Bill C-35. I want to reiterate that as well. We feel it is important, as the official opposition, that this be bill passed at second reading so that it can be sent to committee for study. We need to get expert opinions on some of the provisions and proposals in this bill. Once again, with the Conservatives, the devil is in the details. That said, the bill itself is commendable, and that needs to be said. 
I am a Cree from Bay James, in northern Quebec. In fact, I come from the last generation of northern Quebec Cree who were born in the forest, in a tent, and who used sled dogs to survive. I remember that when I was young, growing up, we made long treks with our sled dogs.
I remember that after four hours with dogs that had pulled several sleds—there was more than one, since we were a large family— we would stop to take a break and have a little something to eat, and I was tasked with letting the dogs loose. It was the first thing that needed to be done because it was a sign of respect to take the dogs out of their harnesses and feed them first, before we had even had tea and food. That is my culture. I simply wanted to share it with the House.
Speaking of sled dogs, it is also important to remember that according to the Inuit, in the 1950s and 1960s, the RCMP was ordered to slaughter all of the sled dogs in the Arctic and the far north, including in part of my riding, Nunavik. They slaughtered the Inuit's sled dogs so they could force the people into communities to live by their rules. 
In 2011, the Government of Quebec wisely recognized the impact of those government actions. It apologized to the Inuit of Nunavik. I know that in 2006, there was a report by Parliament and the RCMP on that. However, they absolved themselves of all responsibility in their own review.
Earlier, I talked about how it is important for this bill to go to committee so that the experts can have a look at it.
I said that because the government is once again trying to impose six-month-long consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for crimes under Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals). We think this bill has to go to committee for study so that experts can tell us, for example, how the mandatory minimum sentences contradict various rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would like to share two examples. The first is from Gladue. I am sure everyone remembers that important 1999 Supreme Court decision. It mentioned part XXIII of the Criminal Code, which lays out the purpose and basic principles of sentencing as well as the factors judges must take into account in determining an appropriate sentence for an offender. This was an important case with respect to sentencing. We have to consider rulings like these because they require judges to take certain factors into account in sentencing, particularly for aboriginal people. 
I would like to read an excerpt from the1999 ruling in the Gladue case. The Supreme Court said that subparagraph 718.2(e):
 ...requires sentencing judges to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment and to pay particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. The provision is not simply a codification of existing jurisprudence. It is remedial in nature. Its purpose is to ameliorate the serious problem of overrepresentation of aboriginal people in prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing. 
I am not an expert in sentencing or in the Criminal Code, but I do know a little about the laws of this country, especially Supreme Court decisions, which I take the time to read. Mandatory minimum sentences go against some of the orders handed down from the highest court in the land. It is important to take that into consideration when discussing mandatory minimum sentences.
I will now give the second example, which I have already quoted in the House in another debate on missing and murdered aboriginal women. Today I will again quote from the decision in this important case dealing with sentencing. This also speaks to the importance of inviting experts to tell us how this bill flies in the face of some Supreme Court rulings. Here is what the Supreme Court said in that case, and I will conclude on this point: 
 When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate...for Aboriginal peoples. 
The Supreme Court is telling us to go in one direction, but some of the government's bills seem to go in the opposite direction. That is why I believe this bill should be sent to committee for further study.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and especially for reminding us of the importance of the different services, as noted in the bill, that animals such as dogs can provide. He also gave a very interesting example about first nations customs and the respect that the first nations have for working dogs, if I can put it that way.
However, I would like to have his views on the amount of time we are spending on discussing this bill, when there are so many other issues to consider. He raised a few of those issues, including the treatment of first nations, the treatment of first nations children, or other topics related to our economy.
I would like the hon. member to say a few words about that.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her very important question. In the House, the nature of our work is to address all the issues before us.
Mr. Speaker, as you have seen, I heeded your reminder to deal directly with the issue that was before us today, but I thank the hon. member. She is right.
Yesterday, I was in Montreal standing before roughly 300 people to celebrate the graduation of Cree firefighters who had just obtained their internationally recognized certification. Most of them reminded me of what the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard just said. Indeed, there are a lot of issues before us. For Canada's aboriginal peoples alone, there are a great many challenges that remain to be addressed in Canada's aboriginal communities in 2014. I think it is unfortunate that we are not spending more time on aboriginal peoples, the first peoples of this country.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who was quite humble about his legal knowledge. I very much appreciate his experience, and not just in terms of legal issues and negotiations. I am not here to list his resumé, but he is certainly an impressive colleague to have.
He spoke about why Supreme Court rulings are important and how they affect the way we must interpret laws and enforce them.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on one point. Regarding bills like this one, or private members' bills, how has the government applied Supreme Court rulings, in particular with respect to minimum penalties?
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. The bills we have been passing here, under this Conservative government, are increasingly being struck down by the courts and by the Supreme Court. I do not need to remind members of what has happened in some very recent cases. Once again, we need to remember that as parliamentarians, we have a duty to consider the constitutionality of the bills before us.
 Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice has a duty to verify whether the bills introduced in the House are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example. This also applies to issues associated with aboriginal rights.
I also want to remind members that when we impose minimum penalties in bills, as is the case here, we seem to forget that this often has consequences on both the judicial system and the prison system. We cannot forget that. As it seemed to be the case at one point, the government only seems to want to build prisons in this country, when we should be building houses in first nations communities.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commending you, because that does not happen very often in this place. Your reminder about relevance in reference to the speech that was just given by the member for Timmins—James Bay is very important.
Oftentimes in this place, Mr. Speaker, each one of us has aspects of our representation about which we are very passionate. In the case of the member for Timmins—James Bay and the first nations people who are in his riding, he is very concerned. The striking comment from the police officer when they found that young aboriginal woman's body and when he compared that to the fact that Canadians would be more concerned about puppies, that was of course a flashpoint for my friend from Timmins—James Bay.
I know you were attentive, Mr. Speaker, because you allowed that debate to go perhaps a little long, straying away and then bringing it back with his comments. I appreciate the fact that you had the understanding of the passion, and I just want to commend you for that. That is not something that is usually done in this place.
I think the other reason for the frustration level for members on this side of the House is not that we are not supportive of bills and legislation to protect animals and service animals like the police or RCMP dogs, horses, or other animals. In fact the NDP has supported bills in this House before. I recall Bill C-232 and Bill C-592.
It is the fact that here we are, having a fulsome debate on this, which is more than reasonable, following times when we have had far more complicated legislation before the House and have had time allocation forced on us, more than 80 times now by my reckoning. Once in a while that level of frustration will percolate to the top in the comments we are making.
I can understand my friend, the member for Timmins—James Bay, expressing those concerns earlier.
I also want to commend the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the critic for the NDP, who reviewed Bill C-35, Quanto's law, for us and offered her recommendations and thoughts.
I might be able to bring a kind of unique perspective to this debate. In 1996, I was putting together, at that time, the largest civil demonstration in the history of our country in Hamilton. It was a protest against the Conservative government of Mike Harris at the time. We wound up with 105,000 people on the streets of Hamilton.
The point I wanted to make is that I had 28 years in the labour movement and, from time to time, either on picket lines or in various demonstrations, I have observed people who are taking part who quite often were provocateurs outside of the activists who had put together the particular event. I have seen on occasion where they had plans, for instance, to injure the horses of police officers with screwdrivers and implements like that.
I understand that when we are dealing with the use of service dogs and horses in crowd control in those circumstances, sometimes there are people who are very extreme.
In our case in Hamilton in 1996, we met with police services and the fire service, and I had individuals in charge of our security. We had 500 of our own marshals. At that particular event, we had about 40 troublemakers—I will not call them activists—who came with the intent of disrupting the event. We were able to discuss the matter with them and with our own marshals and limit their activities to the point where they peacefully demonstrated.
In the end, we can see the importance of having some kind of reaction to the abuse or killing of police service animals. We are in support of this bill going to committee. We do have some problems with the assignment of actual penalties, where the judge does not get to make the decisions. We believe we put our judges in courts to guide us and lead us in the law and to make those appropriate decisions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time for government orders has expired. Consequently, the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek will have five minutes remaining for his remarks when this matter returns before the House.

Statements By Members
Roy HendersonMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to rise in the House in celebration of the life of a true Canadian hero. Roy Henderson, who was a proud World War II veteran and a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, passed away this week.
Roy was a true community volunteer and stalwart. Following service in World War II, he joined the Canadian Legion. He was a volunteer fireman. He had a great career as an insurance salesman for Metropolitan Life.
Roy was always a strong supporter and loyal member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Nova Scotia and the Conservative Party of Canada. He was a key organizer for our party during the Stanfield years in my hometown of Truro, but what is more, he was a close family friend and someone I truly respected.
 Tammy and I would like to give our condolences to the entire Henderson family on the passing of Roy. He had a tremendous life. He contributed to our entire community. God bless you, Roy.
March for PeaceHoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I took part in the march for peace in Brossard—La Prairie.
I wish to congratulate the Brossard Islamic centre, Mohamed Yacoub and all the organizers on a very successful event. Hundreds of people from all walks of life came together in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters. We were all shocked by the terrible events that took place in Saint-Jean and here in Parliament.
To quote the Leader of the Opposition:
 ...whether talking about protecting civilians in the Middle East, fighting racism and Islamophobia or ensuring rights are respected here at home, New Democrats can be counted on to stand up for human rights.... 
 Moving forward, we will continue doing the hard of work of ensuring Canadians’ safety while guarding our shared values of freedom, tolerance and an inclusive democracy. 

Jewish RefugeesMr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for 2,500 years Jews lived in Arab lands, but in the 20th century many Arab regimes expropriated the property of Jews, stripped them of their citizenship, and expelled, arrested, tortured, and murdered scores in some of the most vicious pogroms ever perpetrated against the Jewish people.
Some 850,000 Jews were displaced. It is imperative that under international law, these people be determined to be refugees. Our own House of Commons standing committee on foreign affairs agrees. In its report from 2013, it recommended that:
 ...Canada officially recognize the experience of Jewish refugees who were displaced from states in the Middle East and North Africa after 1948. 
In Israel, a law has been enacted marking November 30 as the national day for commemorating the flight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Across Canada and around the world, there will be events to mark this day.
In 2013, Canada became the first country in the world to formally recognize Jewish refugees from Arab countries. I encourage nations around the world to follow our lead and recognize this injustice. Under the Prime Minister's principled leadership, our country will stand proud and tall for the values that make Canada great, which are freedom, democracy, human rights, and the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso. 
Tourism AwardsMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week, I was pleased to attend the Tourism Industry Association of Canada's annual awards night, where three organizations from my riding received nominations, including Cabot Links golf course, the Fortress of Louisbourg, and the Celtic Heart of North America marketing group.
Congratulations to Cabot Links for winning the Visa Canada Traveller Experience of the Year Award. Cabot Links is recognized as one of Canada's top golf courses and is ranked as the 82nd-best golf course in the world by Golf Digest magazine. Cabot Links runs along the breathtaking shoreline of Cape Breton and provides golfers with a true links experience, with panoramic views, fabulous accommodations, and a five-star menu.
To the incredible Ben Cowan-Dewar, his wife Allie, and their staff of almost 200, congratulations on this prestigious national award. Congratulations as well to the people of Inverness, and particularly to those members of the Inverness Development Association whose vision and determination were the impetus for this world-class project.
Stuwix ResourcesMr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have some exciting news to share with the House today. Stuwix Resources is a tenure holder and forest management company owned jointly by eight first nations in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. 
This is a company that employs close to half a dozen aboriginal staff full time and works with 89 different local businesses, of which 23 are local aboriginal entrepreneurs. The company has replanted over eight million seedlings in the past five years, and 65% of the forest harvest is completed by first nations contractors.
In summary, Stuwix Resources has become a leader in first nations forest resource management. I hope that the House will join with me in recognizing Stuwix Resources, which has won the Aboriginal Business Leadership Award, presented by the Forest Products Association of Canada and the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business. 
This is an exciting award recognizing the leadership of first nations communities and the creation of employment through responsible resource development.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many new citizens come to my office in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and say that they want to invite members of their family to come visit them in Canada. 
These individuals want to share milestones in their lives, such as a marriage, a birth or other more tragic events, with the members of their family who are still living in their country of origin. Unfortunately, when those family members are citizens of a country for which a visa is required, the whole process becomes an administrative nightmare.
Many of these new Canadian citizens find the process confusing, which shows that there is a blatant lack of resources available to them. The process is not transparent, applications are systematically denied and the applicants are left disappointed.
Vague and ridiculous criteria are used to discriminate against certain cases, such as the family's travel outside the country prior to the application, for example. These people feel that they are being discriminated against, and that the Conservatives consider them second-class citizens.
I therefore join them in calling for change to ensure that from now on all citizens are treated equally.
Calgary StampedersHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Sunday two teams will go head to head in Vancouver. After a strong season, the Calgary Stampeders will face the Hamilton Tiger-Cats for Canadian football's greatest prize, the Grey Cup.
With the award-winning coaching of John Hufnagel and strong performances by players like Bo Levi Mitchell and Jon Cornish, Calgary finished its season after winning an impressive 83% of its games. However, Calgary's grit and determination mean that our team will not rest until the job is done. Even beating Edmonton to prove that they were the best in the west is not enough.
To my dear friend and seatmate here, I can tell him that we will beat his team.
Go, Stamps, go!
Hamilton Tiger-CatsMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will all be watching and cheering in celebration of the 102nd Grey Cup, hosted at B.C. Place, where the Hamilton Tiger-Cats will satisfy their fans and forever mark their spots in Canadian football history by capping off a Cinderellaesque year with a victory against the Calgary Stampeders.
Despite pundits writing off the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, including the member for Calgary East, there is no denying that history will, as it always does, repeat itself. The last Ticats Grey Cup victory was against the Stampeders at B.C. Place in a comparable underdog manner.
Regardless of any personal bias, I am sure we can all look forward to an epic battle between two great teams. If nothing else, the 102nd Grey Cup will test the timely football law of offence sells seats, defence wins championships, as Calgary's top offence will try their luck and fail against Hamilton's top defence
Oskee Wee Wee, Oskee 102!
Quebec AgenciesMr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to little-known agencies that work tirelessly in Quebec.
With the help of volunteers or workers who are often underpaid, these groups improve people's lives and work on unifying issues and projects: the Eastern Townships housing co-operatives that provide social housing for low-income families; volunteer centres where the sense of giving far exceeds political action; AmiEs de la Terre, a proud proponent of and window to organic farming; Union paysanne, an advocate of traditional farming and family farms; COGESAF, a guardian of watersheds and a great protector of our water; and Solidarité rurale du Québec, a community builder that raises awareness about the reality of rural life and that suffered greatly from the austerity agenda. 
Of course, there is the Townshippers' Association, protector of the Anglophone minority, and its tradition of building bridges throughout our community.
Their voices and missions deserve our attention because their many initiatives are vital to all Quebeckers.
TaxationStephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, under the Conservative government's family tax cut, every family with children will have more money to spend on their priorities as a family.
The majority of the benefits will go to low- and middle-income families. For instance, a single mother with two children earning $30,000 per annum will benefit by a whopping $1,500 very year.
 However, the Liberal leader is promising to reverse this tax relief and force hard-working middle-class families to pay more. We reject the Liberal leader's high-tax policies.
 Our Conservative government has kept our promise to families, and we continue to stand with them. After all, we all know that there are only two people who really know what is best for their kids: mom and dad.
Affordable HousingMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the co-op housing sector is in dire need of sustainable funding from the federal government because agreements between co-ops and CMHC are coming to an end.
In my riding of Vancouver East there are 30 housing co-ops. Approximately one-third of co-op households will be at risk of homelessness when these agreements expire. Thousands of vulnerable citizens will be burdened with severe financial difficulty.
In an expensive city like Vancouver, securing affordable and stable housing is incredibly difficult, and many people are already spending so much on rent they are just one paycheque away from homelessness.
Co-op housing occupies a vital and unique position because it is secure and affordable. The government has an obligation to ensure the ongoing success of the co-op housing sector by renewing federal housing assistance to low-income households and by building more co-op housing.
I call on the government to recognize that affordable, adequate, accessible, and secure housing like co-ops is a fundamental right for all Canadians.
The EconomyMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today StatsCan announced that our economy grew by 2.8% in the third quarter of 2014, well above market expectations. This is further evidence that our unprecedented focus on the economy is working.
In September Canada exceeded economists' expectations by creating a whopping 74,000 jobs, and in October we surpassed forecasts again by adding another 43,000 jobs. 
Canada has created over 1.2 million jobs since the depths of the recession, but in an uncertain and dangerous global environment, many international risks and global market forces remain a threat to the prosperity of Canadians. Now is not the time for the Liberal Party's risky tax-and-spend experiments.
By contrast, our government's economic action plan is a proven success. We remain steadfast with our low-tax plan, which is growing our economy and will bring us back to balance in 2015.
Go, Ticats!
Warden Full Gospel AssemblyMr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my spouse Jean and I recently had the pleasure of joining Warden Full Gospel Assembly in celebrating its 60th anniversary. As the church reflects on its past, present, and future, Warden Full Gospel Assembly represents the best of Canada.
Dating back 60 years, the church was founded by a group of German immigrants who desired a spiritual home and a place of worship in their own language. Today the church's open doors welcome people from across the world. The church embraces and cares for a diverse group that is both multicultural and intergenerational.
The church's commitment and dedication to the community enrich the local neighbourhoods of Scarborough—Agincourt, whether it means running weekly sports programs for young individuals or supporting the local food bank. 
I want to thank Warden Full Gospel Assembly, Pastor Trevor Moss, and the entire congregation for their ongoing commitment to our community. I wish them continued success in the years to come.
Sri LankaMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is committed to combatting terrorism. Despite the objections of the NDP, we have taken strong action to keep Canadians safe from those who wish to harm us. We thank our men and women in uniform serving Canada.
That is why I am concerned that the member for Scarborough—Rouge River has made ridiculous statements equating Remembrance Day, which honours Canadian veterans, with Tamil Heroes Day, which honours members of the terrorist organization known as the Tamil Tigers who have been killed. The NDP member should apologize immediately to veterans and to all Canadians. 
The NDP should start standing up with our government to protect Canadians.
Government AccountabilityMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have systematically and deliberately undermined and eroded the notion of ministerial accountability until it is only a facsimile of what it was intended to be.
One graphic illustration is the refusal of the President of the Treasury Board to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to defend hundreds of millions of dollars of proposed spending in the supplementary estimates. 
It is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary democracy that the government has to seek the consent of Parliament to spend money, and the notion of accountability dictates that the minister appears before the appropriate committee to make the case for any such spending, subject to scrutiny, oversight, due diligence, and thorough examination by its members.
Members well know that kings have lost their heads for failing to respect the supremacy of Parliament. 
The stubborn intransigence of the minister in refusing to attend before a parliamentary committee shows an appalling disrespect for the institution, its members, and the Canadians they represent.
TaxationMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 100% of families with children in Ottawa—Orléans and across Canada will have more money in their pockets because of our family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit. That includes two-income families, one-income families, and single parents.
The vast majority of benefits will go to low-income and middle-class families.
Tax professionals agree. Caroline Battista, of H&amp;R Block, says, “it's a great thing for families”. Parents do not want the leader of the third party splurging their hard-earned dollars on risky Liberal spending sprees, and we are right there with them.
We want to make life easier for the parents, not the government.
Hard-working parents in Orleans know best how to spend their money for their children, and I am honoured to be standing up for them in this place and in the community.

Oral Questions
Veterans AffairsLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Auditor General blew the whistle on the Conservatives' pitiful record when it came to helping injured veterans. Adding insult to injury, we now learn the money they promised to veterans in a face-saving measure will actually be spread over not 5 years but over 50 years.
The Conservatives misled the House, they misled the public and they misled veterans. Why will the Conservatives not own up to their mistakes and be honest with Canada's veterans? 
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the investment announced by our government will not only help today's veterans, but will also help veterans of the future.
When our government took office, there were only four operational stress clinics. We have already added 13 specialized military care facilities and our latest investment will add eight additional operational stress injury clinics.
 Across the country, we will continue to respond to today's veterans' needs as we move forward.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, that answer is simply not accurate. While the minister is failing to stand and answer questions, his office confirmed yesterday that $159 million of the money announced would be spread over 50 years.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs ignored the Auditor General's recommendations from 2009, closed the offices of veterans and targeted veterans who criticized him. After all that, did the minister really think that misleading the public over this funding announcement would help him out?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the opposition is criticizing the investment we are making to help Canada's veterans in mental health care cases.
 We take veterans' mental health care very seriously. That is exactly why we are introducing more clinics and health care professionals across the country, and more places for veterans to get help. We are expanding the access to treatment right across the country, and we will continue to do that.
Aboriginal AffairsLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, he said nothing about the 50 years.
The Minister of the Environment, the member for Nunavut, said in the House that stories about her constituents eating out of a garbage dump were “untrue”. However, it did happen as anyone who watches APTN can see.
 Could the minister confirm that her office contacted Rankin Inlet and demanded an apology for making public the fact that people in her riding were eating out of a landfill?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the allegations are completely false. The Minister of the Environment was born and raised in the Arctic, and she knows how important access to healthy food is for our children and our families.
 The minister was troubled when she heard these reports about families struggling to find food. As the member of Parliament for Nunavut, it is her responsibility to listen to the concerns of her constituents and to act on their behalf. That is why she called her constituents to get the facts.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, because the Conservative government's program failed to lower the cost of food, there is a food crisis in northern Canada. While residents of Rankin Inlet are reduced to scavenging in dumps to feed themselves, all the Minister of the Environment cares about is managing public relations and demanding apologies from the local authorities who spoke out about the situation. It is appalling.
Does the minister realize that the only thing she should be concerned about right now is that people in her riding are eating out of dumps and that she needs to help them?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, the minister made a statement. She was troubled when she heard about the recent reports about families in Rankin Inlet struggling to find food, so she followed up with her constituents to address these concerns. She also contacted the senior administrative officer in Rankin Inlet to learn more about these concerns and reports. At no time did she speak to the deputy mayor during this phone conversation, and at no time did she or her office request an apology from anyone in the hamlet.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really have no shame. They are the ones who made a mess of the nutrition north Canada program.
Despite the $60 million that has been invested, the cost of food in the north has not gone down. The result is that dozens of people are having to scavenge in the dump to feed themselves.
The Minister of the Environment wants those who spoke out about the situation to apologize? She cannot be serious. She should apologize for the failure of this program. Are the Conservatives actually capable of coming up with a program that works?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the allegations are false. The truth is that the results of our government's actions are very clear. Nutrition North Canada has shipped a total of 61 million kilograms of nutritious and perishable food to northern communities since 2011.
 The minister remains committed to working on behalf of her constituents to improve the program. For example, last week, the government announced an additional investment of $11 million in 2014-15 to improve the program.
VeteransHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the Auditor General's scathing report, the Conservatives tried to mislead veterans and their families. They said that the $200 million that they promised for veterans would be spent over a period of six years. However, we now know that the money will be spent over a period of 50 years. Fifty years. How can the government defend such subterfuge?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, we take not only the mental health of our veterans very seriously, but also members of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of their families. This is why we announced an investment last Sunday of eight new additional operational stress injury clinics, the major one being in Halifax and the other satellite offices right across the country.
 This is in addition to 13 operational stress injury clinics that we have already implemented since taking office. Under the Liberals, there were only four. There will now be 25.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, in its own press release, the government spoke of “providing an additional investment of approximately $200 million over the next six years”, when, in fact, the investment is over 50 years.
 We know the government is ashamed of this paltry $200 million over 50 years attempt to mislead the veterans. Why else would the website announcing the program have disappeared from the Internet? How can the government explain these actions?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, the reason we are investing millions of dollars in veterans' benefits, services and mental health is because on this side of the House we take the issue of mental health services very seriously when it comes to our veterans. This is exactly why we are putting more operational stress injury clinics right across the country, more health care professionals, more places for veterans and still-serving members to get help. We are expanding the treatments right across the country.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, we can clearly see how much this matters to the government. The veterans affairs minister has not answered a single question, not one, all week. Once they got caught trying to deliberately mislead veterans, the Conservatives deleted the website announcing the program and the minister's office went silent.
How can Canadians and veterans trust anything the government says when it clearly will say anything to try and stop the damage?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, of course, we all know the record of the opposition when it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans. Any initiative our government brings forward to help Canada's veterans the opposition has opposed.
 We will continue to invest when it comes to veterans' benefits and services. This is exactly the reason why last week we announced eight new operational stress injury clinics right across the country, so there would be more places for veterans and their families to get the help they need.
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when Canada's veterans were asked to serve, they did so without hesitation. However, when they need our help, the Conservative government just walks away. 
The Auditor General was clear. Canadian veterans are not getting access to necessary mental health services in a timely manner. Apparently the minister thinks it is okay to take 50 years to fix the problem.
 Why are Conservatives trying to paper over their failure to support our veterans rather than fixing the problems?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, we thank the Auditor General for his report. I want to point out the Auditor General has recognized that Veterans Affairs does, indeed, have a robust health strategy in place. We have put in place mental health support and have provided rehabilitation to our veterans in a timely manner. At the same time, the Auditor General did point out that there were some unnecessary delays, which the department and our government are working to address.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, the member makes it sound like it is some kind of detail in the Auditor General report that the Conservatives just have to kind of fix. That is not the case at all. That report was a scathing indictment of the lack of care and compassion and services needed by our veterans. It is time they address the issues raised in the report, and do it honestly and properly, starting with an apology to our veterans.
 Where is the minister? Why is he not here apologizing?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can yell and scream all he wants, but I am sure that what Canadian veterans and Canadians would like him to do is to start standing up for Canada's veterans, especially when it comes to standing up and voting in favour of the initiatives that our government brings forward, such as the eight new clinics that were announced just last Sunday, which will help not only veterans but also still-serving members and members of their families.
Our government has a strong record. On this side of the House we will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans.
Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This is a minister who, rather than fixing the disgraceful record of his government on caring for veterans, chose instead to mislead Canadians about the mental health care they can expect to receive. He has literally run away from veterans and their families, while those who have served our country face a mental health crisis of unprecedented proportions.
Why are the Conservatives more interested in covering up their shameful treatment of Canada's veterans than in actually helping our veterans?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General clearly said that Veterans Affairs has put in place important mental health supports. Access to mental health support under the rehabilitation program is timely.
 At the same time, we accept all recommendations put forward by the Auditor General, including where he suggested that there are some unnecessary delays in the paperwork and the application process. We will address that. The department is already working on those initiatives.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' attitude towards our veterans is unacceptable.
On Sunday, the minister announced with great fanfare a $200 million mental health program for veterans. Great news.
However, today we learned that this program spans a period of 50 years. Fifty years. Once again, our veterans are being sold a bill of goods by this government.
Why does the minister not understand that our veterans need mental health care now, and not in 50 years?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, we are responding not only to the needs of today's veterans, but also to the needs of veterans in the future. As I mentioned, there were only four operational stress injury clinics when our government took office. We have already put in place 13 operational stress injury clinics across the country. Just last Sunday we announced eight additional satellite offices across this country, the major one being in Halifax.
 We will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans.
Northern DevelopmentMr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, instead of accepting the Auditor General's findings that the nutrition north program is a failure, and instead of helping people in her own riding, the Minister of the Environment demanded an apology from authorities in Rankin Inlet, who revealed that 50 to 100 people are scavenging for food. She should be ashamed.
Will the government acknowledge that it has failed to deal with this crisis and will it commit to changing its program to help people in the north, who are struggling with exorbitant prices?
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government wants northerners, like all Canadians, to have access to quality, nutritious food. That is why we created the Nutrition North program. The member knows that.
The results are clear. Since the program began, shipments of healthy foods to our north have increased by 25% and savings for families have been $110 on average. We are increasing funding. We are improving this program to make sure that all Canadians have access to healthy food.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, nearly 100 people in the north are being forced to rummage through garbage for food to survive. Food prices are outrageous. Some fresh foods cost 10 times what they do in the south. 
Instead of reaching out and moving heaven and earth to resolve the situation, all their MP is doing is making intimidating phone calls. That is unacceptable.
Can the government tell us when it learned that people in Rankin Inlet were going to the landfill to find food and what it has done to deal with this crisis?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, it is rather quite shameful that the member for Churchill is using unfounded, untrue personal attacks when she should be talking about the importance of the Nutrition North program, which has provided areas like hers with a 25% increase in shipments of healthy food. An average family of four has seen their grocery bill go down. That is why we created the program. We committed new funding just this week. Ongoing improvements are in place. This is an important program and not the time for unfounded attacks.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, what is truly shameful is that people in my part of the country continue to go hungry because Nutrition North is not working for them, just as it is not working for northern people across our country.
As for the people of Rankin Inlet, they deserve more than intimidation and empty rhetoric from the current government. 
We should be doing everything we can to ensure that no one in the north has to go to the dump to get food. We need to get to the bottom of the demand that the minister made to Rankin Inlet officials.
When did she ask her office to apologize to them? Was this a directive from the PMO? Do they truly believe that is how northern people deserve to be treated?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous response, the member knows that the program is working. The Auditor General said that it can be improved, and we will see improvements that ensure that retailers are a part of a solution for northern families. But already we are seeing a net benefit of over $100 per family. This week an additional $11.3 million was added to the program.
 This is the time to make sure that northerners know about the program and that we work with retailers to make sure that it is having an impact. It is not the time for shameful attacks.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when we talk about a respectful relationship, we mean respect, dialogue, and reconciliation. Clearly, the Minister of the Environment does not share this definition.
We have asked a number of simple questions. 
Once again, when was the minister aware that 40 to 100 of her constituents had to resort to a landfill to feed themselves? Why was there no immediate action? When was the decision made to attempt to strong-arm the officials in Rankin Inlet, rather than reaching out a helping hand to help them out?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary indicated earlier, those reports are untrue. The minister, as the member for Nunavut, is constantly in touch with her community on all reports.
In fact, in contrast to the rhetoric being thrown around by some of those members, northern Canada has the strongest member in cabinet in its history. There is no stronger champion for the north, some one delivering results, not petty and shameful attacks.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, welcome to Conservative Canada where if a person is a vet, they wait 50 years, and if they are hungry, they go to the dump.
This week, when Canadians saw heartbreaking footage of people scavenging in dumps in Rankin Inlet, the Conservatives went on the offensive. The current minister claimed that this video was not true—we heard her. Her staff intimidated people in Rankin Inlet, demanding an apology to the Conservative Party of Canada. What staggering indifference.
I would like to ask the minister why she believes that people eating out dumps in her riding owe the Conservative Party an apology for her failure to represent them.
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, the only thing found in dumps here this morning is the questions and the approach of the opposition. 
This is a time where we could be talking about how the Nutrition North program is helping families in the north, just as we are hearing. The minister is in touch regularly with her communities. She represented the territory on the ground. She was raised there. She is not just reading attack lines in the House of Commons, but delivering for northern Canada. We are very proud of that.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General slammed the current government for failing to address the high cost of food in Canada's north.
There is evidence that to survive people have to scrounge for food in the dump; yet, the minister for the north continues to deny this. What is worse, elected officials say she has been bullying them to endorse her failed program and apologize to the Conservative Party. This is shameful. This is not the first time the minister for the north has failed the north.
Will she listen to the Attorney General and act now to ensure that the people of the north have access to nutritious and affordable food?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the government wants to ensure that northerners have the same access to healthy food that constituents like mine have. That is why we created the Nutrition North program, and it has seen good results. Since 2011, there has been a 25% increase in shipments to the north of healthy food products. An average family of four has seen a net reduction in their grocery bill of $110.
Since this minister has been part of the federal cabinet, northern Canada has never been better served. She is a champion for the north and for all of Canada.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report says that Nutrition North is a mess. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs agrees with the Auditor General.
The MLA for Gjoa Haven says that the program is not working. The deputy mayor of Rankin says that residents are scavenging in the local dump for food.
However, the minister in charge of this particular area says that it is all not true and demands an apology. What is not true, the AG's findings, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs's agreement with the AG's findings, the statement by the MLA for Gjoa Haven, the statement by the deputy mayor for Rankin—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, nothing indicates better the experience that the minister brings than the fact she was previously the MLA for Gjoa Haven. In fact, she grew up in and is from Nunavut. She brings that passion and knowledge to the House. She is not just reading lines on a piece of paper.
The reality is that the Auditor General knows that more money is being spent. There are results. We are going to ensure that we take the Auditor General's feedback to ensure that there are more clauses in these funding agreements to ensure that recipients can provide all information on eligible items, including margins, to make sure that the net benefit is for the families of the north.
Canadian Tourism CommissionArnold Chan: Mr. Speaker, the government's blind slashing of budgets is having a profound effect on Canada's tourism industry. Since coming to power, the government has chopped the budget of the Canadian Tourism Commission by almost half. Two years ago the commission pulled out of its biggest market, the U.S., due to these cuts.
Now even the minister is suggesting that this was mistake and is asking for help from the Prime Minister for greater funding. When will the government listen to its own minister and restore funding to the Canadian Tourism Commission?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course our government is delivering concrete actions for the Canadian tourism sector.
We have introduced more efficient electronic visa application processes. We have negotiated and expanded nearly 80 air transport agreements since 2006. We are expanding our visa application centres to 130 worldwide, and we are promoting Canada in key tourism markets around the world.
The Canadian Tourism Commission will continue to promote Canada as a welcoming four-season destination in the world's most promising tourism markets.
Port of MontrealAlexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, Normand Morin's unofficial job at SNC-Lavalin was to give illegal donations to political parties. It is not just an accusation; he admits it.
 Conservatives have known about it for 18 months. What did they do? Nothing. Morin remained in his Conservative patronage position at the Port of Montreal, getting $25,000 a year until CTV revealed the scam. Only now is he out. Why did it take so long?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this individual is no longer a member of the board, and none of the issues regarding his alleged activities at SNC-Lavalin are related to the federal government.
Anyone found responsible for that wrongdoing should face the full force of the law.
Alexandre Boulerice: Well, that was reassuring, Mr. Speaker.
 A former vice-president at SNC-Lavalin admitted to the anti-corruption unit that he was at the heart of a system that secretly sent funding to the Quebec Liberal Party. 
Thanks to its dummy system, SNC-Lavalin illegally funnelled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the party. Despite those revelations, Normand Morin remained on the board of the Port of Montreal for another 18 months.
Why did the Conservatives turn a blind eye to the illegal actions of the vice-president of SNC-Lavalin, who was a board member at the Port of Montreal, for all that time?
Jeff Watson:  Mr. Speaker, this individual is no longer a member of the board.
None of the issues regarding his alleged activities at SNC-Lavalin are related to the federal government. Anyone found responsible of wrongdoing should face the full force of the law.
Steel IndustryMs. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadian steel companies and workers are being shut out of opportunities because of the government's failure to do anything about creeping buy-American policies.
 Now a ferry dock project in Canada on federally owned land is closed to Canadian steel companies. Canadian workers and businesses are looking for more than concern from the government.
 What is the minister actually doing to correct this situation?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated in this House earlier this week, our government is deeply concerned by the appearance that the U.S. intends to apply buy American restrictions to the project at Prince Rupert. 
This is just another example of how illogical and actually counterproductive to free trade these buy American programs are.
Our government has a track record of consistently opposing such measures and standing up and opening markets for Canadians. We will continue to work on that.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Buy American Act is being applied on Canadian soil. Canadian steel suppliers cannot even bid on a bridge being built in Prince Rupert, here in Canada. 
Meanwhile, Canadian workers, such as those at Nova Bus in Saint-Eustache, are victims of the Americans' protectionist policies.
Why are the Conservatives unable to protect Canadian jobs?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, as the member of the trade committee well knows, our government has consistently stood in opposition to such protectionist measures.
What is interesting is that her colleague the member of Parliament for Burnaby—New Westminster has been promoting such measures, calling them perfectly logical, as members opposite are trying to actually oppose the one in five jobs being created in Canada attributable to trade.
There is no party in this House that stands up more for opening markets for Canada and protecting our own access than this government.
The EconomyMr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in September, the Canadian economy beat market expectations by creating more than 74,000 jobs. Last month, we should pass expectations again by adding another 43,000 jobs.
With 1.2 million new jobs created since the recession, the Canadian economy is envied around the world. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update this House on the latest news about Canada's economy?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the Canadian economy grew at an annualized rate of 2.8% in the third quarter of 2014, crushing market expectations. 
However, as we have seen, global market forces affect Canada, and the global economy remains fragile. Now is not the time for risky Liberal Party tax and spend experiments. 
We must stay the course with our low-tax plan that is growing our economy and will bring it back to balance in 2015.
Public Works and Government ServicesMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in October, 34 Health Canada compensation professionals in Shawinigan were let go. Their jobs were transferred to New Brunswick. That represents a loss of $1.5 million in direct spinoffs for Mauricie.
I recently met those workers, who still want to work for the federal public service in Mauricie.
Will the minister at least try to find positions for them in federal offices in Shawinigan?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government made a commitment to taxpayers that we would run this government in a much more responsible way when it came to how we spend their dollars, and we would improve service delivery for them.
Our consolidation of services includes streamlining, increasing accessibility, and making sure that, as we do that, we offer employees every opportunity to continue work with the federal government.
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think that the slogan “Our regions in power” has come to mean “We are abandoning your regions”.
Mauricie has seen hard times under the Conservatives' bad management. Wood processing has stalled, the manufacturing industry has slowed down, and Radio-Canada is feeling the pinch from the government's ideological cuts.
In addition, the closure of the Health Canada office in Shawinigan affected 34 jobs and means a loss of $1.5 million. 
Can the minister commit to integrating those jobs into the federal public service in Shawinigan, in the region, where we need jobs?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, our government promised Canadians that it would respect the money they pay in taxes.
That is why we are modernizing service delivery systems and improving the services we provide to Canadians. This will make the services more efficient. All of the employees will receive or have received offers so that they can continue to work for the federal government.
Canada PostWayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, every day I am hearing complaints from my constituents in Stoney Creek who are troubled by the heavy-handed tactics of Canada Post when it is deciding where to locate the new super mailboxes. Canada Post representatives show up on their doorstep, not to consult or hear feedback but to tell them that their lot has been chosen for the box. If they have complaints, they are sent to a 1-800 number where they are told that it is a final decision.
The Conservatives have failed to protect mail delivery in this country. Now will they at least intervene and ensure a respectful consultation process, rather than what Canada Post is giving?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Canada Post is an independent arm's-length crown corporation responsible for executing its five-point plan in order to turn around the finances of the company but also to ensure that there is daily mail for all Canadians. It is doing so in a way that tries to assess the needs of those in their communities who may have potential challenges. 
Canada Post is engaged in several communications within the constituency. However, if there is a particular question, I will refer the member to Canada Post.
Mr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people in my riding are angry about the government's decision to get rid of home mail delivery, and so they should be. This will be hardest on the elderly and those with reduced mobility. I should point out that Canada Post has made a profit of $84 million already this year. 
Why do the Conservatives want to eliminate a service that is essential to the people of Laval?
Jeff Watson: To correct the record, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has done no such thing.
 Canada Post is an independent crown corporation and is responsible for the three years of losses that have been piling up, which is because 1.2 billion fewer letters were being delivered in 2013, for example, than there were in 2006. 
Canada Post has an obligation to be financially sustainable and not a burden to taxpayers. We expect it to be so.
JusticeHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Maître Suzanne Côté on her nomination to the Supreme Court. I remain concerned, however, that yet again the government has gone about filling a Supreme Court vacancy with a closed, unaccountable, unrepresentative approach with no selection panel, and no parliamentary or public participation.
In 2004, in concert with Parliament, I implemented a series of reforms that made the appointment process more transparent, inclusive, and accountable. Ten years later, the Conservative dismantling of that process is apparently complete.
What steps, if any, will the government take to reverse this regression, thereby respecting Parliament, the court, and the people?
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, the last time an all-parliamentary process was used in the selection of a Supreme Court justice, there was a serious breach of confidentiality, and we are continuing to review the process for future appointments.
A former Liberal justice minister said that “...a high degree of confidentiality is required for the process to function properly”.
Do members know who said that? It was the member when he was minister of justice.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situation right now is very dire for the community of Change Islands in my riding.
The community in Change Islands has the potential to have a fantastic operation in its fish plant, and success is near. However, the problem is the adjacent wharf. The wharf itself has been deemed unsafe, unfit, and now an impediment to any success they might have from the fish plant.
I ask the minister to please assess the situation with the wharf that the community manages. Get in there, assess the situation, and put some investment in that wharf for the community of Change Islands.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in recent years, our government has made unprecedented investments in small craft harbours across Canada. In fact, just this week, the Prime Minister announced another $288 million in additional funding for small craft harbours across Canada.
We are very aware of the situation of the Change Islands wharf, its importance to the community, and the need to reconstruct the wharf. An engineering assessment is being undertaken to determine what can be done in preparation for the next fishing season. We have identified this as a future project and look forward to getting the work done.
Regional Economic DevelopmentMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people in my region rely on FedNor, but I was shocked to learn that the total lapsed spending at FedNor, money that was approved by Parliament but not utilized, is in the millions of dollars. Last year alone, the Conservatives spent $7.5 million less than planned on FedNor's main fund. 
Given our economic challenges in northern Ontario and the need for development in the Ring of Fire, here is an easy question. Why did the minister return the money approved by Parliament to the treasury?
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on community economic development, business growth, competitiveness, and innovation that creates jobs and long-term prosperity.
We will continue to ensure that communities and businesses in northern Ontario have the tools they need to have a strong, diversified economy.
We are working with all levels of government, including first nations and other stakeholders, to ensure we maximize the economic opportunities and long-term sustainability of northern Ontario.
Rail TransportationHélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, since 2011, there have been three incidents involving trains in southwest Montreal. The most recent derailment a few months ago involved four cars carrying dangerous goods. 
The Transportation Safety Board has called for stronger tanker cars and is worried that the government is not doing enough to discipline carriers.
When will the government listen to the TSB and make rail transportation safe? Canadians are worried. 
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians is a top priority for Transport Canada. That is why it has taken a number of important actions with respect to rail safety. Specifically, as we vowed, the most offending DOT-111s have been removed from the service of transporting crude. The remaining DOT-111s are on an aggressive phase-out that will finish ahead of a proposed American standard for a phase-out. We have gazetted regulations for new, enhanced standards for tanker cars. We continue discussions with the United States on what the next replacement car will look like.
We continue to act, because safety is important.
Public SafetyMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently the member for Scarborough—Rouge River stood in the House to celebrate Tamil heroes day, which is a day that marks the death of terrorists fighting for the Tamil Tigers. I say terrorists very deliberately, as our Conservative government listed this organization as a terrorist entity in 2006.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety please tell the House whether she thinks it is appropriate to compare the deaths of terrorists to the deaths of fallen Canadian soldiers, as the member for Scarborough—Rouge River did? Could she tell us what our government is doing to combat terrorism?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Medicine Hat for his previous work on the public safety and national security committee
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, known more commonly as the Tamil Tigers, was listed as a terrorist entity by this Conservative government in 2006, and rightly so.
I am shocked that anyone would equate this day dedicated to the glorification of the terrorist group Tamil Tigers to the solemn occasion of Remembrance Day, when we honour our fallen Canadian heroes.
We urge the NDP to stop shopping for votes from terrorist-linked groups and to immediately apologize to veterans and all Canadians for the comments made by the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Saint-Maurice--Champlain.
Public Works and Government ServicesMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last month we learned that 34 federal public service jobs were being cut in Shawinigan. Those job cuts at Health Canada are added to a long list of jobs lost in Mauricie and other communities in the metallurgy and forestry sectors.
Does the minister responsible for those cuts plan to change that decision, considering the economic reality of that region?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to respect taxpayers. That is why we are modernizing several systems that deliver services to Canadians. This includes consolidating some computer systems. I can assure the member that every employee will be getting assistance in order to continue working for the federal government.
CBC/Radio-CanadaMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec has asked the Prime Minister to clarify his position on CBC/Radio-Canada.
The insinuations and threats made by Carl Vallée, the Prime Minister's press secretary, to CBC/Radio-Canada's news director are unacceptable. His remarks undermine CBC/Radio-Canada's journalistic independence and cast doubt about whether freedom of information really exists under the Conservative regime.
How can the government claim that CBC/Radio-Canada is an arm's-length corporation when the Prime Minister's Office is interfering in programming? 
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, those allegations are completely untrue. The CBC ombudsman was very clear on this matter. With respect to this documentary, the ombudsman found that the rules of journalistic standards and practices had not been correctly applied. We respect the ombudsman's finding, and so should the member.
Status of WomenMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we stand up for women and girls, and we are taking action to protect them from being victims of barbaric cultural practices. On the other side of the House, the leader of the Liberal Party refuses to take a strong stance against violent acts that put immigrant women and girls at risk.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please explain what this government is doing to help protect Canada from gender-based violence?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, this week the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, stated, “We must advocate with governments for child marriage to be prohibited by law, and for this to be effectively enforced”.
Our Conservative government is doing just that. We are strengthening our laws to ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of early forced marriage, polygamy, honour-based violence, or any form of harmful cultural acts. On this side of the House, we are taking a strong stance against these practices, and we look forward to support from all members in the House when the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.
Employment InsuranceMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the beneficiaries to unemployed ratio is now less than 40%. It leaves not only unemployed workers but also their families and their regions out in the cold. That is an appalling record. Over six out of 10 unemployed workers are not entitled to benefits. That is unacceptable.
Why is the government deliberately leaving these workers out in the cold without jobs and why does it not help them by improving access to employment insurance?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the changes we have made in employment insurance do nothing to limit access to employment insurance. If people lose their job due to no fault of their own, the employment insurance system will be there for them, just as it always is. That is what it is there for. We are supporting unemployed Canadians getting back to work.
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, over the next three years, the government will help itself to $14.2 billion from the employment insurance fund. That is over $4.5 billion a year.
Rather than imposing a tax on jobs, why does the government not want to help unemployed workers with the money that belongs to them?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, unlike what the opposition would do, this government believes that employers and employees who contribute to the program have the right to have premiums either stay the same or actually get lower. That is why we treat the employment insurance fund with respect, unlike the previous government, which raided it for over $50 billion.
Canadians can count on us not to do that, and to keep in support of all Canadian workers, employees, and contributors, like the employers across this country. We are defending the EI system.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the agreement that was ratified yesterday at the WTO opens the door to negotiations on market access, including supply management. 
The Minister of International Trade, who is eager to reach a comprehensive agreement and always on the fast track, needs to take into account the warning issued this week by the chairman of the Producteurs de lait du Québec, Bruno Letendre, who said that dismantling supply management would lead to a drop in prices for producers and bankruptcies without any guarantee of lower prices for consumers.
Will the minister be clear with his counterparts as we move forward and protect supply management, unlike what he did with the Canada-EU agreement and unlike what he is preparing to do with the trans-Pacific partnership agreement? 
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's dairy and poultry and egg producers know that they can continue to count on our government to stand up for their interests. We are ensuring that the three pillars of supply management remain intact in all trade agreements that our government implements, including the agreements with Europe and Korea.
Our government is taking practical measures to stop products such as pizza topping kits from being imported into Canada. Our government has always stood up for Canada's supply management system and will continue to do so.
Points of OrderDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the members' statement period, the member for Winnipeg Centre, like his colleague from Timmins—James Bay, displayed his contempt for how we are to behave in the House.
In his member's statement, he opened by making references to kings losing their heads, and then went on a tirade directed at the President of the Treasury Board. Following his S.O. 31, he sat down and immediately made slashing gestures across his neck to his colleagues.
That was an appalling display. Given the world that we are living in, I think the member probably regrets that and wants to make an apology.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I take my work very seriously in the House. I am shocked that as I do my work, I get some drive-by smear about something to do with kings and the Treasury Board. I have not ever spoken on kings. I have a lot of opinions on the uselessness of the historic monarchy, but I do not know why I am being subjected to this smear.
I would like the member to apologize.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair will take this under consideration and return if necessary.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat, on the same point of order.
LaVar Payne: Mr. Speaker, I actually saw the member for Winnipeg Centre do the same thing as described by my colleague. I think that it is definitely deplorable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair appreciates the point raised. As I said, it will review the matter and return if needed.
The hon. member for Hamilton Centre on a point of order.
[Interjection]
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from the statements prior to question period. I rise on a matter of serious importance in terms of misleading the House.
The member for Calgary East stood and said as a fact that the Calgary Stampeders are going to win. They are not; the Ticats are going to win. 
Would you please call on that member to correct the record?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair presumes that this matter will resolve itself on Sunday.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
Committees of the HouseScott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled supplementary estimates (B) 2014-2015.
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to the study on supplementary estimates (B) 2014-2015.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2014-2015: Vote 5b, under the Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada”.
 I report that the committee has examined, in a very thorough and comprehensive way, the supplementary estimates put forward by the Office of the Privacy Commission and has voted, on division, to approve and recommend the option of proposed spending found therein.
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to a study of the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year 2014-15.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to its study on supplementary estimates (B), 2014-15. 
PetitionsPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to present a petition signed by 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 occupational and industrial causes combined. They also note that Canada has never banned asbestos and continues to promote its use in our country.
 Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for asbestos workers in the communities they live in, to end all government subsidies of asbestos both in Canada and abroad, and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition from hundreds of Canadians to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to include torture committed by non-state actors, private individuals and organizations as a specific and distinct criminal offence.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Flin Flon and Thompson, as well as Canadians from Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The petitioners call on the federal government to change course, protect home delivery and protect our postal service, which is an integral service to all of our communities across this country.
Lise St-Denis: Mr. Speaker, I want to present this petition calling on the government to respect the rights of small family farms to keep, trade and use their seeds.
The petitioners in my riding are calling on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty. They must also commit to ensuring that Canada's policies and programs are developed through a consultative process with the small farmers.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as B.C. caucus chair, I would like to present this petition from British Columbia as it calls upon all members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to present petitions from Vancouver regarding a fair electoral system.
The people who have signed the petition point out that our winner-take-all voting system results in a House of Commons where the number of MPs a party supports does reflect the number of voters who cast ballots for that party. They call upon the House of Commons to immediately undertake public consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure that voters can cast an equal and effective vote to be represented fairly in Parliament.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by residents of British Columbia who believe that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient and need to be strengthened by the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of impaired driving causing death.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present a petition signed by a hundred or so of my constituents. They are calling on the government to invest in the Cap-des-Rosiers Lighthouse, the tallest lighthouse in Canada, designated an historic site in 1974, but unfortunately deemed surplus by Fisheries and Oceans Canada last year. 
Fisheries and Oceans Canada are trying to hand over the lighthouse to a third party, but no third party is crazy enough to buy it, since the department did not invest enough in maintaining the lighthouse. There are no buyers. It is high time Fisheries and Oceans Canada start investing in it.
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians from the Langley, British Columbia, area who are concerned about the fact that the use of ultrasounds is causing many young girls not to be born into this world. It is creating a global gender imbalance, leading to the human trafficking of girls. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians believe that sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal
The petitioners ask all members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to present a petition signed by hundreds of people from Montreal's south shore. They are extremely worried about the end of home mail delivery. They want to hang on to this public service and these good jobs for our mail carriers. They are worried about what is in store for seniors and people with reduced mobility. They do not accept that Canada is becoming the only country in the G7 that is unable to provide home mail delivery.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 746 will be answered today.
Hon. Scott Brison: With regard to the Prime Minister’s “24 Seven” videos: for each video work posted to date, (a) who owns the copyright in the video work; (b) does anyone, apart from the copyright owner specified in (a), own copyright in any individual image, video clip, audio clip, musical work or other work which constitutes part of the larger video work; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, (i) who is that copyright owner, (ii) when and how was their permission to use the content secured, (iii) what is the duration of the permission which was granted, (iv) if permission was granted for valuable consideration, what was the dollar amount of that consideration; (d) who owns the moral rights in respect of the video work; (e) does anyone, apart from the moral rights owner specified in (d), own moral rights in any individual image, video clip, audio clip, musical work or other work which constitutes part of the larger video work; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, (i) who owns these moral rights, (ii) when and how was their permission to use the content secured, (iii) what is the duration of the permission which was granted, (iv) if permission was granted for valuable consideration, what was the dollar amount of that consideration, (v) were the moral rights waived? 
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Crown owns the copyright in the video work. 
With regard to (b), yes, for example, music is used in the 24 Seven video series for the introduction and, from time to time, within the episode. 
With regard to (c), rights for music used in the series may be acquired from different music services, depending on the music required. In some cases, royalty free compositions available under a creative commons licence may be used at no cost. In other cases, compositions are purchased from a music service. Fees for purchased compositions may be paid in accordance with usage and cost, from $1 to $30 per composition. 
With regard to (d), the moral rights reside with the individuals whose rights are engaged, unless they expressly waived those rights. 
With regard to (e), no one, apart from the moral rights owner, owns moral rights in any individual image, video clip, audio clip, musical work, or other work that constitutes part of the larger video work. Either the individual retains their moral rights or they are expressly waived.
 Part (f) of the question is not applicable. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 752 and 753 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Paul Dewar:  With regard to the merger of the former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the former Canadian International Development Agency: (a) what are the details regarding all consultants hired or retained by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to advise on, or assist with, the merger, including (i) the date of hiring or retention, (ii) the salary or stipend, if applicable, (iii) the duration of the contract, if applicable, (iv) the position appointed; (b) how many contracts have been granted in total as a result of, or in association with, the merger process; (c) what is the value of the contracts identified in (b), broken down by (i) total amount, (ii) amount by month; and (d) which companies or individuals received these contracts? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Françoise Boivin: With regard to the closure of the Service Canada Centre at 85 Bellehumeur Street in Gatineau: (a) why was this point of service closed; (b) what studies or statistics support the closure of the point of service and how were they produced; (c) when was the decision made; (d) were the employees and the union affected by the centre’s closure informed of the decision and, if so, when; and (e) did the government analyze the impact of the closure of the Gatineau point of service on its clientele as regards the service location and the area (right to and nature of services) and, if so, (i) how, (ii) when was this study completed, (iii) when was the Minister informed about the study, (iv) what is the title of the study?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek had five minutes remaining in his speech.
The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I was reflecting on the fact that I have been in the House nine years and that this is the first time that my speech has been split like this. In considering where I would pick up from in my speaking notes, it came to mind that I should repeat part of my remarks for the people who perhaps did not hear the first five minutes.
I was speaking just before the break about the fact that in 1996 I chaired the largest civil demonstration to that point in Canada, in Hamilton, where there were 105,000 protesters. It is not important for me to go into why the protest took place, but my point was that this protest was well organized. There were 500 marshalls, and 1,267 busloads of protesters who came to town, along with 30,000 to 40,000 Hamiltonians who took part. The really significant part was that there were no arrests or injuries. In fact, the buses even left on time.
There are sometimes situations where crowds may get out of control, such as at the G20 summit in Toronto, where there were a lot of confrontations between police and the public, and a lot of controversy around what happened there. For those of us who have been involved with protests or picket lines—in my case, for some 28 years in the Canadian labour movement—there have been occasions when police services have brought K-9 units to the demonstrations. In the Toronto area, in particular, there are horses. If the public thinks about the equipment that is placed on the horses, it includes eye guards. One of the very distasteful things that has happened in the past is that some people have taken it upon themselves to spike the horses with screwdrivers. 
I raise that because there is some justification, in the NDP's opinion, for this particular bill before us, although many aspects of the bill are already contained in law. In particular, we have a situation where this bill is proposing mandatory minimums. 
Members will know that the NDP has very grave concerns about the government mandating how our judiciary should respond to any given case. We in the NDP believe that judges have been put in place, who, over the years, are aware of the evolution of the law they have studied and worked with and the jurisprudence that is set from case to case. This has to be taken into account whenever judges are deciding what kind of sentence should be imposed on someone who has been found guilty of an offence. To our way of thinking, that kind of skill level and well-informed opinion is essential to the process. 
Yet time and again we hear in this place government members or ministers who believe they are the experts. In other words, the government says there have to be mandatory minimum sentences because it sees the considerations and reasoning that judges make in our courts of law regarding aspects of particular cases, In one instance, a judge may be more forceful in sentencing while in another he or she may taken into account a lot of things that have occurred in a case, believing that an individual might adjust his or her activity with a lesser sentence, who may respond well to the court showing leniency, returning then to the community and becoming a better citizen because of that.
The NDP supports this bill going to committee. It is important because we are prepared to sit down to see if we can make this bill better. We will certainly bring forward our concerns about the mandatory minimum sentencing.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I think that his concerns are worth noting.
This bill is certainly worthy of being debated in committee after the vote at second reading. I agree with my colleague that we must hear from experts on minimum sentences, since the courts have spoken out against them on a number of occasions. What happens is that judges are hesitant to impose minimum sentences and laws are even overturned, which is very costly.
I even asked the Minister of Justice yesterday how much it cost the federal government to defend its flawed bills with minimum sentences. Unfortunately he did not seem able to answer the question.
Does my colleague think that the Department of Justice is spending too much to defend bills that judges will often challenge? Is it worth going to the Supreme Court to defend minimum sentences—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
Order, please, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the debate, but I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to presentation of reports from committees, as I do have a report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): There is no consent. 
The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to refresh my memory on my friend's question.
The reality is that there are often times—excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but oftentimes in the application—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Wayne Marston:  I am sorry. I am totally distracted by this, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. Would members like to carry on this conversation at the back of the chamber?
The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the week I think we are subject to distraction much more easily.
My friend was talking about how the resources are applied or not applied. The implicit part of his question was whether or not the government had gone over the top.
 I will use an example of mandatory minimums in the state of Texas. Texas is seen around the world as one of the more aggressive states in the American union relative to crime and punishment. Prisons are actually being closed in the state of Texas because of the failure of this program. 
I think it is important that, when the bill goes to committee, it gets the examination it really, truly deserves. 
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He raised some important points.
I know he thinks it is important to discuss Canadians' priorities in the House of Commons.
Does he think that the bill we are debating at length here, without too many speeches from the government side, is a high priority for Canadians?
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, because that takes us back again to earlier in the debate when our friend from Timmins—James Bay was talking about the imbalance, as he saw it, in the priorities of this government, where we have bill after bill with significant, complicated issues getting time allocation. It in fact is in excess of 80.
I do not want to minimize the fact that it is important to take care of the service animals that the police use, and the search and rescue animals, and we support this bill in essence. However, we find it interesting that bills that have very significant issues with which Canadians are very concerned are pushed aside with time allocation, and the bill before us is getting a lot more time, and it should be just sent to committee.
Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals, Quanto's law.
In contradiction to the comments just made by the opposition members, I think these are actually very important pieces of legislation to discuss and move forward. This one actually has a huge impact on all Canadians.
This bill is named after Quanto, a dedicated and decorated Edmonton Police Service animal that was killed last year while assisting in the apprehension of a fleeing subject. Quanto's death was widely reported across the country. It reignited efforts by police to have the Criminal Code amended to specifically criminalize acts on law enforcement animals and, more importantly, to recognize the valuable services they provide to Canadians, slightly in contrast to what the opposition member commented on earlier.
A commitment was made in the Speech from the Throne. I am pleased to be able to speak about this very important bill today. I am also pleased to see that the bill has proposed and would provide specific protections, not just to law enforcement animals but to other kinds of service animals, mainly military animals and service animals that assist individuals with disabilities.
Having seen the assistance that these animals provide, particularly for those individuals who have disabilities, I think this is extremely important and something that Canadians overwhelmingly support.
The proposed amendments would amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence prohibiting the wilful and unlawful killing or injury of a law enforcement, service, or military animal. The bill defines each of these terms: 
 ...“law enforcement animal” means a dog or horse that is trained to aid a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer’s duties. 
While the focus of this bill has properly been on Quanto, a German shepherd, I think it is important to recall that horses are also still a significant part of Canadian law enforcement agencies. For example, police service animals are used in crowd control situations. They are well suited for this type of patrol activity, as long as they are trained properly. Officers on the horses have a commanding view of the crowd.
 More importantly, the added height and visibility the horses give their riders serve in both ways: they allow officers to see what is going on in the wider area, but they also allow people in that area to know where the officers are. This helps deter crime, but it also helps people find the officers when they need them.
I had first-hand experience with this, having been in New York City in an urgent circumstance. I was in downtown New York, travelling with my younger sibling. She is a diabetic, and she experienced a reaction. I had taken her out of the cab we were in, and the first person I saw was a law enforcement officer on horseback, who came immediately to our aid and was able to support us.
I would not have seen such individuals if they were just walking in the crowd. I was able to see the officer immediately and got care immediately for my sibling, and she was actually taken to a hospital within a few minutes.
That is very similar to incidents like one in May 2010, when two street vendors in New York sought help after they saw smoke rising from what turned out to be a crude car bomb. Again, it was an opportunity for citizens to react, to know where help is, to move to those police officers who could respond and clearly help innocent bystanders, moving them out of the way, and to help the circumstances.
In an emergency, the horses are able to move through the crowd easily. During non-emergency situations, horses and officers are typically well received by crowds. Well-trained horses do not spook when they hear loud noises or sudden bangs, and they stand firm and calm, often calming the crowd.
I am certain members will also recall a very high-profile incident that occurred in 2006, when Brigadier, an eight-year-old Toronto Police Service horse, was killed in the line of duty by a motor vehicle whose driver barrelled into the horse and mounted officer. Both of Brigadier's front legs were broken, the left one shattered so badly that he never could have recovered. Brigadier had to be put down after a long term of service.
A military animal, according to the new act:
 ...means an animal that is trained to aid a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member’s duties. 
 A service animal is defined as:
 ....an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance and is certified, in writing, as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability. 
Most Canadians see this work every day. They see these animals in the workplace and community aiding individuals with disabilities so they can get better access to their community and all of their surroundings.
The conduct described by the offence is also prohibited under the more general animal cruelty offences, which apply to all animals. However, their targeted nature reflects the somewhat distinct harm caused when a service animal is attacked, relative to animals that might otherwise just be pets, for instance. 
The new offence would carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment on indictment, and 18 months and/or a fine of up to $10,000 on summary conviction. This is also consistent with the sentencing range for the more general animal cruelty offences. However, Bill C-35 would require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in respect of the new offence. 
Many have spoken in this chamber about the importance of protecting law enforcement animals and animals that perform valuable services for other government agencies, such as the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Forces. However, I will speak specifically to the aspect of the legislation with respect to protecting service animals, which perform tasks that permit individuals with disabilities to live more independent lives.
Like their counterparts that assist police services, service animals perform a variety of functions. Perhaps the most well known to most Canadians are seeing-eye dogs that assist visually impaired individuals to navigate through their daily lives. These animals, in particular, have opened up wide and far-reaching experiences for Canadians with visible and visual disabilities. 
However, there other kinds of service animals. Just as guide dogs are trained to alert their owners to potential hazards they cannot see, hearing dogs are similarly trained with respect to fire alarms and to make sure that those with hearing impairments are well taken care of.
For children who have a dog that hears for them, it allows them to more purposely participate in their everyday school activities and, quite frankly, interact with all of their classmates. It allows them to know when the bell rings so they can go out from school. Therefore, it would be a travesty if at any point in time one of these animals were injured, because it would severely limit these children's opportunity to participate in their daily lives at school.
People with mental disabilities make use of psychiatric service dogs to retrieve medications, activate a medical alert, or to be led out of a crowd when anxious.
 A person who has epilepsy or other seizure disorders may have a seizure alert assist dog, a seizure response dog, or animal to alert him or her when a seizure might be upcoming. The animal will steer their owner away from danger during a seizure or something that may activate a medical challenge.
Other types of service dogs can assist persons with physical disabilities, whether helping someone out of a wheelchair, carrying specific objects, pushing buttons, using the elevator, or providing balance for a person with mobility challenges. 
I can tell members that these animals play a pivotal role for Canadians with disabilities. It means that they can better integrate into their communities. It means that they can go out and enjoy time with their friends, as opposed to staying only at home. It often means just functioning well at home for the basic necessities so they can lead more independent lives.
As I have said before, making sure that these animals are well protected and protected under the Criminal Code is essential. The limitations for these Canadians if they did not have service would be devastating.
The training of a service animal is an expensive proposition and represents months of work. These animals must be trained to be good natured and obedient in a variety of circumstances, to protect their owners, and to interact well with the public. Some breeds are better than others, but we know that dogs are mostly chosen because they are friendly, loyal, and patient. Typically, a potential service animal undergoes extensive behavioural training before being accepted into a training program
Service dogs work with their disabled partners to enable them to have more independence and freedom. Therefore, I think we should be thanking the individuals who train these animals and the animals themselves for their service and companionship. 
I am pleased to support this bill and encourage all here in the House of Commons to support it, because it so overwhelmingly helps individuals with disabilities to lead more independent lives and to integrate better into Canadian society.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the opposite side for her presentation. I too agree with her that this bill has a lot of merit. It merits going to committee for more discussion. There are certain elements in this bill that deserve expert testimony to see if the elements that are being presented are the best ways to bring this matter forward. However, overall, bringing it to committee is definitely a step we should be encouraging all members to support.
I would ask this question for the member. When it comes to the minimum sentences that this bill is introducing, does she not agree that there have been an awful lot of challenges in courts regarding minimum sentences, and that this is costing the judicial system and the taxpayer a lot of money? There is a lot of labour expended from our justice department, defending elements of bills that are finally being defeated in the court, and they only have to be brought back to this House for another look. Should we not be asking experts their position on minimum sentences?
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments that this should go to committee for a fulsome discussion. I am delighted to hear that the opposition supports that.
As I mentioned before—and we should be very clear—a service animal and the death of that service animal have a resounding impact on a Canadian. If there are individuals who believe that the willful harm of these animals should not face the full extent of the law, I completely disagree. We should be moving forward to ensure that these service animals, animals that serve police officers but more importantly those who are disabled, are well protected. I am fully supportive of what we are doing here, because it enforces that opportunity for Canadians.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. In particular, I appreciated that she shared her personal story. She clearly understands the importance of these animals.
I would simply like to reiterate a point that has already been mentioned by my colleague regarding minimum sentences and so on. The NDP will be supporting this bill. That said, even the Minister of Justice said that minimum sentences have not had a demonstrable deterrent effect. 
Can the hon. member share evidence or scientific studies that can explain why there are minimum sentences in this bill?
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, it is extremely important that Canadians understand how important it is that these service animals are available to support Canadians.
Similar to the opposition, I look forward to the discussion that takes place at committee. That fulsome debate is always constructive, and we will definitely move this bill toward its endpoint, which is becoming law and therefore enforceable, so these animals are protected and therefore are of service to Canadians.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to this legislative measure, which is so important that it was part of the throne speech in 2013. I have to say that as I was preparing for this debate, I learned a lot about the work done by service animals. Whether through their work with the police, the army or disabled people, history proves that bonds develop between animals and humans.
This bill is designed to amend the Criminal Code in order to add protections for service animals by toughening sentences in cases of violence against these animals.
I would like to talk to my colleagues about three key aspects of the bill: the important role that service animals play in Canadian society, the government's overuse of minimum sentencing and the message that this bill sends to judges.
In the history of humanity, the domestication of animals was an important step in the emergence of civilization. Clearly, we have made significant progress in how we treat animals. Over time, we have created laws prohibiting all forms of animal cruelty. The NDP has done its share to defend animal rights by introducing bills C-232 and C-592, for example.
As for service animals in particular, humans are able to fill certain gaps by using trained animals. We just have to look at the canine units at law enforcement agencies. Whether we are talking about the RCMP, the provincial police, the Canada Border Services Agency, or the Canadian Armed Forces, animals play an important role in ensuring public safety.
They are used in many situations, whether for helping in search and rescue, detecting explosives or drugs, or pursuing criminals. They are used for tracking missing persons, crowd control, and so forth.
This bill is also referred to as Quanto's law in memory of an Edmonton police service dog who worked with a sergeant. Quanto was stabbed to death trying to stop a fleeing suspect. He had an exceptional service record. He was a decorated dog and was involved in over 100 arrests.
We often think of dogs in canine units, but we must also acknowledge the work of equine units in certain law enforcement agencies. The horses help enhance police officers' visibility in locations that are hard to access.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the exceptional work of service animals who help the disabled to be more functional in our society.
One of my constituents, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from his deployment in Afghanistan by the Canadian army, recognizes how important his service animal is to his healing process. These animals become a little like family members.
We must not underestimate the cost of training and raising these animals. It costs the RCMP $60,000 to train a single German shepherd. The RCMP currently has 157 police dogs in service across Canada. It costs the MIRA Foundation $30,000 to train a service dog. In spite of the costs, we appreciate the work these animals do.
I think that everyone in the House agrees with everything I have said so far. We all appreciate the work that canine and equine teams do. Problems arise when we take a closer look at the clauses in this bill. As they say, the devil is in the details.
I have a number of questions that I hope we can get some answers to. How many service dogs are attacked each year? What is the real impact of minimum sentences on offenders? What deterrent effect will there be?
I would really like the Conservatives to show us some studies that clearly demonstrate the deterrent effect of minimum sentences. That is why this bill needs to go to committee. In his spring 2014 report, the Auditor General expressed concern about overpopulation in prisons. The needs are desperate and growing, but prisons cannot keep up. Stretch an elastic too far, and it is liable to snap and hit you in the face.
The Auditor General even found a direct correlation between mandatory minimum sentences and overpopulation in prisons.
By continuing to increase minimum sentences, we endangering the very people who use service animals in their work. Is that really what the government wants?
Correctional officers are one of the professional groups at high risk of violence in the workplace. What is even more troubling is that the Auditor General's office believes that prison capacities have been stretched so thin that this could adversely affect offender rehabilitation.
Canadians believe in rehabilitation and social reintegration in correctional environments, but overusing minimum sentences, as this government is currently doing, really worries me and the people of my riding.
Canadians also believe that the efficiency of the justice system depends on competent judges who carefully examine each case individually and render decisions in accordance with our laws.
For the past few years, however, the government has been tying the hands of judges. It is taking away their power to make decisions based on each individual case. As we know, the Conservatives have been rebuked several times in Supreme Court decisions, which is a waste of time and money for Canadians. 
We therefore have to be careful about the scope of these laws, so as to not limit judicial discretion in Canada. We must not take any more discretionary power away from our courts of justice. 
The NDP denounces any form of cruelty to animals. That is a fact. I would like to take a moment to recognize the terrific work being done by all kinds of service animals and their teams.
However, it is important to think seriously about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing. That is why I recommend that the bill be studied further by experts in civil society, people who use service animals, and above all, legal experts.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very interesting speech. I also support the bill we are debating today.
I would like to hear my colleague talk a little more about the Conservatives' approach, because this is certainly not the first bill we have seen with minimum sentences.
Could she talk about the other bills the Conservatives have introduced that contain minimum sentences? Could she also talk about the effect these bills will have on our prisons and about Canada's approach to this?
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for giving me the opportunity to speak to this topic, which isn't exactly what we are debating today, but it has consequences and is found in almost all of the bills this government introduces.
The Conservatives always give discretionary powers to the ministers in their bills. We have seen this with immigration bills, among others, as well as a number of bills I have heard people debate in the House.
This is very dangerous for our democracy. It is a hard thing to control. I have seen a judge use his discretionary power to punish an offender by having him wash windows for community groups for a certain number of hours, because the young offender had broken windows.
If the government imposes minimum sentences, judges no longer have that discretionary power and can no longer hand down punishments that will help offenders rejoin society more quickly. 
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.
My question for her is the same that I have asked a number of members who spoke to Bill C-35.
The Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women surprised me. Although this was originally a private member's bill, it has suddenly become a huge priority for this government.
Does the government not have priorities other than extensively debating a bill on which members are unanimous in many respects? Does my colleague find that worrisome?
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. She always asks very insightful questions.
It is nice to stand up for the dogs who are trained to defend us and it is nice to protect them.
However, the government refuses to conduct an inquiry when over a thousand women have been murdered or gone missing in Canada. That is a double standard.
We are all in favour of this bill, which seeks to protect dogs and punish those who attack them. Through anthropomorphism, these dogs become our friends and members of our family because we love them.
However, if we are being rational, there are more important matters we should be dealing with, such as the issue of the missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today' order paper.

Private Members' Business
National Fiddling Day Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 7, 2014, consideration of the motion that Bill S-218, An Act respecting National Fiddling Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I am excited and honoured to speak about a bill that originated in the Senate. However, it would have been nice if it had originated in the House. What is Bill S-218, An Act respecting National Fiddling Day, all about?
In Quebec and eastern Canada, fiddling is heard in the winter. It warms hearts, brightens people's lives and makes them dance and sing. Why is the fiddle played in the winter? It is likely a result of long-standing tradition and culture. Our ancestors played the fiddle to bring this sound, warmth and joy to family gatherings. We would gather in the living room for a party, for example, and my uncle Gilles and aunt Rosane would dance while my grandfather played the fiddle. That was how we did things at home in Quebec.
Unfortunately, this tradition has almost been lost because the population is aging, of course. Other factors may also be at play, such the fast pace of life. Everyone is running after their dog and having trouble making ends meet. Perhaps that has something to do with it. 
In my former career, I was a sound technician and producer. Over the years, church basements became empty. That is where amateur shows and concerts used to take place. They then moved to agricultural fairs and carnivals in the regions.
However, for lack of an operating budget, the organizers of these events had to abandon the tradition of bringing people together, not only as part of winter activities but also as part of community celebrations. The last show that I produced or attended where I grew up in Asbestos, Windsor, in the Eastern Townships, was in the early 1990s. After that, there were practically no more shows. That type of thing is becoming increasingly rare in Quebec.
Despite all of that, the next generation of musicians have taken over. Some groups continue to carry on that tradition by playing more traditional music. There has therefore been a small resurgence. Alain Lamontagne is the true inheritor of this tradition. He travels across Canada with his fiddle and his merry band to carry on the tradition of call and response songs and joie de vivre. Fiddling helped us keep that tradition alive at celebrations and later at community events and industrial fairs. These types of gatherings do not really happen anymore because of a lack of funding and so this type of music is, unfortunately, not played as often. I say unfortunately because it is a tradition that is being lost.
Close to where I lived, there was a national flag carrier, Ti-Blanc Richard, father of Michèle Richard. He proudly carried on that tradition for years. He and Louis Bilodeau, a local television host, kept the tradition alive with La Soirée canadienne. La Soirée canadienne was about reviving traditions. It disappeared as well.
Unfortunately, both men died many years ago, but they kept alive the joyous Québécois tradition of gathering to celebrate and sing call-and-response songs. It was amusing to watch my uncle take out his dentures and start playing the fiddle.
I do not know why he took out his dentures. Maybe he got so excited that he was afraid his dentures would pop out and hit my aunt.
Those are lasting memories. Seeking to perpetuate those traditions is a good thing. However, the NDP would have liked to see a little more attention paid to culture in general, to several aspects of culture and to investments in culture. I mentioned regional exhibitions and fairs. Since there is no money, we can no longer carry on these artistic traditions.
Music has an incredible impact on community life. There are all kinds of art forms, but today we will be talking mostly about music. I am a rock musician myself—yes, I have long hair, I am a rocker, a guitarist, but I am still open to other styles. When I hear traditional fiddling, it almost makes me cry because it brings back memories. I will not reveal my age, but those are old memories, memories of the days when the whole family would get together, have fun and talk about everything under the sun. We talked about politics. Back then, it was just blue and red, but now orange is in the mix. That makes me happy.
I would have liked such a day to be in the winter. It would have brought back memories for a lot of people. I think having it in May is somewhat questionable, but that is just my personal opinion. Everyone has an opinion on how the artistic community is funded, managed and subsidized at this time. Some people say artists are getting to many subsidies. Too many subsidies for artists? Some countries subsidize their heritage 100%. This means that mechanisms and structures are put in place to ensure that some traditions are perpetuated, including crafts, traditional singing, painting and all forms of art.
In Canada, we often forget the important contributions made by artists across the country. To understand Canada from coast to coast to coast, we need look no further than its culture. Whether we are talking about first nations, Newfoundlanders, Albertans or Quebeckers, we look at their traditions, what they do to celebrate, to have fun. This can be found in the arts, in artistic expression and the form it takes.
If we do not provide the necessary framework for developing and carrying on these traditions, they will be lost. We will lose part of our identity. This is an integral part of who we are. It is so important for everyone from coast to coast, for first nations and immigrants. Other ethnic groups come here and carry on their culture. Why abandon all this? Everyone has the right to practise their art, and that is the environment in which we we should live and socialize and develop our relationships between men and women, between nations, between first nations, between Canadians from coast to coast. It is extremely important.
As I said, this brings back memories and calls to mind a warm and traditional atmosphere that deserves to be carried on. Although the NDP and I are completely on board with Bill S-218, again, to me the fiddle is something we hear during the holidays or in winter. It warms our spirits as we sit around a good campfire.
[Interjection]
John Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period.
I misspoke when I said the government had returned $7.5 million to the treasury last year from FedNor. What I really meant to say was that $11 million has been returned over the last four years, along with a $30 million cut to the FedNor budget.
I apologize to the minister for my lack of mathematical skills. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Thank you. 
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, I too am very excited about being able to join in this debate.
Mr. Gerald Keddy:  He's got the world's largest fiddle right there.
Rodger Cuzner:  We do, Mr. Speaker. The world's largest fiddle is in Cape Breton, at the waterfront in Sydney. It was built in 2005. Tourists from around the world come to have their pictures taken in front of it and enjoy the great fiddle music of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia.
I am happy that most members in my party are supporting this bill, because I think it is significant. It is something to be celebrated and it keeps the proud tradition of the fiddle out front. 
We cannot always take it for granted. There is a great story that is part of the history passed down from generation to generation back in Mabou, which is the really the epicentre, the cultural soul, of the Celtic spirit in Cape Breton.
The story is that Father Kenneth MacDonald served as the parish priest back in the1860s for a number of years. He was not a big fan of the fiddle. He was not a big fan of a lot things, such as dancing and libations and so on. He thought that the fiddle was a bit evil, so he took it upon himself to go door to door and gather up the fiddles in Mabou. 
It may have worked for a short time, but Mabou, as I said, is really seen as the focal point of fiddling, though not just fiddling. We are all very much aware of the Rankin family. A great fiddler with that family is John Morris Rankin. It really becomes a mecca, especially during the Celtic Colours festival every fall. 
However, there was a time of decline even after the gathering of the fiddles. CBC ran a documentary in 1972 called The Vanishing Cape Breton Fiddler. It was produced by Ron MacInnis. It talked about the decline in the number of people playing the fiddle in Cape Breton at the time. Fiddling was thought to be on the verge of distinction, so some key people got together and vowed that they would not let this happen. They were Frank MacInnis from Creignish, Father Eugene Morris from Mabou, Burton Maclntyre from Whycocomagh, Archie Neil Chisholm, Father John Angus Rankin—who was one of the real driving forces behind it—Rod Chisholm, Judge Hugh J. MacPherson, Anne Marie MacDonald, Jeannette Beaton, Joey Beaton, and Ray MacDonald. This group got together and said, “We can't let this happen. We just can't let fiddle music die in Cape Breton”, so they embarked on a plan to pull together an organization.
 From that was born the Cape Breton Fiddlers' Association. The Cape Breton Fiddlers' Association, a lot of it under the guidance of my good friend Betty Anne Matheson, puts on a major festival at the Gaelic College in St. Ann's, Cape Breton, year after year, which draws thousands of people and hundreds of fiddlers to come and learn, take workshops, and perform. Even those who have gone on to great careers and have been very successful in the music industry continue to return to this festival each year to be with their fellow fiddlers and to continue to learn and grow and share. As I said, that festival takes place each year.
They understood that they could not be complacent, and many in the fiddling community knew that. Some people have stepped up, guys like Eddie Rogers, who was originally from Guysborough but who has lived in Cape Breton for a number of years. He continues to work with many young fiddlers, inspiring the next generation of fiddlers. It is a tradition that is passed down from generation to generation, most times in kitchens but a lot of times in the dance halls and far beyond.
There is a great quote from the late and great John Allan Cameron. He said, “When I was growing up, the most important people in the community were the fiddler and the priest”. Anybody who comes from a rural community can certainly attest to the high esteem that great fiddlers are held in.
When we talk about some of the great fiddlers in Cape Breton, there is Winston Scotty Fitzgerald, who was a bit ahead of his time in recording fiddle music and a lot of the traditional fiddle tunes. He laid the groundwork for future generations. 
There is Dan Joe MacInnis, from Big Pond, and Lee Cremo, a famous first nations fiddler from Eskasoni, and Carl MacKenzie. As I had said, from the Rankins, the late John Morris Rankin was an accomplished fiddle player. 
This past year, we lost Buddy MacMaster. Although Buddy was born in Timmins, he moved to Judique at an early age. Buddy MacMaster was a phenomenal fiddle player, a beautiful, caring, and sharing man. It was through the commitment of these people that they continue to share and inspire young fiddlers. Of course, Buddy's niece, Natalie, went on and did not have a bad career herself. Natalie is an accomplished musician. She is married to Donnell Leahy, who himself is a fabulous performer. The list goes on, including Jerry Holland. Those are some of the greats.
We could not talk about fiddlers from the Cape Breton area unless we gave a shout-out to Ashley MacIsaac. I remember, in 2010, when we watched the opening of the Olympics in Vancouver, and we saw k.d. lang doing Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah and just how inspiring that was. Then out came Ashley doing his rendition of Devil in the Kitchen. He not only lit up the opening ceremonies for the people in the place, but he lit up the airwaves as well. I had the great opportunity to see both Ashley and his cousin Wendy MacIsaac perform at the Celtic Colours opening gala early in October, and it was an incredible performance.
Hosting these events, and certainly having a day that recognizes fiddling, can only continue to help grow the art. I commend Senator Libbe Hubley for putting this bill forward. She is an accomplished fiddler herself. It will be embraced and enjoyed by many, far beyond the fiddling community. When we look at the impact of Celtic Colours on our community, and the thousands of people who come from around the world to enjoy Celtic Colours, we can see opportunities like that.
 I was warned by a good friend of mine that I cannot be talking about fiddlers unless I give a shout-out to people like Hilda Chiasson, Dougie MacPhee, Tracy MacNeil, and Billy McPhee. It is like the pitcher and the catcher; they have to have a piano player too. We have to give a shout-out to the piano players. I do not know if there is going to be a piano players bill coming forward.
Scott Armstrong:  What about Rodney?
Rodger Cuzner:  Mr. Speaker, Rodney is our former premier and great friend who runs the Gaelic College, and his buddy, Glenn Graham. His name is Rodney MacDonald. In Cape Breton, it is just Rodney. It is like Elvis; we do not even need the last name.
I am happy to speak to this, and I want to commend the senator for bringing this bill forward.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
(Motion agreed to. Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, December 1 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:15 p.m.)