2014-05-30

Adjournment Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, even at this time of night, to speak about an issue affecting all Canadians, namely the price of gasoline at the pump, which is far too high.
Each of us has seen gas stations on different streets in the same city and noticed how prices are different from one gas station to the next, and from one city to the next, so much so that sometimes a detour is well worth it. We do not understand why gas can cost a few cents a litre less at a gas station than at another one. There are even websites that indicate where gas is least expensive.
All these gas price variations at the pump are due to mismanagement. It is high time the federal government took action to put an end to these price variations. It is time to appoint an ombudsman to protect consumers from gas price variations and to strengthen Industry Canada's rules on collusion.
The NDP believes the federal government has a responsibility regarding the price of gas, which is once again reaching very high levels, as we have seen over the past few weeks. 
The government can and must take meaningful action to counter these abusive price hikes. It is high time we stopped getting gouged at the pumps. We have to fill up every week. It is time to put an end to these hikes. People do not understand why the price of gas keeps going up when the price of oil does not change. At nearly $1.50 a litre in many cities in Quebec, including Quebec City, people are saying that they are paying too much. They are right.
I am calling on the Conservative government to follow the NDP's recommendations and create an ombudsman position to monitor gas prices and receive the growing number of complaints from drivers about this. Of course, that would allow us to put more pressure on the Competition Bureau, ensuring that there is more vigorous, aggressive follow-up.
The NDP also suggests that we strengthen Industry Canada's rules, to more effectively combat collusion among oil companies. The existing rules need to be more vigorously applied. It is unacceptable that the Competition Bureau's collusion cases result in sentences to be served in the community or in fines that rarely exceed $10,000. We are talking about collusion here. I think we need to be a lot tougher. 
The federal government continues to subsidize the big oil companies and has significantly reduced their taxes in recent years. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians, the consumers and taxpayers, are being relentlessly gouged at the pumps, which is appalling. Canadians are being hit with a double whammy, because their taxes are being used to subsidize the Conservatives' gifts to the oil companies. That is essentially what is going on.
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I cannot say how excited I am to be here tonight at five minutes after midnight to respond to comments made earlier by the hon. member for Québec regarding gasoline prices. 
Let me begin by saying that this government understands the importance of gasoline, both to Canadians' everyday lives and to the Canadian economy. Canadians work hard to make ends meet and expect their government to have their interests front of mind. That is why our government has taken action in light of rising energy and commodity prices by making retailers more accountable for the accuracy of their gas-pump scales and other measuring devices.
Specifically, we have passed the Fairness at the Pumps Act. It is designed to protect consumers from inaccurate measurement at the pumps by introducing mandatory inspection requirements.
We also made substantial amendments to the Competition Act in 2009 that strengthened the powers of the Commissioner of Competition to take action against anti-competitive behaviour, including price fixing. The new provisions make it illegal for competitors to conspire, agree, or arrange to fix prices, or restrict output of a product. They also increase the penalties upon conviction, including jail terms of up to 14 years, fines of up to $25 million, or a combination of both.
Enforcing the law in order to protect consumers and competition is the Competition Bureau's mandate. When the bureau finds evidence of behaviour that violates the Competition Act, it does not hesitate to take action to protect competition and consumers. We saw evidence of this when a gasoline price-fixing cartel was charged in Quebec in 2008, 2010, and again in 2012.
In June 2008, following a Competition Bureau investigation, 13 individuals and 11 companies were charged with fixing the price of gasoline at the pump in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog, and Sherbrooke. In July 2010, an additional 25 individuals and 3 companies were charged with fixing the price of gasoline at the pump in the same four local markets. Most recently, in September 2012, one additional individual and company were charged with fixing the price of gasoline in three of these markets. A total of 39 individuals and 15 companies are accused in this case. To date, 33 individuals and 7 companies have pleaded guilty. The resulting fines totalled over $3 million and six individuals have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling 54 months.
In Ontario, charges of fixing the retail price of gasoline have resulted in four guilty pleas and the resulting fines have totalled over $2.5 million.
I would like to remind the hon. member that contrary to what some people may think, the federal government does not control the price of most goods and services sold in Canada, including gasoline. With the exception of a national emergency, only the provinces have the authority to regulate gasoline prices. That is why we will use the tools at our disposal to ensure that consumers are truly and effectively protected against these types of illegal activities. We will continue to stand up for consumers in this and all sectors of our economy.
[Interjection]
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, I think there is still something to be done.
According to Desjardins, the lack of competition in Quebec's gasoline market can drive prices up for motorists, but this still does not explain the widening gap between prices at the pump and the price of oil.
To quote a few figures, in 2008, the price of a barrel of oil was roughly $140 U.S. At the time, fear of a global shortage had pushed prices up. The same barrel today trades at the much lower price of $107 U.S. or thereabouts. Gas prices, however, keep skyrocketing.
This gap in prices is plain for all to see, yet it remains unexplained. Consumers wonder why prices at the pump keep rising. We cannot understand why they keep rising while the price of a barrel remains relatively steady.
I believe there is cause to establish an ombudsman mandated to more closely oversee the Competition Bureau and the enforcement of its rules. That is what the NDP is calling for.
I would like to hear the member's comments on the issue.
[Interjection]
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to provide an economic climate that allows Canadian businesses to prosper. Furthermore, this government has acted to protect consumers at the pumps. We reduced the GST by 2%, we passed the Fairness at the Pumps Act, and we strengthened the powers of the Commissioner of Competition through substantial amendments to the Competition Act that make it illegal for competitors to conspire, arrange, or agree to fix prices, allocate customers, or restrict output of a product. 
To further protect Canadians from price gouging, we increased Competition Act penalties upon conviction to jail terms of up to 14 years, fines of up to $25 million, or a combination of both. We have worked to protect consumers against anti-competitive behaviour, and the Competition Bureau will continue to enforce these measures whenever and wherever it finds evidence of behaviour that contravenes the Competition Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:10 a.m.) 

Government Orders
Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Hon. Rob Nicholson:  moved that the bill be concurred in. 
The Deputy Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Rob Nicholson: (Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker:  When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Rob Nicholson:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in favour of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco). This bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to create a new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and to provide minimum penalties of imprisonment for persons who are convicted for a second or subsequent time of this offence.
To help reduce the problems of trafficking in contraband tobacco, the government committed, among other things, to establish mandatory jail time for repeat offenders of trafficking in contraband tobacco in its 2011 election policy platform. This bill would fulfill that commitment.
Indeed, the bill prohibits the possession for the purposes of sale, offer for sale, transportation, delivery, or distribution of a tobacco product or raw leaf tobacco that is not packaged unless it is stamped. The terms “tobacco product”, “raw leaf tobacco”, “packaged” and “stamped”, have the same meanings as in section 2 of the Excise Act.
The penalty for a first offence would be up to six months imprisonment on summary conviction and up to five years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment. Repeat offenders convicted of this new offence in cases involving 10,000 cigarettes or more, or 10 kilograms or more of any other tobacco product, or 10 kilograms or more of raw leaf tobacco would be sentenced to a minimum of 90 days on a second conviction, a minimum of 180 days on a third conviction, and a minimum of two years less a day on subsequent convictions. Overall, the proposals represent a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious contraband tobacco activities. The bill proposes minimum penalties only in cases where there are certain aggravating factors present.
The contraband tobacco market first became a significant issue in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the taxes on cigarettes were increased sharply to raise government revenue and deter individuals from taking up or continuing smoking. During that period, more and more legally manufactured Canadian cigarettes destined for the duty-free market began to make their way back to the Canadian underground economy. The high retail price of legitimate cigarettes made the smuggling of cigarettes across the border a lucrative illicit business.
The RCMP and Canada Customs seized record quantities of contraband tobacco. The RCMP was also engaged in investigating this illegal activity at its source. These investigations eventually led to negotiated settlements involving certain tobacco companies, a landmark agreement signed in July 2008 that set a combined total of $1.15 billion in criminal fines and civil restitution, to be paid by the companies over 15 years. Also, two guilty pleas entered in April 2010 by JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Northern Brands International resulted in $550 million in criminal fines and civil restitution. 
By the mid-1990s, this type of smuggling activity largely came to an end, and there followed a period of relatively low levels of illegal activity related to contraband tobacco.
 However, the illicit tobacco market in Canada has rebounded in recent years, rising rapidly since 2004 to become an acute problem once again. Today, the illicit manufacturing, distribution, and selling of contraband tobacco products is different from that of the 1980s and 1990s. Now illegal activity in Canada is primarily connected not to the diversion of legally manufactured products but to illegal manufacture, although it also includes to a lesser degree the illegal importation of counterfeit cigarettes and other forms of illicit tobacco from abroad.
Organized crime plays a central role in the contraband tobacco trade in Canada, and that means that this illegal activity is linked with other kinds of crime. Most of the organized crime groups across the country involved in the illicit tobacco market are also active in other forms of criminality. What we have in Canada is a situation where illegal contraband tobacco products are sold to children in schoolyards, because they are less expensive. It is a way of getting young people hooked on nicotine and tobacco, which is obviously very injurious to their health and contrary to Canada's long-standing commitment to reduce smoking in our society. 
They also allow those people who sell cigarettes individually or in small quantities to students to get them onto other drugs as well. The organized crime groups such as the Hell's Angels and other motorcycle gangs will provide them with tobacco now, and then maybe in a few months' time, will slip in a marijuana cigarette, and then maybe sell them some more of that and perhaps other drugs too. The profits from contraband tobacco fuel all that other criminal activity. That is one of the reasons we need to be vigilant and we need to pass this bill to crack down on the trade in contraband tobacco.
The problem is further complicated by the international aspects of the illicit tobacco trade. For example, some of the illegal manufacturers that supply the Canadian market are on the U.S. side of the Akwesasne Mohawk territory, which spans the borders between Quebec, Ontario, and New York State. The contraband tobacco market is driven largely by illegal operations in both Canada and the United States. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have the highest concentration of contraband tobacco manufacturing operations, the majority of the high-volume smuggling points, and the largest number of consumers of contraband tobacco.
There are approximately 50 contraband manufacturers operating on first nations territories in Kahnawake, Quebec, and the Six Nations reserve in Ontario. As I mentioned earlier, there are also manufacturers on the American side of the Akwesasne Mohawk territory, which is uniquely located at the confluence of borders between Ontario, Quebec, and New York State, giving rise to jurisdictional and legal challenges between federal, provincial, and state laws.
 Organized crime networks are exploiting First Nations communities and taking advantage of the jurisdictional and politically sensitive relationships between those communities, governments and enforcement agencies. 
 The 2012 National Threat Assessment on Organized and Serious Crime prepared by the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada has identified 58 organized crime groups that are involved in the contraband tobacco trade throughout Canada, 35 of which are currently operating in Central Canada. These criminal networks re-invest profits from the manufacture and distribution of contraband tobacco in other forms of criminality, including the trafficking illicit drugs, firearms and human smuggling. Furthermore, the RCMP reports that violence and intimidation tactics continue to be associated with the contraband tobacco trade. 
 It is clear that the illicit tobacco market is dominated by criminal organizations motivated by the lure of significant profits and relatively low risks. Enforcement actions are therefore directed at increasing the risks associated with contraband tobacco activities: dismantling illegal manufacturing facilities, disrupting distribution supply lines, apprehending key figures, confiscating conveyances such as trucks and boats, and seizing the proceeds of crime. These actions have the dual goal of disrupting the illicit flow of tobacco and weakening the organized crime groups involved in the production, distribution, smuggling, and trafficking of contraband tobacco. 
Contraband tobacco is a serious threat to our communities if left unchecked, and organized crime will continue to profit at the expense of the health and safety of Canadians and government tax revenues. 
 Recent intelligence indicates a rise in counterfeit tobacco products entering the Canadian market as well as the diversion of some raw leaf tobacco grown in southwestern Ontario to illegal manufacturers in and around first nation territories in Ontario and Quebec. These illegal products are then transported through nation-wide networks for sale to consumers as a cheaper alternative to legitimate tobacco products, thereby making them more accessible to youth. 
 The Government of Canada recognizes that contraband tobacco smuggling has become a serious problem in the last several years. Certainly, Canadians want to be protected from offenders involved in these contraband tobacco smuggling operations, which threaten their safety and that of their families as well as the health of our youth. They also want to be protected from organized crime associated with contraband tobacco activities... 
 Protecting society from criminals is a responsibility this government takes seriously. Accordingly, this bill is part of the government's continued commitment to take steps to protect Canadians and make our streets and communities safer. 
 Canadians want a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter serious crimes, including illicit activities involving contraband tobacco. They want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes... 
This bill, in my view, achieves that.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his speech on Bill C-10. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights worked extremely hard on this file. I enjoyed working with my colleague on it. Contraband tobacco is not a straightforward topic.
However, I am wondering about something. The opposition we heard in committee came from first nations chiefs who are concerned because they were not consulted about this, despite the fact that they are often the ones who are most affected by tobacco smuggling. It sometimes happens on their land.
According to clause 4 of the bill, the legislation will come into force on a date to be fixed by order in council, so I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary knows if his government intends to use the time it has before the bill's implementation to have those extremely important conversations with first nations in the areas that are plagued by tobacco smuggling. It is unfortunate that it would be happening after the fact, when it should have happened beforehand.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the NDP justice critic's question. I do appreciate her hard work on the justice committee, and I enjoy working with her on that committee.
The member will remember that when we were at committee, there were a number of representatives of native communities from across Canada, especially those straddling the borders between Ontario, Quebec, and New York.
They told us about the illegal activity that is brought into their communities by organized crime groups that are largely not first nations-related groups. They take advantage of the people living there. They drag them down this road into illegal activity with the promise of easy money.
We were told by one chief that his Mohawk community had a very proud tradition of working in the construction industry, in high steel, in places like New York City and other places around the United States. Unfortunately, the lure of this easy money from smuggling illicit tobacco products across the St. Lawrence River was dragging his people away from that legitimate proud tradition and bringing them into areas of criminality.
We listened very closely to what the leaders had to say. This bill has been crafted largely in consideration of their views. We will always take the opportunity to listen to first nations communities about how this bill should be implemented.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contraband cigarettes are indeed a serious problem in many different regions in Canada. In fact, in certain areas it does fuel a significant amount of organized crime because of the amount of revenue that can be generated.
The negative impacts of that organized crime are fairly profound and have a serious impact on many communities throughout Canada.
My question is for the minister. Has the department done any sort of any analysis, or can it provide us with any information in terms of the degree to which contraband cigarettes are on the market in different regions of the country? Does the minister have that type of information? If so, I would personally be quite interested in receiving it. If he could make it available, that would be greatly appreciated.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, that information was largely supplied at the justice and human rights committee during their study of this bill. It comes from various sources, the government as well as other NGO organizations.
I am sure the member has heard similar stories in his constituency. In my constituency, in Mississauga, there is a secondary school called Erindale Secondary School. There was an analysis done of the tobacco butts lying around the school yard and just off the school property where young people smoke. It was found that a significant percentage, more than 30% of those cigarette butts, came from illegal contraband tobacco. 
That indicates that across Canada there is a problem with very cheap cigarettes being sold to young people in very small quantities that they can afford, maybe four or five cigarettes at a time. It gets them started down that road, which is a very serious health risk to young Canadians across Canada.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, coming from Oxford, which is one of the five counties where tobacco is grown in southwestern Ontario, we know we have a problem.
The legitimate industry is looking for serious help from all levels of government to try to work with this issue. Being a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety and dealing with the aboriginal community, I know many of them are concerned about the guns, drugs, and gangs that are involved in this.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice knows, they use the young people in the aboriginal communities as a shield.
This legislation will be welcome. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could elaborate a little on where the penalties will go. We see illicit growing of tobacco. Recently there have been large seizures of leaf. Certainly that is the beginning of the process.
I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary has some information for us.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I know this is an issue that has been very important to my colleague. He has worked very significantly on it over the last several years.
There are a number of new offences under the bill. There will be a penalty for the first offence of up to six months in prison on summary conviction, or up to five years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment. This is for both the transportation and sale and offer for sale of illegal tobacco products. For repeat offenders, those convicted on indictment could be sentenced to a mandatory minimum penalty of 90 days on a second conviction, 180 days on a third conviction, and two years less a day on subsequent convictions after that.
What we found in the past, under the Excise Tax Act, is that the trade in illicit tobacco products was simply an administrative statutory offence, and therefore the perpetrators received fines. They just made that the cost of doing business. They would pay the fine and continue to do it over and over again.
This is a very tailored set of penalties that increases with each subsequent offence. That will target the people who are involved in the continual trade in illicit tobacco products, and those would largely be criminal organizations from outside the native communities, not in the native communities.
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tobacco use is a rather serious problem, and it is directly related to smuggling. If people use tobacco, it will be smuggled. If no one smoked, there would be no smuggling.
Does the minister know if there are other ministers working on measures to ultimately reduce tobacco use? This bill on contraband was introduced some time ago.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, and the answer is yes, there are many programs that the government is supporting to reduce the use of tobacco among all Canadians, especially our youth. The ministry of health has one in particular. We have introduced new warning labels on packages of cigarettes and little cigars. These labels have a phone number for a national quit line and a website address for people who want help in quitting. 
We have banned flavoured little cigars, which were targeted toward youth. In my constituency, I have seen young people go into convenience stores and try to buy the little banana-flavoured or cherry-flavoured cigars. That is a way of getting them hooked on tobacco, making it sweet and palatable to them. 
We renewed the federal tobacco strategy in 2012 for five years, and Health Canada will continue to work on tobacco control initiatives that aim to preserve the gains made over the past 10 years to continue the downward trend in smoking prevalence.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-10. We supported it at second reading, but we had quite a number of concerns, particularly in terms of its compliance with the charter because it includes mandatory minimum penalties.
I am also concerned about the process that led to Bill C-10. The government did not consult the partners in the federation, namely the provinces, the territories and the first nations. We were therefore determined to carry out a thorough study in committee. That is what I hoped for.
The committee did a good job. It heard witnesses in various capacities talk about the scourge of contraband tobacco. I will have no trouble convincing everyone in the House that contraband tobacco is a scourge, period.
However, there might be a little hypocrisy around this issue in our society. Even as the government tries to control tobacco and fight contraband tobacco, it is raising taxes on tobacco and making a lot of money that way. That hypocrisy became entrenched over the years, and now it is complicating the issue. Add to that the ancestral rights of first nations peoples to manufacture tobacco, and the issue gets very murky.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had some good meetings. It heard from excellent witnesses, including chiefs of first nations. I did not hear a single first nations chief express support for contraband tobacco to the committee. Nevertheless, the chiefs were very realistic. They insisted on protecting their traditional rights to produce and grow tobacco as they have done historically within their territory. 
That being said, they are also aware that contraband tobacco, which is often part of organized crime activity on their land, has the lure of easy money for their young people. It is a vicious circle because there is a great deal of poverty on first nations lands that tends to get ignored, and then we are surprised when the black market takes hold there. This does not help first nations chiefs to provide their people on their land with something worthwhile.
I have already done so in person, but since we have the time, I would like to publicly thank my NDP colleagues who served with me on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who may not get the chance to speak to the bill in the House. They did exceptional work. I particularly want to thank the NDP deputy justice critic, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi and the hon. member for Beaches—East York. They contributed a lot to this file through their personal experience in their own part of the country.
What is more, we proposed an amendment. I am still sad that the government did not see fit to approve the amendment that we proposed to respect R. v. Gladue. That decision calls on the courts, when sentencing, to consider the extenuating circumstances of the accused when the accused is from the first nations, especially considering that there are mandatory minimum sentences. That is the requirement that resulted from that decision, but according to lawyers at Justice Canada, Bill C-10 will take precedence over R. v. Gladue. We will see whether there are more appeals. I suspect there will be. 
If one of the people arrested is a first nations member, it is very possible that the defence will make use of some of the arguments in the Gladue ruling. I think it would be wise to say that this did not trump the facts in the Gladue case.
True to form, the Conservatives are so terrified of adopting any amendment other than their own, and I find that very unfortunate. They may be rapped on the knuckles once again, as they have been in the last four or five major Supreme Court decisions. I feel like a mother who says “I told you so”, and I am a little tired of that. That is how I have felt for the past three years.
The opposition members are trying to do their job. I listened to the prayer recited by the Speaker at the beginning of the sitting. He asked Parliament to make good laws. I believe that is what we are trying to do both in the House and in committees.
Suffice it to say that the amendment was rejected. The mandatory minimum sentences will apply to repeat offenders, where a high volume of contraband tobacco is involved, and so my concerns about the sentences have been allayed. I still have no guarantee that the bill complies with our charters because the government does not see to be too worried about that. When we weigh out the two issues, public protection and contraband tobacco, which affects our children, we realize that this is extremely important.
The NDP has always taken the problem of contraband tobacco in Canada seriously, and Bill C-10 has not changed that.
I am going to digress for a moment regarding Bill C-10. When it was introduced in the House, we were told it was an absolute emergency, but it has been around for a long time now. If memory serves me correctly, the bill passed second reading in November. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we worked very diligently and quickly. Throughout the month of December, until the adjournment, we worked on this legislation. As soon as we came back after Christmas, in early February, we proceeded to clause by clause. What is intriguing is that the bill then fell into oblivion. We never heard about it again. Then, this week, I noticed we were going to debate Bill C-10. There are many numbers in my head, such as C-10, C-32 dealing with prostitution, C-587,C-590 and others. All these bills seem to deal with justice.
When I saw my name tied to Bill C-10, I wondered what the bill was about. It reminded me of the good old days when I was pleading before the court. We would prepare a case and arrive in court with witnesses. Unfortunately, for some very serious reason, the other side would ask for a postponement. We had prepared the case and met with witnesses and we were more than ready. We would return to our office, back at square one, and tell ourselves that we would wait for the next time. However, we sometimes had to wait a year or a year and a half and start all over again. Clients would sometime wonder why we were billing new hours. The answer was that we had to refresh our memory.
This is the impression I get with Bill C-10. I had to review the whole file because, in the meantime, we had debated several other justice bills and a number of issues that are now in the annals of the House. The government does not have to tell us this is urgent. The Conservatives seem to move into high gear at two very specific times: during the week preceding the holiday season and during the last two or three weeks before the summer recess. During these periods, we are incredibly productive.
I almost wish we could change the calendar so that it could be June all year long. Canadians across the country would be amazed at our productivity.
This week in the House, we debated Motion No. 10, which supposedly seeks to increase our work hours. It seems we are not working enough, but if that is the case, I am not sure why I am tired. In any event, I was listening to some of my colleagues, and their argument was that we had passed only nine bills.
What is fascinating is that about 15 bills will likely be passed in two weeks. One has to wonder if that means that we are being more productive or less democratic because we will have less time to speak to these bills and fewer people will have the opportunity to speak on each topic. I think the answer is obvious.
Bill C-10 is a good example. It has been sitting on someone's desk since February when it could have been passed quickly the week after it came back from committee. There were no formal or serious objections that would have prevented the bill from passing. This bill could have been passed by now.
These are important points to raise. I would never let anybody tell me that we are not working hard on these issues because we take them very seriously. Sometimes, we rise to speak to a bill at second reading to raise some of our concerns. There is no denying that we are concerned about this bill.
I know that the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco is made up of many people who benefit from tobacco sales. I was not born yesterday, and I see where their interests lie. In their testimony, some police forces also told us that they will need resources. This is an extremely important message that came out of the committee's examination of Bill C-10.
The first nations have their own to-do list for their territory. We need to stop making cuts to first nation police services. If Bill C-10 gives the police new tools by adding an offence to the Criminal Code that existed only under the Excise Tax Act, then from now on all police forces can begin dealing with contraband tobacco. However, we have to give them the resources they need. We need police officers on the front lines.
Some witnesses also told us that contraband was increasingly coming from countries other than Canada, for example, China. This is an issue for border services, and this agency will need resources. All we ever hear about on the news and here in the House is successive budget cuts being made to border services. How do we expect this agency to combat the large-scale smuggling that organized crime groups are conducting through well-organized networks? 
This is not just about tobacco; it is also about arms and drug smuggling. It is all connected. The government is always a bit hypocritical, since it introduces bills and claims to want to fix everything, but it does not provide tools for the people on the ground so that they can do their jobs properly. I find that worrisome. Nevertheless, all of the witnesses we heard from in committee made the facts clear, regardless of their reasons.
For example, I know that the Canadian Convenience Stores Association wants us to put an end to contraband tobacco. When contraband cigarettes are available, no one buys cigarettes at the convenience store. The association does not want to put an end to tobacco use; it wants to put an end to illegal competition in its industry. The association is right. We must stop being hypocritical. If we decide that tobacco is a legal industry in Canada, even though we know that it kills, these stores should be able to happily sell it and make money legally.
That is why I really liked the question my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked the parliamentary secretary. She asked him if there were ways other than Bill C-10 to eliminate the scourge of tobacco. She and I both know that it is not easy to quit smoking. She can share her personal experience with that. In my case, I have been chewing Nicorette since 1999. People in the committee had quite a laugh when I told them that. In December, I was proud to tell them that I had quit Nicorette, but unfortunately I have to admit to everyone that I have started up again. It must be the Conservatives' fault I guess, because either I chew Nicorette or I get even more aggressive than usual. That is what I thought: everyone is eager to recommend that I chew Nicorette. That is what I do. Maybe I will stop one day. My point is that it is a constant battle.
We tell kids not to smoke, but tobacco companies attract them with all kinds of products. I know that is why I started smoking when I was young. It was cool. We thought we were so smart. Had I known how bloody hard it would be to quit 30 or 40 years later, maybe I would never have started. Young people know that now.
There are other ways, as my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said. There has to be a concerted public health effort, not just changes to the Criminal Code. There has to be a concerted effort to raise people's awareness that this product kills. That is what the warnings on cigarette packs say: this stuff kills, causes all sorts of problems and places a heavy burden on our health system. We have to do everything in our power to bring tobacco use rates down as quickly as possible. 
We will tackle the issue of contraband tobacco immediately. I hope that it will help, but I am not convinced that it is the silver bullet or that it will solve every problem. I want to reiterate that for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. This bill will come into force on a date to be fixed by order in council. That is better than when we are sometimes told that the bill will come into force within 30 days of the bill being passed, which means that it applies immediately. I feel that it is of the utmost importance that the government use the time before the bill comes into force to sit down and talk with the first nations that have a considerable number of issues with and concerns about the bill. It is not that they support contraband tobacco. However, as Gina Deer, Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, said:
 Bill C-10 proposes an infringement on our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights pertaining to the production, transportation, sale, and regulation of tobacco products. 
If that is how Chief Deer perceives Bill C-10, a government representative needs to sit down with the chiefs to correct that perception. I think that the government's vision has to be explained, and first nations and the government need to discuss it as equals. The government did not have the decency to do that before it introduced the bill.
We are supporting this bill, even with its flaws. I am still waiting for the Conservatives to introduce a perfect bill. I do not think it is going to happen any time soon. That said, the committee did a fine job. I would like to thank my committee colleagues for their work, and I would also like to thank the witnesses who came to enlighten us on this subject, which is not always straightforward.
I appreciate the work being done by police, in particular. They do not have an easy job. As I said earlier, when we talk about contraband tobacco, the discussion often turns to other types of contraband or illegal activities such as organized crime and dangerous individuals. Police officers are putting their lives in danger every day. We must appreciate their work, but we also need to give them the tools and means to do their job. They have all been critical of that.
That also includes police forces in first nations territories, the aboriginal police who do this work and whose programs have been eliminated by the government. At some point you have to put your money where your mouth is. If the government wants to take action, it must provide the tools.
Bill C-10 is not very long and everyone should read it. For those who are worried about mandatory minimum sentences, they apply to repeat offenders and cases involving large quantities of contraband tobacco, as I was saying.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is with regard to the impact of contraband cigarettes in our communities. I hope to spend a bit of time talking about this at some time, possibly later today, in particular, because of how organized crime has become engaged over the years in this. It is not just cigarettes. The organized crime element deals in cigarettes, drugs, and prostitution. It is all sorts of different issues. 
Even though it is encouraging that we see the legislation before us today, all in all, there is so much more we could be doing to tackle the problem of some of the activities that are feeding that organized crime element and causing a great deal of stress on many of our communities across Canada. I speak from experience in terms a good portion of the community I represent, Winnipeg North. I am very proud of my community, but there are some issues. The bill maybe takes a baby step when we probably could have taken a much larger step. 
Could the hon. member comment?
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, that would be a good title to the speech I just gave, “baby step”, because that is basically what it is. In a sense it is a baby step because it is just a small aspect of the problem. At the same time, it is a big step, because by including it in the Criminal Code, it is a whole new ball game. It would give powers to police in different jurisdictions to tackle the issue. Just on that front, it is an immense step.
That said, it will not solve everything. We still need to educate kids. I do not want to divulge my age, but I can understand that in the early 1970s, it was cool to smoke, because we had no pictures of rotten teeth and bad lungs and so on on our cigarette packs. Our cigarette packs were pretty cool, actually, to hold. They were colourful, and we looked so old, so mature, so whatever. Nowadays, if we have a pack of cigarettes, we had better hide it, because it is really gross. People know, so why do they still do it?
If we cut the demand, it will be very hard to continue contraband when there is no demand, but right now there is demand. I wake up with headlines in my region, which has one of the highest percentages of smokers and of smokers of illegal contraband tobacco.
We are close to reserves and places where it is easy to obtain contraband tobacco. Therefore, we all have to work hard. All stakeholders must work together: the provincial, territorial and first nations police, the federal government and public health officials. All of these people have to work together.
Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I fully support this bill. I believe tobacco use does in fact kill, and I want to share a story.
My mother recently had a very serious issue with her health. She had a cardiac arrest because of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which was because of smoking. Unfortunately, she spent a considerable amount of time in hospital and is now suffering with brain damage. This is exactly the type of thing we expect to prevent. My mother is an aboriginal woman who believed strongly that it would not affect her health, but 67 years old is too young to be faced with this kind of thing.
She had a career that she loved and worked with young aboriginal people who were in jail, unfortunately. Many of them were getting contraband cigarettes laced with things like ecstasy. This is a harmful substance that is in fact killing our communities. 
I ask my colleague what she would say to the parents of these children who pick up the contraband tobacco laced with something that essentially could kill them. What would she to say to those people, other than “Well, we should put more money into looking for police answers”?
The answer is to prevent contraband tobacco, to regulate it, to cut this demand, and to cut the supply when it is not regulated. This is the only way to go. 
I would ask the member to respond directly to those families who will, unfortunately, see deaths because of tobacco, particularly contraband tobacco, in the near future.
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I could answer by telling my story.
My dad died at 55 because of cigarettes. I do know the damage that cigarettes can create, and that is not even the contraband kind of cigarettes that are laced with crap. I think we all share the message that tobacco kills. I mean, if one smokes, one is not doing a good thing for one's health.
However, I am not the one saying we need resources; it is the RCMP.
Border officers told us that they need resources. Organized crime has become very sophisticated.
It is not a bad thing to tell the government to wake up because this work cannot happen on its own. This bill does some good, but at the same time there has to be an overall vision. It is not enough to be fixated on a small piece of the puzzle and to say that it is going to solve all the world's problems. We need the necessary tools to ensure that parents do not see their children in situations like the one my colleague just mentioned. I want to prevent that.
I take to task all the young people I see smoking. I tell them that they do not know the road they are headed down and they have no idea of the hell they will go through when they try to stop, because that time will come. It will be extremely difficult for them to kick the habit, especially with all the junk that is added.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, coming from Hamilton, in the 1950s and 1960s, we had some experience with organized crime. I will not go down that road, but there are a lot of stories that can be told.
From my generation, out of nine friends, I was the only one who did not smoke. If we went to a restaurant, everybody smoked. It was in every place. However, we have made very significant gains against tobacco usage. 
If we are going to undertake this in an appropriate way, there have to be more resources for our police departments. When they dealt with gangs in Hamilton, there was a particular group of police officers dedicated to that. Now we see teenagers with hockey bags full of tobacco going through our apartment buildings in Hamilton. In order to address that, the police will need more resources. 
I would like to ask the member for Gatineau if, in her conversations with the government, that discussion took place.
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, yes, it did take place. That is exactly the conversation I was having, and I was kind of reproached by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages. The fact that they need more money is a reality.
 If we want to address the issue, we have to do it right. One way would be to create an infraction in the Criminal Code. Another way would be to make sure that kids realize that it is not good to smoke.
A concern I have right now is that people say that there was a considerable drop in the number of tobacco users for a time, but that number is on the rise again. I am not sure whether others feel the same way, but when we look at American television right now, there is a lot of smoking on a lot of shows. Maybe it is silly to say so, but there was a time when we did not see smoking on television any more. It was not cool.
Fans of Mad Men may have noticed that practically every character on that show smokes at every turn. The show is set in another time. I watch Law and Order: SVU and other shows and we see people smoking. I guess as a former smoker myself I tend to notice these things. All of these things seem to make it okay again to smoke. In fact, young people are starting to smoke again.
Contraband cigarettes are cheap and easy to get. People have access to a product that we all know is dangerous. Indeed, something must be done about this.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I would advise the member that he will only have about four minutes before we move on to statements by members.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party supports the passage of this bill, but we also recognize that there are more things that we could be doing to improve the environment with respect to the negative impacts of contraband cigarettes or smoking. 
Let me approach it from a different way. Back in 1988, when I was first elected to a provincial legislature, budget after budget would come through with increases to cigarette taxes. There is a strong correlation: the higher the cost of cigarettes, the more people are inclined to quit smoking. Often I would hear, “The government is increasing the price of tobacco. I'm going to quit smoking. This is my last pack. I'm going to save that money that I would be spending in taxes and put it toward something else.” We did see significant decreases. 
Contraband cigarettes have been counter to the government's attempt to decrease the population's involvement in purchasing tobacco and smoking.
At one time when I was first elected I would argue that the government used tobacco tax as a revenue generation. It was all about money coming in. What we find is that smoking costs society far more than we could ever possibly generate in terms of tobacco tax. We do not get anywhere near as much money in taxes as we spend on things such as health care. In Manitoba alone, hundreds of millions of dollars is spent annually on health. Nationwide, we are probably talking well into the billions of dollars in terms of the negative impacts of tobacco.
If we take a look at those negative impacts today, the issue goes beyond health. There are public safety issues, such as organized crime, which has gotten hold of this issue and is making millions of dollars of revenue every year to be used for other aspects of crime. It is used to complement things such as drugs, prostitution, and all sorts of other issues that are brought into this whole area.
We can and should be doing more. These elements of public safety, of health, and of lost revenue have all had a profound impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, when we take a look at this bill, what we see is a step in the right direction. There are some concerns that we have with respect to judicial independence, for example, but there are other issues and as such we could have done so much more. We ask the government to look at the bigger picture in terms of what else it can be doing to deal not only with contraband cigarettes but also with some of those other crimes that are being factored in in terms of organized crime.
Those are my comments. I will not be continuing on after question period.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: If the member does want to continue on, he would have another sixteen and a half minutes.

Statements by Members
Lawrence PaulMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to acknowledge the passing of my friend, Chief Lawrence Paul. Chief Lawrence Paul led the Millbrook First Nation for close to 30 years. 
He was a visionary leader and because of his vision, he established two priorities for his people: education and economic development. As an educator, I saw first-hand the fruits of his efforts, and today over 80% of Millbrook First Nation youth graduate from high school, far above the national average.
In terms of economic development, his other priority, to establish a robust economy for his people, led Atlantic Business magazine to declare that Chief Paul was one of the top 50 CEOs in Atlantic Canada. 
On behalf of Tammy and myself, we offer the Paul family, Chief Gloade, the band council, and the entire Millbrook First Nation our condolences. He was a great man and my friend. We will all miss him.
Festivals in Vaudreuil-SoulangesMr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House about five festivals that have become must-see events in my region of Vaudreuil-Soulanges: Les Seigneuriales in Vaudreuil-Dorion, which transports us to New France; the Vaudreuil-Dorion international circus festival; the Hudson Music Festival; the S.O.U.P.E. festival; and, to close out the season, the Rigaud festival of colours.
This year's theme is “Stimulez vos six sens dans Vaudreuil-Soulanges”, in other words, stimulate your six senses in Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
I am proud to be from a region that puts culture as a top priority. Developing the creative economy is crucial to the New Democrats because we realize the importance of arts and culture to economic development. Arts and culture constitute 8% of real GDP and bring in billions of dollars to the Canadian economy. However, money is not the only benefit we derive.
This also nurtures our sense of belonging and brings us all together regardless of our age, where we are from or what language we speak.
I commend the Groupe des 5 and I wish them good luck.
Come one, come all to enjoy the magnificent Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
Louise Arbour Secondary SchoolMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the students of Louise Arbour Secondary School for standing up for Canadian values. After being concerned by a racist flyer that was recently circulated around Brampton, the students have launched a campaign #ConsiderThisBrampton.
The actions of few behind a discriminatory flyer that was distributed around Brampton go against Canadian values that we hold dear, such as tolerance, freedom, and pluralism. These are values the students of Louise Arbour Secondary School are defending with this campaign. 
On behalf of all my colleagues in the House, I would like to thank and congratulate the students for standing up for real Canadian values.
Retirement CongratulationsHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two astounding retirees from Cape Breton: Bruce Reardon and Brent Denny. 
Bruce worked tirelessly for 31 years with the Sydney Service Canada Centre. Bruce was a dedicated employee in helping many residents of Cape Breton access important programs and providing tools to enter the workforce, thus contributing greatly to our community. 
 Brent Denny is a member of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality Fire and Emergency Services and began volunteering with the Sydney River Volunteer Fire Department in 1974, eventually taking over the role as chief from 1985 to 2005. Brent also has been an active member of the Fire Service Association of Nova Scotia, serving in many executive positions, including a two-year term as president. 
Both of these men exemplify a strong work ethic that has brought great pride not only to their families and friends but to Cape Breton and the community at large. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them both for their contributions and wishing them the best and a great retirement.
Ganaraska Region Conservation AuthorityMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment t:o thank the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for funding opportunities under the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program, and the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for spawning the idea.
I had the opportunity to announce funding for the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority last week, with assistance from the member for Durham. Our government is providing significant funding to the Ganaraska River riparian tree planting project.
 I am pleased to see the success of this program and for the government's continued commitment to support individuals and organizations working along the shores of lakes, rivers, and streams across the country to protect and restore fishing habitats for future generations. 
Projects like these have a direct benefit on the health of our watersheds as well as an indirect benefit on local economies. Recreational fishing alone attracts thousands of visitors to Canada and contributes billions of dollars to our economy every year.
 Projects funded under the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program will benefit our communities for many years to come.
Des Alumettes BridgeMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about how the people of Pontiac feel about the replacement of the Des Alumettes Bridge, which crosses our magnificent Ottawa River.
The federal government promised millions of dollars in 2011 for the bridge linking l'Isle-aux-Allumettes in Quebec and Pembroke in Ontario.
The first thought is job creation. Everyone knows that the unemployment rate in the northwestern part of my beautiful riding of Pontiac is close to 10%. Many of my constituents were hoping to find jobs working on the bridge replacement.
Second, the people of Pontiac are wondering whether this announcement was nothing more than an opportunity for the Conservative Party to award bogus contracts to their friends.
Third, will we get this new bridge as promised on the government's website? I hope the government will take note of my constituents' thoughts.
Energy IndustryMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the contributions of a great Albertan and a great Canadian. Dr. Eric Newell is well known by many members of the House as a source of wisdom on the responsible development of Canada's oil sands . His vast knowledge led him to a storied career in Canada's petroleum and energy industries. In this regard, he is perhaps best known for his 14 years as the CEO of Syncrude.
 Dr. Newell is also well known for his contributions to higher education, notably the University of Alberta, and his passion in ensuring the success of aboriginal people in Canada.
In 2008, the Alberta government tasked Dr. Newell with building and chairing the Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation. This organization funds initiatives to achieve actual and sustainable greenhouse gas emission reductions. This organization is now in the midst of its Grand Challenge, through which innovative thinkers from around the globe are invited to put forward ideas on how to turn a liability like carbon into a useful asset. 
I am honoured to consider Dr. Newell a friend. He, and other energy visionaries like him, leave me with nothing but optimism about the future of Canada's energy industry.
Ethnique MediaHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to acknowledge the rise of the Ethnique Media in Canada. It is filling the niche that mainstream media has ignored. It caters to the needs of the ethnic community not only by acting as a link to the home country but also by highlighting the achievements of members of the ethnic community.
Some of those involved, like Shan and Jaya Chandrasekar, have been recognized by their entry into the hall of fame.
For all those from coast to coast who work in the ethnic media, I sincerely thank them for their hard work and dedication, despite numerous barriers and hardship. These media highlight our Canadian diversity.
Radio CKRL 89.1Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to talk about the exceptional job done by an organization in my riding, Radio CKRL 89.1.
CKRL 89.1, North America's oldest French-language radio station, is celebrating its 41st anniversary this year and continues to charm listeners. During ADISQ's recent annual gathering of music industry players in Quebec, CKRL won the community radio station of the year award.
This well-deserved victory was an awesome kick-off to the station's annual radiothon. The hugely successful event surpassed its fundraising goal, raising over $40,000.
I would like to congratulate the staff on their hard work, as well as the volunteers who get involved because they want to provide Quebeckers with radio programming that is varied, lively and in touch with the people. Once again, congratulations, and long live CKRL 89.1. 
VeteransMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have received feedback from many veterans in my riding who have told me that our government needs to improve its communication with Canada's veterans. That is why our government has launched an advertising campaign to ensure that veterans have the information they need.
We must ensure that veterans are aware of the programs and services available to them so they can benefit from them. Surely the members opposite would agree that spending 0.1% of program funding to ensure that veterans know what benefits and services are available is money well spent.
Royal 22nd Regiment MuseumAnnick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, this week, I was very excited and proud to participate in the launch of the new Royal 22nd Regiment museum at the Citadelle of Québec. 
The Citadelle is one of the largest museums to showcase Canada's francophone military heritage, second only to the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. This year, the Royal 22nd Regiment, also called the “Vandoos”, is celebrating its 100th anniversary. An avant-garde exhibit, entitled “Je me souviens”, teaches about the regiment's history, mission, exploits and heroes. 
I was the only federal representative at the launch because, unfortunately, the Conservative government did not want to send anyone to attend this very special event. It did not want to hear the Royal 22nd Regiment's military music, just like it does not want to hear the military music played at international events such as the International Festival of Military Bands in Quebec City, or the Tattoo of Freedom in Caen, France, in honour of the 70th anniversary of the Normandy invasion. It is a disgrace. The Conservatives have abandoned our soldiers, our veterans and our history.
Maternal, Newborn, and Child HealthMrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is wrapping up what must be considered an extremely successful summit in Toronto that has focused the world's attention on maternal, newborn, and child health. The summit has allowed, once again, for Canada to continue in our leadership role, addressing the health challenges faced by women, children, and newborns in developing countries.
Yesterday our government pledged an additional $3.5 billion that will allow crucial investments in critical areas, such as immunization, nutrition, and birth and death registration. This announcement has been praised by many, including the president and CEO of World Vision, who said, "I'm really encouraged. It's clear that the prime minister, the government is keeping their commitment.”
Because of our Prime Minister's personal dedication and commitment to saving the lives of mothers and children worldwide, Canada is continuing in its global leadership and saving the lives of mothers and children worldwide. 
Bold VisionMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Prince Edward Island, we have a deep appreciation for our history and a determination to continue playing a key role in shaping our country. It was 150 years ago that Charlottetown welcomed the 23 Fathers of Confederation, who provided a vision for the country we know today. 
As Prince Edward Island prepared to celebrate this historic anniversary, a small group of Islanders explored a single question: what would 23 women have envisioned for the future of Canada? This September, our island will welcome 23 Canadian women from across the country. They will share their bold vision for the next 150 years. 
These 23 women come from varied backgrounds, including rocket scientists, social activists, physicians, politicians, journalists, educators, artists, and electricians, and each of them has at least one thing in common: they have a profound love of Canada.
I am proud to stand in the House today and congratulate these 23 women, who include three colleagues from the House of Commons, the members for St. Paul's, Churchill, and Ahuntsic. 
Bold Vision is a collaborative effort of Women's Network PEI, the PEI Coalition for Women in Government, the PEI Business Women's Association, the Prince Edward Island Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and the Interministerial Women's Secretariat.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader, who is scoffing at his active Liberal members by saying that they engage in too much navel-gazing, is once again demonstrating that he does not have what it takes to be party leader.
It has been months now, yet we still know nothing of his policy agenda; however, we do have clear proof that the Conservative government is the only party focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth.
While I have the utmost respect for political life, I must admit that the Liberal leader is just like his predecessors: he is thinking about himself too much.
Our Conservative government's leadership is the only thing that can unite the provinces, including Quebec, and create a more prosperous country.
Accountability of the Government of CanadaMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the spouse of a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder tried to speak to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, he was scared and ran away.
When the Minister of Employment and Social Development is held to account for the management of the temporary foreign worker program, this champion of no accountability tells us that it is not his fault, that it is not his program, that it is the fault of the Liberals and everyone else, except for him. 
When the Prime Minister turns the appointment of a Supreme Court judge into a real fiasco, he pretends that he did not know about the rules.
I do not know if others agree with me, but I am beginning to see a trend, that of a government that refuses to face the music.
While the Liberals are asleep at the wheel, the Conservatives can rest assured that every time they make a bad decision or every time they show a lack of respect for our veterans, they will find the NDP in their way.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, day in and day out, the NDP continues to defend its illegal satellite offices and subsequent looting of millions of dollars from taxpayers. In fact, New Democrats have dug themselves into a hole so deep that they are even using the Duffy defence, with the leader going so far as to say we all do it, just as all senators fiddle their expenses.
Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition knows that the NDP can only win an election when rules are lax and never enforced. 
I see that the Leader of the Opposition is in my home province, touring Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, and Regina. I have some advice for him. He should hold off on these satellite office, because since 2004, federally, Saskatchewan has been NDP-free, and we like it that way. 

Oral Questions
VeteransMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after using strategies such as arriving late for a meeting and then insulting veterans, yesterday, the minister adopted a new strategy: running away when the spouse of a veteran asked him for help. 
All that veterans and their loved ones want is to be heard and respected, something the minister was incapable of doing yesterday. It is shameful.
When will the minister apologize to Jenifer Migneault?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the veteran's privacy, we cannot speak about any assistance, support, or contact that might have been provided to him or his family. That said, veterans with PTSD are eligible for a full suite of benefits and programs, including rehabilitation and financial support. As I reported several weeks ago, Veterans Affairs has been in touch with this individual and his family, at the minister's direction.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, no apology is shameful; there is no other way to put it. What Canadians have seen from this minister and the government is a record of failure, mismanagement, and running full speed away from accountability.
Last January, the minister was caught belittling veterans. He spends millions of dollars on propaganda while closing offices that provide important personal services to veterans. Then, yesterday, he completely ignored the spouse of a wounded soldier, actually running away in the other direction.
When will this minister stop running away and agree to meet with veterans and their families?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague and all members in this House, as they know full well, that the minister is deeply concerned and cares about Canada's veterans. As a matter of fact, Canadians know full well that this government has a strong record when it comes to defending our veterans, when it comes to caring and providing benefits and services. That is exactly the reason why we have invested almost $5 billion in new additional funding since coming to office. We will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans, even though the New Democrats and the Liberals will vote against every single initiative.
PrivacyPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that the NDP will proudly vote against any Conservative budget that cuts veterans services.
The Canadian privacy community is speaking out against the Conservatives' choice for commissioner. Ontario watchdog Ann Cavoukian said:
 ...looking at someone whose expertise is in public safety and defence would seem the antithesis of the expertise you'd seek for privacy commissioner. 
Yet again, of course, Liberals support the Conservatives' bad decisions, but the New Democrats stand with privacy commissioners.
Will the Conservatives do the right thing and withdraw the nomination?
Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Therrien is a qualified candidate who will bring to this job his considerable experience in dealing with legal and confidentiality issues. The appointment was made following a rigorous process that identified Mr. Therrien as the best candidate.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, nobody buys that line except the Liberals.
Ian Kerr, an expert in privacy, asked, “Why choose someone without any real privacy background [...]? The privacy advocate asked why so many qualified candidates were simply ignored.
 All that is clear is that Conservatives grew tired of the previous commissioner's balanced approach. They want a commissioner who agrees with their warrantless wiretapping and supports mass data collection of law-abiding Canadians. Will they withdraw this nominee and bring forward a candidate who is qualified to defend Canadians' privacy rights?
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, according to the opposition, real government work experience in the area of privacy protection would make someone less qualified to be the privacy commissioner.
It is truly hypocritical for the New Democrats to claim to be the champions of public servants. When a public servant who has served this country puts his name forward and his integrity is attacked, that is shameful and hypocritical in the extreme.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, other than the leader of the Liberal Party, very few people are happy about the appointment of a Conservative as privacy commissioner. The Prime Minister's candidate has been very poorly received by the community.
According to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Ann Cavoukian, Daniel Therrien's professional background is exactly the opposite of what we should be looking for in a privacy commissioner. 
Why do the Conservatives want a commissioner who is more interested in spying on Canadians than in protecting their privacy? 
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Therrien is a well-qualified candidate who brings significant experience in law and privacy issues to the position. The appointment was made following a rigorous process that identified Mr. Therrien as the best candidate. Again, the members say they are champions of public servants, yet they question the integrity of these public servants who have experience and who place themselves so that they can serve Canadians. 
Why do the NDP members think that their position is not hypocritical? Why do they continue to attack public servants?
EmploymentSean Casey: Mr. Speaker, the government would have us believe that it is banning abusive employers from using the temporary foreign worker program. However, last year, at least 250 temporary foreign workers complained that they were mistreated. In spite of these complaints, the government's black list shows that it has not banned any company for mistreating its temporary workers.
Why is the government not monitoring the program?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the temporary foreign worker program is to provide employers with temporary foreign workers when no Canadian is available for the job. If employers violate the rules and regulations of this program, they are held to account. We actually have legislation in place to establish financial penalties for those employers who violate the rules and regulations. Every time we bring in measures like establishing a blacklist to publicly name and shame employers who violate this, that party votes against it.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, Conservatives named and shamed no one. In my province of Prince Edward Island 11% of the workforce is ready, able, and willing to work and cannot find a job. At the same time, the Conservatives have quadrupled the number of temporary foreign workers in my province. What the program has done under the Conservatives' watch has distorted the labour market and driven down Canadian wages. Why is it that the government oversight of this program is next to non-existent?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal Party that brought in the low-wage stream for the temporary foreign worker program. When the Liberals were in power, temporary foreign workers were coming from outside the country as exotic dancers and strippers. I do not think that is the type of program Canadians want. That is why we have made strong changes to hold employers accountable for this program.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, we know the Conservatives do not care about Atlantic Canada, so let us try out west. The president of the Alberta Federation of Labour says the temporary foreign worker program has gone off the rails and is driving down wages. The Alberta jobs minister says, “What you really need is to bring compliance measures into that program and enforcement measures and punish those who abuse the program.” 
Why has the federal government let abuses of this program become so pervasive?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we have brought in on two separate occasions changes to tighten up this program to make sure that employers follow the regulations and make sure they obey the commitment they made when they submitted their LMO. We have made strong changes to hold employers accountable and established a public blacklist. We also have legislation in place to make sure that employers can be held accountable financially. When we bring these changes forward, that party votes against. As late as this week, there were Liberal members of Parliament crossing the floor and asking the minister to bring more temporary foreign workers into their ridings. They cannot have it both ways.
VeteransChristine Moore: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs spent $4 million on advertising instead of keeping veterans' service offices open. When the wife of a veteran suffering from PTSD went to talk to the minister, he took off running. What service.
Since he has no respect for veterans, can he at least invest money in the right places—programs—instead of wasting it on useless propaganda?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, the services and programs available to Canadian veterans are wide-ranging and among the best in the world. Veterans have access to a network of 4,800 mental health professionals nationwide, top-of-the-line medical treatment, and generous financial benefits.
It is important that we communicate with Canadian veterans to ensure they are aware of the services and programs available to them.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, Jenifer Migneault, the wife of a veteran with PTSD, has criticized the lack of support for families of veterans.
That is why she went to meet the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but she is not alone in feeling abandoned and forgotten by a government that continues to use veterans for partisan purposes only to then cut veterans' services.
Will the minister give up his public relations TV campaign and invest in programs for our veterans and their caregivers?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, each year, Veterans Affairs invests $3.5 billion, of which 90% goes directly to veterans' services. Less than 1% of the total budget is spent on advertising. For every dollar spent on advertising, Veterans Affairs spends more than $800 on programs and benefits for veterans themselves.
Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister expects people to believe that he did not know that Ms. Migneault was the spouse of a veteran, even though she said flat out, “I'm just a vet's spouse”, while standing a few feet away. Instead of showing her basic courtesy, he and his staff bolted. It is pathetic. Veterans and their families are tired of being treated with this level of disdain.
Would the minister apologize to Ms. Migneault and veterans and families across this country?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, that member knows full well that the minister appeared at a committee meeting yesterday . We had bells ringing for votes in the House. As a matter of fact, the minister stayed extra time to appear before the committee, and there were only a few minutes left before we had to vote in the House.
That being said, the minister regularly travels throughout this country to meet with Canada's veterans and their families, as all members of this side of House, I can assure the member, regularly meet and listen to—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, Jenny Migneault was speaking for many across the country when she said, “You're forgetting us once more. We're nothing to you.”
People in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour are feeling this kind of callous behaviour on behalf of the minister. Instead of blowing $4 million on ads claiming to respect veterans, why does the minister not actually respect veterans, invest in supporting them, and at least, heaven forbid, talk to them?
When is the minister going to start taking veterans' issues seriously and apologize?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, veterans, stakeholders, members of Parliament, senators, and experts have all called upon Veterans Affairs to improve its communication with Canadian veterans. If veterans are unaware of the programs and services available to them, they simply will not use them. With this new campaign, Veterans Affairs Canada will spend approximately one-tenth of one per cent on advertising. 
Public Works and Government ServicesMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister told the CANSEC defence industry conference that the Conservatives would be reviewing their final fighter jet options in the next few weeks. This is yet another clue that the Conservatives will wait until after the House of Commons rises for the summer before they announce whether or not they will buy the F-35s.
This project has been a disaster for long enough.
Will the Conservatives let this House know their plans before running away in June?
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the CF-18 replacement project is going according to the seven-point plan. The results of this evaluation will be released in due course.
Jean Crowder: In due course, Mr. Speaker. The entire process for buying the F-35s has been done in secret, behind closed doors. Given how poorly it has gone, one would think that the Conservatives would now welcome a bit of openness.
This is a simple question. Will the decision, when it is announced, simply be what the Conservatives have wanted all along: a sole-sourced purchase of the F-35s from Lockheed Martin?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, when we established the seven-point plan two years ago to replace the CF-18, we embarked on the most independent and transparent review in the history of Canada when it comes to military procurement.
The independent panel ensured the evaluation of options was conducted with the RCAF's engagement and was both rigorous and impartial.
Over the next several weeks we will be carefully reviewing a number of options. We will also be looking at classified and non-classified information to make sure that the information that is revealed to Canadians is sensitive to the bidders. We will remain committed to respecting taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Eurofighter and Dassault should not have to convince the government to hold an open and transparent bidding process. That should be automatic.
If the Conservatives truly care about properly managing taxpayer money, why do they refuse to hold a competition that would get us the best fighter jet at the best price? Will the government commit to a bidding process, or will it keep signing blank cheques to Lockheed Martin? 
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, when we drafted our seven-point plan to replace our CF-18s, we conducted the most independent and transparent review in Canada's history.
A panel of independent experts ensured that the evaluation of options by the Royal Canadian Air Force was both rigorous and impartial.
In the coming weeks, the ministers will be carefully examining various reports in order to make a decision on replacing Canada's CF-18 fighter jet fleet.
Our government is determined to respect taxpayers and ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces get a good jet at a good price.
JusticeFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, what would question period be without at least one question on the Supreme Court?
According to the Supreme Court Act, the three Quebec judges have to be selected from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or the Superior Court of Quebec, or among lawyers who are acting members of the Barreau du Québec. Quebec has been underrepresented at the Supreme Court for almost a year now.
Can the government confirm that the replacements for Justices Nadon and LeBel will be selected from among the candidates that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec recommends to the federal government?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had very productive meetings with Minister Vallée and the Quebec legal community. As always, we consulted a broad range of relevant stakeholders. 
We have made it clear that we will respect the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court decision. We are moving expeditiously to fill the vacancy created by Justice Fish at the Supreme Court.
Françoise Boivin: It does not sound like the government is going to pick from her list, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Justice said that he intends to appoint Justice Nadon's replacement before the summer. There are exactly 21 days left before the summer solstice.
Can the government tell us more precisely when Quebec can count on having the full representation it is due on the Supreme Court? Before the House adjourns for the summer, or at the end of the day on a Friday when no one is around?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, that member wants the minister to consult broadly with relevant stakeholders in the province of Quebec, which he is doing. We are moving as expeditiously as possible to fill the vacancy created by Justice Fish.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice learned anything from Judge Nadon's appointment fiasco? They politicize the selection process. They breach the confidentiality of internal deliberations. They reveal the contents of phone calls. They shamefully attack the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
 My question is on the replacement for Justice LeBel. What will the government do to avoid repeating such a shameful and appalling debacle?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, if the member is looking for individuals who breach confidence, he perhaps should look more on his side of the House than on this side of the House.
The minister has made it very clear. He is consulting broadly with relevant stakeholders in the province of Quebec, including the Quebec minister of justice. We will move expeditiously to fill all vacancies on the Supreme Court.
InfrastructureStéphane Dion: That is a shameful accusation that the member cannot sustain outside, Mr. Speaker. 
When the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs launched the new building Canada fund on March 28, he said that the provinces and municipalities “may now apply”. Emphasis on the word “now”. However, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities website indicates that funding agreements with the provinces and territories have not been negotiated yet. Again, “not yet”.
How does the minister reconcile yesterday's “now” with today's “not yet”, which is jeopardizing the construction season? Last quarter, the construction sector posted its worst results in three years.
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, a new Building Canada plan is open for business. All the information the provinces and the territories require is all available on the website.
The process with respect to applications, with respect to provinces identifying project priorities, is exactly the same as it was under the original Building Canada plan, which has existed for the past seven years.
Mark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, Cape Breton Regional Municipality, like many other municipalities across the country, is faced with an environmental deadline for the waste water treatment and other critical infrastructure needs, but to complete these processes, the Conservative government has not brought any money to the table.
We are well aware that we are into the construction season right now, and the Building Canada fund does not even have an application process in place. Why is the Conservative government letting down municipalities right across this country?
Peter Braid: As I explained earlier, Mr. Speaker, the process is in place. All the information that municipalities, that provinces, require is on the Infrastructure Canada website. 
The new Building Canada plan is open for business. In fact, many municipalities are already identifying their infrastructure project priorities, and just days ago we announced funding for an important transit project in Edmonton. We are getting the job done.
PrivacyAnnick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives seem to be having a hard time respecting Canadians' privacy.
The changes they are proposing in the budget bill would allow Canada Revenue Agency employees to transfer taxpayers' personal information to the police without a warrant.
Yesterday, the NDP proposed an amendment to create a judicial oversight mechanism, but the Conservatives voted against it.
Why do the Conservatives have so little respect for Canadians' privacy?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that Bill C-13 does not create any new protection from criminal or civil liability for those who voluntarily assist law enforcement. It simply clarifies existing protections under section 25 in the case law.
I would suggest she take a look at that.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is no clearer example of Conservative disregard for the privacy rights of Canadians than their rush to hand over personal financial information to the American IRS under FATCA.
Last night, Conservatives even voted against an NDP amendment that would ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and with the Privacy Act. They have refused to fix even a single comma.
Will the minister stop this assault on the privacy rights of so many Canadians, or are we just supposed to trust it to their hand-picked Privacy Commissioner?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under the agreement, financial institutions in Canada will not report any information directly to the IRS. Relevant information on U.S. residents and U.S. citizens will be reported to CRA. 
The exchange of tax information between Canada and the U.S. is already a long-standing practice and is authorized under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, which includes safeguards for the use of exchanged information. 
The information on U.S. account holders obtained by the CRA will be exchanged with the IRS through the existing framework, an approach that is consistent with Canadian privacy laws.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees was in Ottawa yesterday appealing to the government to help resettle Syrian refugees, and help is required. Nine million Syrians are displaced and 160,000 have died in this horrible conflict.
 What can Canada do? We think Canada could do a lot more. 
I want to ask the government very clearly, what is the commitment from our government to the request by Mr. Guterres when it comes to Syrian refugees? Are we going to do more? Will we accept more Syrian refugees? If yes, then when, and what is the process?
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is the fourth-largest donor to Syria for humanitarian aid in the world. Canada continues to have one of the most generous immigration and refugee systems in the world. We welcome one out of every 10 resettled refugees globally.
We are committed to resettle 1,300 Syrians by the end of the 2014, with 1,100 spaces allocated for privately sponsored refugees. 
The minister did meet with the UNHCR commissioner, Antonio Guterres, on May 28, and highlighted how Canada is working to assist the world's most vulnerable population.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good, but it is not enough.
The international community is calling on Canada to do its part to help Syrian refugees. Nine million Syrians have been displaced and 160,000 have died. The High Commissioner for Refugees is asking for immediate help in relocating 100,000 refugees.
So far, Canada has done a very poor job of responding to this humanitarian crisis. The former citizenship minister did not even follow through on his commitment to accept 1,300 Syrian refugees.
When will the government shoulder its responsibilities?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, we have begun to resettle the most vulnerable Syrians and are actively working to fulfill our existing commitments.
Since the start of the Syrian conflict, the member will be pleased to know that Canada has provided protection to over 1,100 Syrians. Canada has been a world leader in providing Syrians with humanitarian development and security assistance. If the member would read some of the things UNHCR commissioner Guterres said, I think she would be pleased with how the UNHCR is seeing Canada's contribution in this effort.
International DevelopmentMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to compel the world to pay attention to the issues that are very important to constituents, namely, saving the lives of mothers and newborns in developing countries.
Yesterday in Toronto, Melinda Gates lauded the Prime Minister for his powerful advocacy on behalf of people in developing countries. Under the Prime Minister's leadership, Canada has earned a global reputation for moving the world with compassion and action when it comes to women and children. The Muskoka initiative rallied the entire world around saving mothers and their babies.
Can the parliamentary secretary please update this House on Canada's actions on this file?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question. It gives me a tremendous sense of pride in our government to see how the Prime Minister continues to rally global support in Toronto to save the lives of mothers and children.
Yesterday our government pledged an additional $3.5 billion over five years towards the Prime Minister's maternal, newborn, and child health initiative. These funds will expand on our existing policies and up our game in critical areas of immunization, nutrition, and birth and death registration.
This is good work, and Canada is making a difference between life and death, so the work must not stop.
Social DevelopmentMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, federal budget cuts have affected many adult literacy organizations. The cuts are hurting adult job-seekers with literacy problems, especially within minority language communities.
The Centre de documentation sur l'éducation des adultes et la condition féminine de Québec, Quebec's information centre on adult education and the status of women, will lose $400,000. Montreal's Centre for Literacy and the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, the literacy and skills development network, will likely suffer the same fate.
Why is the minister cutting funding from organizations that are doing extraordinary work to improve adult literacy?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, these organizations were informed three years ago that the federal government was changing the way it funded from core funding to project-based funding so that the money will actually get to people who need to learn how to read and write and improve their literacy skills.
The department is open for business. These organizations can apply and submit programs that are based on a project-based format. We encourage them to apply, and we will take a look at their applications. We want to make sure that people get the literacy skills and the education they need to improve their lives.
Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the minister is ducking his responsibilities. It is not true that money was being spent on paperwork. 
Literacy groups have developed essential pedagogical tools for adults. They are well established in their communities and have built a strong network.
Why is the minister scorning their expertise?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, that is not true. These organizations were informed three years ago that the way the funding was going to flow was going to be changing from core funding to funding actual projects that get to the people who need the literacy skills. We need to make sure that the money coming from the federal taxpayers supports people who need to learn how to read and write and improve their literacy skills.
We are going to continue to work with these organizations. We encourage them to apply. We are open for business. We want to work with them.
Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is the deadline to commit to making a pledge for the global partnership on education.
A quarter-billion children worldwide are not able to read or write, yet education is the single most effective way to reduce poverty. The GPE adds value to each dollar we invest.
Did Canada send a letter to indicate it would make a pledge, yes or no?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I would say first to the member that, yes, we do agree with her that education is very important. Part of our international aid budget is directed toward making education one of the priorities of international development, and more specifically, education for girls, as we have done in Afghanistan and as we continue to do in Nigeria and other countries. 
As to the other question, I will advise the member in due course.
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, the question was not really about education. I think we can all agree on that subject. It was about Canada's contribution to the Global Partnership for Education. 
It is estimated that if all women were able to complete primary education, there would be 66% fewer maternal deaths. This is one of the best possible investments in terms of development.
Today—not next week—is the deadline for telling the Global Partnership for Education that Canada will participate in the new funding campaign.
Will Canada contribute or not?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada stood up on the world stage for international development, and we pledged $3.5 billion for child and maternal health for poor people in developing countries.
As far as education is concerned, yes, Canada has contributed and will contribute towards education. It is part of our development budget, and we will continue doing that.
Veterans AffairsHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government does not need to look much further than the spectacle of the parliamentary secretary pushing past the wife of a veteran with PTSD to know the millions the Conservatives are spending on ads are not helping. These ads are not helping our vets find jobs, and they are not helping vets and their families find services. 
Will the minister apologize and appropriately redirect these funds to the veterans and their families who desperately need it?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely rich coming from that member and that party. Under their government, our men and women in uniform suffered decades of darkness. 
Since coming to office, our government has brought forward almost $5 billion in new funding, new benefits, and new services for our veterans. It is that party that has voted against virtually every single initiative we have brought forward. I would encourage them to stop playing partisan games and get on board for the benefit of our veterans.
Fisheries and OceansLawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, after spending $26 million of taxpayers' money on the Cohen commission, the Conservatives have shelved the report and its 75 recommendations.
A recent order paper question has confirmed that recommendations dealing with pollution monitoring and marine spills were rejected. The government has also closed down the important DFO programs that deal with such problems and is getting rid of scientific documents and information. 
Why will the Conservatives not listen to evidenced-based scientific research? What are they trying to hide?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find the question a little puzzling. In 2004, I brought a motion to do a judicial inquiry on the Fraser River sockeye situation. In fact, it was his party that killed the motion, so we could not go ahead until we had the ability to do so. We are committed to the long-term support of the salmon fishery in British Columbia, and that is exactly why we established the commission in the first place.
The member would know, if he takes a closer look at our economic action plans in recent years, that we have made some significant changes to support that fishery in British Columbia.
Science and TechnologyMr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in just three years, Conservatives have cut over $1 billion in research funding, and they have slashed the jobs of over 4,000 government scientists. Conservatives claimed that the cuts would all be to the back rooms, but Statistics Canada confirms that front-line scientists were eliminated by the thousands. 
Muzzling scientists, gutting research funding, failing to collect data—this government's poor record and ideological cuts to research are hurting Canada's capacity for innovation.
When will the Conservative war on science ever end?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, why do we not just let the experts comment on this?
Referring to our most recent budget, David Barnard, chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, said that budget 2014 “recognizes that a vibrant, innovative and competitive Canadian economy needs a world-class research system”. 
Paul Davidson, president of the AUCC, said that with the investments in budget 2014 “Canada is signalling to the leading research nations of the world that it intends to compete with the best”.
Stephen Toope, president and vice-chancellor of UBC, said, “I applaud the federal government’s decision to spur greater Canadian leadership in global research and innovation”.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would rather rely on Statistics Canada data than on PMO spin.
According to the latest numbers from Statistics Canada, the Conservatives have cut over $1 billion from funding for science since 2011. The Conservatives' war on science has put 4,000 federal researchers responsible for protecting our safety and our environment out of a job.
When will the Conservatives put an end to their war on science?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office apparently has some of the most qualified spin doctors in the world, because these are the top universities and researchers in Canada. 
Amit Chakma, chair of the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities, thanked “the Government of Canada on its 2014 budget and the significant investment of $1.5 billion over 10 years for the new Canada First Research Excellence Fund”.
Raymond Laflamme, executive director of the Institute for Quantum Computing, apparently another PMO spin doctor, said, “As a result of the partnership established between the Government of Canada— 
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, grain farmers on the Prairies had a record harvest this past year, which was great news until the railways left that grain sitting in bins. As a result, our government took direct action.
 While the opposition's only answer was to bring back the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers knew better, and we did as well. We know that the Wheat Board used to dribble out sales so slowly that the railways never had to step up their game.
Will the parliamentary secretary to the minister please tell the House what our government has done to improve the logistics system for Canadian farmers and for other people who ship commodities?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peace River for his hard work supporting our western Canadian grain farmers.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in Fort Saskatchewan today announcing royal assent for the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. This legislation brings clear and achievable measures to get grain and other commodities to market in a predictable manner. It requires rail companies to move one million tonnes of grain per week and allows shippers to be directly compensated when the railways fail to meet their service obligations.
Canada PostMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people all across Canada are protesting the cuts announced by Canada Post. In Haute-Mauricie, VIA Rail service has been cut, and now there is an attack on another means of communication that is vital to the survival of municipalities that are far from large centres. The government keeps saying that these cuts are not its responsibility. 
Are we to understand that the government is indifferent to small remote communities?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The member should know that Canada Post is an arm's-length crown corporation. It operates on a day-to-day basis, including its long-range strategic plans. It does have a five-point plan. Why? It is because the Conference Board of Canada has done a study that indicates, as a result of moving a billion fewer letters than it did six years ago, and that trend forecasts to go into the future, it could lose as much as a billion dollars annually. Something needed to be done. Canada Post has taken action. I refer her comments to Canada Post instead.
HealthMr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, President Barack Obama waded into the debate on concussions by inviting 200 experts, athletes and parents to examine the problem. Meanwhile, in Canada, the Conservatives are twiddling their thumbs and are satisfied with promoting mobile applications that do nothing tangible to address this problem.
When will the government finally show some leadership and realize that concussions in amateur sport are a real problem and that we have to take real action and not just rely on mobile applications? Can we have some real measures, please?
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, concussions are something I know a little about, having endured one now for a couple of months and continuing to deal daily with a concussion.
Canada is a leader when it comes to investing in health care research. We are the single biggest investor in health care research in the entire country, investing over $1 billion.
I was very pleased earlier this year in Toronto to make a very sizeable announcement investing in acquired brain injuries.
International TradeMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of International Trade appeared at committee to provide an update on Canada's global markets action plan. 
The NDP critic was there. The NDP never misses an opportunity to put its anti-trade diatribe front and centre.
The Liberal critic was MIA—yes, missing. The member for Toronto Centre was absent, like the Liberal record on international trade.
Our government knows that with trade comes prosperity. Could our outstanding Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade please advise the House on our government's positive trade record?
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Prince Edward—Hastings for his long-time support of opening markets for Canadians.
I am proud that this government has signed agreements or concluded agreements with 38 countries. This week, we are expanding the Canada-Israel free trade agreement. Members can compare that with 13 years of Liberal government with only three trade agreements.
The opposition NDP continues its decades-long opposition to trade, but at least its trade critic plays an active role at the trade committee. The Liberal trade critic has missed 69 witnesses—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
Public Works and Government ServicesMr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the federal government awarded the largest shipbuilding contract in its history and abandoned the Davie Shipyard in Quebec, it boasted about how rigorous the process was. It was heralded by the NDP as a big day for Canada.
Now we see the results: the Vancouver shipyard cannot do the work, while the icebreaker promised will cost $1.3 billion—two times higher than projected—and will be eight years late. There is an alternative: the Davie shipyard sent a proposal to the federal government to build an icebreaker at the agreed-upon price and deadline.
Why did the government reject the Davie shipyard's proposal?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, the Irving and Seaspan shipyards were chosen through the most open and transparent military procurement procedure in Canada's history.
The Auditor General agrees with me:
 The competitive process for selecting two shipyards resulted in a successful and efficient process independent of political influence, consistent with government regulations and policies, and carried out in an open and transparent manner. 
I should add that this strategy is going to add 15,000 jobs over 30 years, including in British Columbia and Halifax. 
In the case the member specifically mentioned, Davie was not awarded the bid.
SportJean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the 2014 edition of the Coupe-Québec des nations will take place in Montreal in September.
This event will provide a unique opportunity to showcase the sport of track and field and send Canadian athletes to compete against other countries that have already registered for the competition. Athletics Canada, which said that it fully supported the event, has just backed out. Even worse, without any explanation, the organization is now pushing for the Quebec team to withdraw from the competition as well.
Will the Minister of State for Sport intervene and ask Athletics Canada to keep its commitment to promote and participate in Coupe-Québec des nations 2014?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It gives me the opportunity to say how proud we are of our investments in sports both within and outside Canada. We are obviously thinking about the cups we will win in the future.
The World Cup will be an opportunity for all Canadians to celebrate. Everyone will come to Canada to participate, which will contribute to our economy and help us continue serving Canadians properly.
I would also like to say that the Minister of State for Sport is committed to this event and will continue to be. He will be there to celebrate with Canadians.
Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister really understands what event we are talking about today.
She did not provide any explanation whatsoever for Athletics Canada's dramatic change in position. One day, the organization was saying that Coupe-Québec des nations 2014 was a wonderful event and that it was committed to promoting it, and then a few weeks later, the organization suddenly tried to derail the event by abruptly withdrawing its support and even pushing the Quebec team not to participate.
Is this, by chance, because the Minister of State for Sport intervened and told Athletics Canada to withdraw its support for Coupe-Québec des nations 2014?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, once again, perhaps my colleague did not hear me, but I clearly said that the Minister of State for Sport is very committed to this event and will continue to be.
We are very proud to welcome the World Cup. We like to support our athletes from across Canada, whether they are home or abroad.
Once again, our Minister of State for Sport will continue to be committed to this event and participate in its celebration.

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 two petitions.
Committees of the HouseRick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on National Defence in relation to the main estimates 2014-2015. 
Chris Warkentin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three separate reports, in both official languages.
One is entitled “Wills and Estates”. The second is the reply for the main estimates. The third is the supplementary estimates (A).
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to the main estimates 2014-15.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to its study on the main estimates 2014-2015. 
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in relation to its study on the main estimates 2014-15.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to its study on the main estimates 2014-2015. 
As well, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
PetitionsMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these undersigned petitioners are drawing the attention of this House of Commons to the fact that children ordinarily thrive best when being raised by both parents, their father and their mother, even when those parents divorce, so the petitioners are calling on Parliament to amend the Divorce Act, as in my Bill C-560, to require equal shared parenting to be treated as the rebuttable presumption in custody decisions, except, of course, in cases of proven abuse or neglect.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition. These petitioners from B.C. indicate that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They want to see that changed and toughened so we have new mandatory minimum sentences. They want the Criminal Code to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.
 It is my privilege to present these good petitions from citizens of British Columbia.
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to table this petition, which is signed by nearly 400 of my constituents from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. 
Petitioners are asking the government to stop the cuts to our postal services. People in my community feel that door-to-door service is important. The 8,000 well-paying jobs that will be lost are a serious problem. They feel Canada Post should be looking at options to ensure that it can raise additional revenue to maintain this service for constituents in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and across the country.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to present a petition on behalf of residents and visitors to Canada's smallest and nicest province with respect to the cuts at Canada Post. Petitioners are concerned about the impact of these cuts on the general public, on postal workers, and on the disabled. They are calling on the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts announced by Canada Post and to look for ways to innovate, including areas such as postal banking. 
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition. It is a little lengthy. I hope to get through it quickly.
Up to 273 RCMP personnel were involved in an operation that resulted in officers kicking in doors at more than 1,900 homes in High River, Alberta, between June 21 and July 7, 2013. Thirty Alberta communities were flooded in June 2013 and some were evacuated, but it was only in High River, Alberta, that police kicked in doors, searched homes, and seized firearms. 
A national defence chart dated June 24, 2013, states “No further danger to civilians' life and limb and evacuations not requested”. An email from the RCMP dated June 24, 2013, at 7:12 p.m. states “As at 15:00 hours today, RCMP led by STO have completed the physical search of all homes in High River, with the exception of a small amount in quadrant 8, which is under water. Houses/buildings, 3,337; forced entries, 674; people located, 303”. 
Even though the threat to human life and limb ended on June 24—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I am sorry, but that is just going on too long. Is there some way you can do a quick summary in, say, 30 seconds or so?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I will try to be as brief as possible. 
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to call a judicial inquiry into RCMP and the national defence involvement in High River break-ins, the resulting search and seizure of private property without warrant, and the misrepresentation of these events by the RCMP in the media and to the public. 
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from citizens who want to remind us all that in 2000, Canada and 188 other nations promised to spare no effort to fulfill the millennium development goals. Petitioners are asking us to fulfill this commitment by directing 0.7% of Canada's gross national product toward official development assistance every year. 
Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today put together by a citizen from Aurora, Ontario, who I understand organized this petition through Facebook and other online media. It is signed by people from all over Ontario, including my own riding. It concerns Bill C-23, the so-called fair elections act. 
The petitioners would like to tell the House that experts disagree with the bill, were not sufficiently consulted, and do not support the bill. They call on the government to withdraw the legislation. 
David Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from Canadians who are asking the government 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. 
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first one calls on the House of Commons to immediately undertake public consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure voters cast an equal and effective vote to be represented in Parliament and are governed by a fairly elected Parliament where the share of seats held by each political party closely reflects the popular vote. The petition also asks that a suitable form of proportional representation be introduced after public consultations. 
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the House of Commons to amend the Food and Drugs Act with regard to mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18 that would further restrict farmers' rights or add to farmers' costs. Further, it calls upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present, as I have on a number of other occasions, a petition on the right to save seeds. This is an issue of great importance in my riding, and this particular petition has almost 200 signatures. The petitioners are very concerned about Bill C-18, an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, and how it would affect farmers' rights related to seeds. The petitioners call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds. I should also mention that the petition is being sponsored by the National Farmers Union.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by constituents in Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission who recognize the inherent right of farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds. They call upon Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act that would restrict farmers' rights or add to farmers' costs.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I bring forward a petition that has been circulated by organizations such as the Falun Dafa Association of Winnipeg and others. The petitioners are trying to bring attention to the very serious issue regarding organ donations. They ask that Ottawa pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs and publicly call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today in regard to the war in the Congo, where since 1998, 5.4 million people have died and where rape is being used as a weapon of war. The petitioners want Parliament to adopt the conflict minerals act, which would cut off the revenues from these militias and bring peace to the east of the Congo.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition to denounce the cuts at Canada Post.
Thousands of people in my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, submitted this petition to me to denounce the elimination of the home delivery service and the increase in the price of postage. I want to thank all the volunteers who helped me circulate this petition.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 341, originally tabled on May 12, 2014, as well as a supplementary response to Question No. 412 and a revised response to Question No. 420, both of which were originally tabled on May 14, 2014, could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Stéphane Dion: With regard to commemorations surrounding the 150th anniversary of Confederation, beginning with celebrations marking the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 and ending with the 120th anniversary of the Battle of Leliefontein (in 2020): (a) with whom, including government departments, did the government consult regarding the organization and government spending for the events, (i) on what dates, (ii) what responses were received by the government; (b) how much was spent and authorized to date on each event and program, broken down by department and by program activity, during the fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011, (vi) 2011-2012, (vii) 2012-2013, (viii) 2013-2014, (ix) 2014-2015, (x) 2015-2016, (xi) 2016-2017, (xii) 2017-2018, (xiii) 2018-2019, (xiv) 2019-2020; and (c) how much has been spent and authorized to date for public affairs campaigns, public relations campaigns and information campaigns, as it relates to these commemoration activities for fiscal years (i) 2006-2007, (ii) 2007-2008, (iii) 2008-2009, (iv) 2009-2010, (v) 2010-2011, (vi) 2011-2012, (vii) 2012-2013, (viii) 2013-2014, (ix) 2014-2015, (x) 2015-2016, (xi) 2016-2017, (xii) 2017-2018, (xiii) 2018-2019, (xiv) 2019-2020?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. David McGuinty: With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the National Capital Commission since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Marc Garneau:  With regard to the government’s Road to 2017 commemoration project and military commemoration program: (a) how much has been spent on these programs and projects since 2013, broken down by (i) department, (ii) amount, (iii) specific pillar or event, (iv) year; (b) how much does the government estimate will be spent on these programs and projects in total between 2013 and 2021, broken down by (i) department, (ii) amount, (iii) specific pillar or event, (iv) year; and (c) with regard to (a) and (b), what program activity and sub-program activity will this funding be allocated from, broken down by (i) department, (ii) amount, (iii) specific pillar or event, (iv) year?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco), be read the third time and passed. 
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North has 16.5 minutes left in his speech.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I especially appreciate the .5, I must say. 
I can assure the House that I am not going to spend that much time on the bill. I do want to conclude with a few brief remarks to highlight the fact that we in the Liberal Party are prepared to support the bill as reported today. We do have some concerns in relation to it, but all in all it is a significant step forward. 
Having said that, I want to highlight an important issue that I believe is of concern to people in my constituency of Winnipeg North and a number of regions of the country where there are a lot of similarities. That is the importance of looking at the broader impact of contraband and how it is used within criminal organizations.
Contraband has been found to be highly profitable by organized crime and gangs. As a result, this has added to the problems. Contraband seriously impacts communities throughout Canada, and I want to emphasize how important it is that we deal with it.
Contraband cigarettes are just one part of it. Selling illegal drugs, and prostitution are other elements that provide a major source of revenue for gangs and organized crime. We need to do more to deal with this problem, and we are looking to the government today to take some action. We have a piece of legislation in front of us that would hopefully have an impact. I suspect it will to a certain degree. We are asking the government to do even more to deal with the issue of contraband cigarettes and other sources of revenue that are feeding organized gangs.
I will conclude by talking a bit about the demand for contraband, which I made reference to at the beginning of my remarks. The demand for contraband tobacco has increased over the years because of the organized crime element and its ability to make huge profits. One of the reasons that organized crime can make the profits it makes is because of the level of taxation on cigarettes.
As government has recognized, in order to discourage people from smoking, it has increased the cost of cigarettes. As a result, we have seen significant growth in the purchase of contraband cigarettes through the underground and illegal activities. We need to work with the different stakeholders, the provinces and others, to look at ways to beat this serious issue.
I want to pick up on my final point of cigarettes as a whole. We recognize that smoking is detrimental to the health of our citizens. I would therefore suggest that we do more to educate people and encourage them to make the decision to quit smoking, specifically our young people. We should support our students in the best way that we can. We should ensure that anti-smoking programs are included in our public education system. 
We need to see stronger leadership coming from Ottawa. Ottawa needs to deal with the different stakeholders who could play a role in minimizing the use of tobacco, whether it is the health element or the tax element. All of this has to be taken in an all-encompassing fashion, so that Canada will be able to deal with the serious issue we are facing today on a number of fronts, recognizing that the bill attempts to deal strictly with contraband tobacco. 
 However, at the end of the day, we help deal with that issue and it has a serious impact, a positive impact, upon other areas, too.
With those few words, I am quite prepared to end my comments in anticipation. As I indicated, the Liberal Party supports the bill in principle and supports its going forward. 
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his speech. I am pleased to hear that he will be supporting the bill even though it has some shortcomings. As the hon. member for Gatineau pointed out, it is all a question of implementation. We need to have the means to tackle this issue.
Tobacco smuggling is not a new problem. In the past, unfortunately, we had to deal with extensive smuggling. At that time, my colleague's party was in power, but it did not necessarily do what needed to be done to address the smuggling problem.
I would like to know why he is now supporting the fight against smuggling, when his government's record is less than stellar. Will he take responsibility for past Liberal governments?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, to the member, it is much like if we take a look at the NDP government in Manitoba over the last 10 years and its absolute and total failure in being able to deal with this issue. It goes beyond just one government or one political party. It is not the NDP that owns this issue in trying to make a more positive difference. Governments of all political stripes have attempted and have not done anywhere nearly as well as they could have done. 
That is the reason we in the Liberal Party say that we need to have more leadership coming from Ottawa, working with the different provinces, because it is not just Ottawa that is going to resolve the problem. it is going to take a lot more than Ottawa dictating or changing a law. It is going to take a lot more effort, and that means consultation and working with the different stakeholders. There is a lot to be lost if we do not take action on this issue.
As I say, it is not just contraband cigarettes that the criminal element is getting involved in. That is just one aspect. The criminal element is involved in everything from stolen goods, to guns, to prostitution, to illegal drugs, to alcohol. There is a wide selection; this is one component of it. That is the reason there is more of a need to take a holistic approach in dealing with this. I would suggest that Ottawa can and should play a more significant role going forward.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my colleague a very simple question about the process.
When the minister wrote the bill, should he have used a different drafting and consultation strategy than the one that was used to develop this bill?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, when ministers are assigned the responsibility of bringing forward legislation, one would like to think that they do their homework. I do not believe that has happened in this case. I will go back to the previous question, with respect to how very important it is that we work with the different stakeholders.
 I was not at the committee hearings, so I do not know to what degree consultation was formally done. From what I understand, the government could have done a much better job at trying to build a rapport with, in particular, the different provinces, in terms of making some of the changes that would complement the legislation.
I do believe that the government could have improved the legislation. There are some aspects of the legislation that raise concerns. Maybe they are judicial independence-related issues or other initiatives that could have been taken, that would have been more of a disincentive for the criminal element's involvement, but, as I say, we have to factor in the costs of cigarettes in society today. There are many different factors.
 I am not convinced that the government has done a thorough job in addressing this issue head-on.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting comment from my colleague.
As I said earlier about improving the bill, apart from the implications of the Gladue ruling and perhaps the recognition of the principles of that ruling in relation to section 718 of the Criminal Code, this is a relatively straightforward bill that creates offences and imposes certain penalties. There are some complex aspects to it.
I think my colleague is referring to the idea that we need to add more provisions to complement this bill.
What kinds of approaches and consultation, assistance, services or resources could the government offer first nations that are having issues with tobacco smuggling on their land to complement the implementation of this bill?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize the economics also. For many first nations communities, there is a question of economics. To what degree has the government consulted with and worked with first nations communities on this issue? I know it is a very important issue. As opposed to my trying to state a specific position on this issue, I would very much be open to hearing from our first nation leadership as to how they would like to see us, as a nation, move forward in addressing this issue.
Suffice it to say that there has to be some form of compensation or some assistance in developing industries in many of the first nations that perhaps need to rely on this form of revenue when directly or indirectly affiliated with a particular area of our country. As I say, there are very many facets to this issue. What we are really talking about is one relatively minor area, but it can make a difference. I hope it will make a difference.
We could have done so much more if we had taken a more holistic approach. When I made reference to stakeholders, they are obviously a stakeholder with a fairly significant interest, and there should have been more consultation done.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North that we could have done more for aboriginal communities.
What bothers me is that the Liberal Party was in government for 13 long years before coming up with a so-called agreement that almost seemed like a marketing ploy.
How can my colleague justify having done nothing for so long during all those years instead of taking action and addressing the root of the problem?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, at any given point in time, there are numerous issues that government attempts to deal with. I can recall right offhand, for example, that one of the most comprehensive packages was the Kelowna accord. That involved significant consultations. It brought people of aboriginal heritage from across this land, and they came up with one final agreement that dealt with a wide variety of issues. It was not an easy thing to accomplish, but it was done. 
Unfortunately, it was the NDP that ultimately killed that particular accord. There are things that happen through time.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill on contraband tobacco.
We cannot separate the issue of contraband tobacco from the problem of tobacco consumption. We know how hard it is to stop smoking. If more people stop smoking and fewer people start smoking, demand decreases. The law of supply and demand affects smuggling. That is why we have to take a more comprehensive approach to this problem.
I am particularly pleased to rise because when I spoke to the bill when it was introduced in the House, I announced to my colleagues that I had just quit smoking. I would like to tell them that it has been a year since I quit smoking. It is possible to stop smoking, but it is not necessarily easy. That is why I am pleased to talk about it.
To grasp the comprehensive nature of an anti-tobacco approach, we must understand that a number of ministers are concerned. The Minister of National Revenue is one of them since we cannot collect taxes on contraband. The government cannot collect that money. Moreover, since smoking generates huge costs in the health sector, a portion of the government's revenues is used to deal with this problem. Therefore, if we cannot have these revenues, we are obviously affected. This makes one minister affected by this issue. 
For her part, the Minister of Health is responsible for implementing anti-smoking initiatives and approving drug products to help people stop smoking and warnings on cigarette packages. She can act in a number of areas. That makes two ministers affected by this issue.
As regards international trade, a lot of contraband products cross borders. Therefore, it is in that department's interest to be involved. 
At the same time, the Minister of Industry must supervise the tobacco industry, which is still legal and which is incurring losses because of contraband tobacco. The Minister of Industry can be much more proactive in encouraging people to stop smoking. We now have four ministers involved.
As for the Minister of Agriculture, he must work with tobacco producers, particularly aboriginal communities, whereas the Minister of Justice is responsible for offences, fines and jail sentences related to contraband tobacco. Of course, these ministers are also affected. So is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, since the issue involves the security of the borders where tobacco is smuggled into the country. This now makes six ministers. 
The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is affected, of course, because criminal organizations sometimes use aboriginal communities. Under the Constitution, and because of how things are organized, these communities are particularly involved. In fact, since there are higher than average smoking rates in aboriginal communities, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs must introduce ways to help aboriginal people reduce their tobacco consumption. He must also provide police resources and financial means to help them take action in their communities. This is another minister involved. 
The Minister of State for Small Business is also involved because it is small businesses, like convenience stores, that claim to be losing money.
I am no expert here, but I count eight ministers who could easily be involved, not just in the issue of contraband tobacco, but in the issue of tobacco use in general. If we want to take action on contraband tobacco, we need to take a comprehensive approach.
The Minister of Justice did not adopt a comprehensive approach. He introduced a bill containing several measures that will have an impact, but since he refused to sit down with aboriginal communities to discuss this, he probably did not take the time to sit down with his counterparts to adopt a comprehensive approach. 
The minister introduced a bill with some effective measures, but this bill could probably have been more complete and comprehensive.
The NDP will support the bill, but we recognize that the Conservatives could have decided to take a much more comprehensive approach.
Not only did the minister not take a comprehensive approach to this bill, but he also took a long time to introduce it. It should move through quickly enough, unless the government decides not to put it back on the order paper. He could have acted much more quickly and globally. He did not, and that is unfortunate.
Tobacco is a real scourge. Some people start smoking very young. This is embarrassing to admit, but when I quit smoking, I realized that I had smoked my first cigarette at the age of eight. That is rather unusual. I was still in elementary school. There were two elementary schools and I was still in the smaller school with grades one, two and three when I started to smoke. By the age of 12, I was smoking every day. I quit smoking at the age of 29. I am now just 30, which means that I have spent more of my life as a smoker than a non-smoker. That is rather unusual.
That is why we cannot talk about contraband tobacco without having a comprehensive approach. Often it is young people who are targeted by this contraband because they cannot buy cigarettes legally. Obviously they are going to try to find other ways or people who are not concerned about their age and will sell them the product. Those people know full well that young people are particularly drawn to these products. 
What is more, contraband cigarettes are a lot cheaper. Sometimes a bag of 200 cigarettes are sold for the same price as a pack of cigarettes at the corner store. Young people do not have the same financial means as adults and are more likely to turn to these products. Some organized crime groups recruit young sellers. They tell them that they can smoke for free, by keeping a bag of cigarettes and selling the rest.
This is a serious problem. That is why if we want to tackle such a big problem, we cannot compartmentalize it. We cannot tackle contraband tobacco, tackle consumption, tackle consumption among young people and tackle the safety of contraband products without taking a comprehensive approach. Unfortunately, the government did not want to do that with this bill. That is what I find unfortunate. If the government had taken a global approach, then we probably would have had a much more comprehensive bill.
We know how long it takes to pass a bill. We cannot start over with four different bills that address different aspects. Considering how much time it takes, it would be much more strategic and advantageous to come up with a more comprehensive bill where all the stakeholders could share their experiences. That is how we end up with better legislation.
I was pleased to speak to this bill a second time and I will be sure to remain a non-smoker.
Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who works very hard for her constituents. From what she said, I can see that the NDP takes Canada's contraband tobacco problem very seriously.
Contraband tobacco is a very complex issue. It is wrapped up in problems with health, public safety, loss of tax revenue and loss of profitability for small businesses. My riding, Brome—Missisquoi, shares a border several kilometres long with the United States. Are the Conservatives going to solve these problems by cutting funding for police forces and the Canada Border Services Agency left and right? I do not understand. They should be doing the opposite because this is not really an expense. The government should invest in police officers and agents to fight contraband tobacco. I will turn things back over to my colleague.
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, that is what I was talking about in my speech—the whole problem with the comprehensiveness of the approach. When one takes a comprehensive approach to a problem, one automatically becomes aware that some other decisions are called for.
In the case of contraband tobacco, one would automatically realize that one cannot do anything about the problem without increasing budgets for first nations communities so they can have more police officers who get paid better and have a greater presence on the ground. One cannot take action against contraband tobacco without making sure our borders are safe. That is quite logical and sensible. When one takes a comprehensive approach, one immediately becomes aware of that. 
This is like when the Conservatives ask people to fill out their employment insurance claims online, then turn around and close community access centres that provide Internet access. Taken together, those two decisions make no sense. If the government were capable of looking at its policies logically and comprehensively, it could adopt a much more effective approach, the kind of approach that, unfortunately, we are not seeing here.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments. Resuming debate.
 Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Deputy Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Deputy Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek consent of the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Points of OrderPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to a point of order concerning the time allocation motion that the House received yesterday in relation to Bill C-17.
As you know, yesterday the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stood and announced his intention to move a time allocation motion for Bill C-17. There has not been much debate about the bill in the House because all of the parties support it. Even more important is the fact that all of the parties are prepared to send the bill to committee.
As members also know, the short title for the bill is “Vanessa's Law”, in honour of the tragic death of Vanessa Young, who was the daughter of the member for Oakville. However, this week, I am very sad to say, that member levelled unfounded and partisan comments against the opposition for so-called delaying the bill. Given the prominence of the attacks from the government in question period and the members' statements lineup, it is clear he was doing this with the government leader's full endorsement and encouragement.
The problem is that the only reason the bill was not been sent to committee months ago was that the government House leader did not consider it important enough to qualify for debate. He, of course, sets the agenda for what bills are called and he is responsible for asking other parties to help expedite legislation when he wants to. 
At the beginning of December, the bill was tabled in the House. The sad truth is that in the nearly six months since this proposed law was tabled, there have been only 60 minutes of debate in March and then a couple of hours of debate this week. In fact, in the March discussion, we moved on to another bill before the third party even had an opportunity to speak.
Questions need to be asked about why the bill has not been brought forward to committee, and here is a good example. With almost an hour left in government orders, the government has asked to move forward to private members' legislation. It could have brought Bill C-17 forward for debate at this time. 
The problem is that we have never been asked, not once at any of the meetings we have had with the government House leader. One cannot say that one does not have agreement if one has never asked the question.
The government House leader actually has my cellphone number, although it is telling to note that I do not have his. I have been meeting with him regularly, and we have told him very clearly that Bill C-17 can to go committee without time allocation. The reality is that he has not asked me because he seems to want to play political games rather than deal with the fact that we want some debate on the bill before it is sent to committee. 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to rescind that notice of time allocation given under Standing Order 78.3 because the government House leader simply has never asked us the question in the many opportunities he has had in the last few months.
We do not want to set a precedent around the use of time allocation, and the Conservatives have used it so abusively already. Sometimes they have asked us the question, but in this case, the question was never asked. The government seems to want to play political games with this bill rather than work with the opposition so we can improve upon it in committee and move it back into the house.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his submission. Obviously it is the type of issue I would assume the government will want to respond to. We will take under advisement the comments we have heard so far, but we need to give the government an opportunity to respond to the argument that has been made. 
I understand the point the member is making. I think this may have already been ruled on once, but the Speaker will review the blues and will make a decision.
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been discussed, but our party does not discuss what goes on in the House leaders' meetings. Obviously the issue has been brought to the House. 
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill had four hours of debate this week. The NDP continued to put up speaker after speaker to delay it. What the member is doing now is again delaying the process. 
I would suggest that we move forward and, if the members like, we could perhaps pass it right now.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Oxford for his comments, but I will reserve this to the Speaker for a ruling.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActMr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC):  moved that Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present my private member's bill in the House today regarding this issue. I would like to take time to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for initiating this bill as Bill C-478 in February 2013. The member was unable to forward the bill at that time and is now excluded from doing so. I am more than willing to champion this bill as it has merit and would provide guidance and accommodation to our judiciary to further protect victims of violent crimes.
 Today my bill, Bill C-587, would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of an abduction, sexual assault, and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or a series of events would be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person had served a sentence of between 25 years and 40 years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendations, if any, of the jury.
My bill is targeting sadistic murderers. Sadistic criminals convicted of such crimes are never granted parole, thus the hearings are unnecessary and extremely painful for the families to endure. This bill is modelled on Bill C-48, passed in 2011 with the support of the NDP. It amended the Criminal Code with respect to parole inadmissibility for offenders convicted of multiple murders. Because of Bill C-48 receiving royal assent, Travis Baumgartner, the former armoured car guard who shot four of his co-workers, three of them fatally, in a robbery on the University of Alberta campus in June 2012, was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years.
 My bill seeks to extend the parole ineligibility period for those convicted of the abduction, heinous acts of sexual assault and murder of an individual, as did Bill C-48 for multiple murderers. My bill would spare families and loved ones of murder victims from being re-traumatized by repeated parole hearings.
Families of those whose lives have been lost or severely damaged may go through many emotions, namely, shock, horror, physical and emotion pain, nightmares, heartbreak, sorrow, grief, stress, sadness, anger, rage, and may end up distrusting of our social values. To have to go through this over again at a parole hearing is cruel, to say the least.
 The seriousness of offences set out in the bill would ensure that the parole ineligibility period would only be applied in cases of the murderer's lack of remorse and where the act of violence would be a heinous and brutal act of violence or sexual assault ending in murder. Allowing for judicial discretion and not a mandatory minimum sentence would ensure charter compliance.
 Bill C-587 is focused on preventing the unnecessary agony and trauma of parole hearings for victims' families. The bill would spare the families of victims from having to attend unnecessary parole hearings every two years after the offender's 25-year sentence expired. Making murderers ineligible for parole for 40 years could save families up to eight unnecessary parole hearings.
I want to empower our courts with the ability to increase parole ineligibility when sentencing individuals who have abducted, sexually assaulted and killed our innocent and vulnerable, from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years. Currently, any Canadian convicted of both first and second degree murder is given an automatic life sentence. However, the provisions rarely have put an offender in jail for longer than 25 years, the time at which first degree murderers are eligible for parole.
Darlene Prioriello, age 16, was murdered May 6, 1982, by David James Dobson. She was abducted by Dobson at a Mississauga bus stop. She was raped and mutilated, and suffered a slow, agonizing death. Dobson was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison on April 11, 1983. He was scheduled for the first parole hearing in March 2007, but he rescheduled it, causing the Prioriello family much agony since it had to prepare for the emotional day over and over again. In April 2007, he was denied parole.
Daryn Johnsrude, age 16, was murdered on April 21, 1981, by Clifford Olson. Olson applied for parole in 1997, 2006 and in 2010, and was swiftly denied parole every time. Daryn was brutally raped, tortured and killed. He was one of 11 victims murdered by Olson; three of the victims were boys and eight were girls. All were between the ages of nine and 18.
Olson, while in prison, tried to cause the victims' families as much suffering as he could by sending graphic, detailed letters to Daryn's parents, explaining what he had done to their son. He also once sued Daryn's parents for calling him a pedophile. Olson also tried to sell memorabilia online, and made a dozen videos of how to abduct children.
This constant reminder of Olson's cruelty made it very difficult for the families to have any kind of peace or closure. Daryn's mother said, “The only thing more bizarre than Olson's antics is the system that gives him a right to a parole hearing”. 
Janet and Karen Johnson, aged 13 and 11, were murdered by David Shearing, aka David Ennis, in August 1982, as were their grandparents and parents. He had parole hearings in 2008 and 2012, and was denied parole each time.
Linda Bright, aged 16, was murdered in 1978 by Donald Armstrong. He has applied for parole hearings numerous times, and then has always cancelled at the last moment. The most recent time was in March 2012.
This bill is all about saving the victims' families from having to go through the agony of attending unnecessary and traumatic parole hearings. My bill would give the judge the discretionary powers to make a recommendation to the jury and also in the sentencing process to award a period of parole ineligibility that would be increased from 25 years up to 40 years.
In my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap, I met with Marie Van Diest, mother of Taylor Van Diest of Armstrong, B.C., whose daughter murdered in October 2011 by Matthew Foerster of Cherryville. He was found guilty of first degree murder. Taylor, 18, was found beaten with fatal head wounds by the side of railroad tracks, hours after going missing on Halloween night 2011.
When my bill is passed, it will assist families by not having them deal with the re-enactment of what happened to their loved ones over and over again, having to face a loved one's killer, to read what was done to their loved one and how their loved one died. 
A re-enactment of the offence in court is traumatizing for victims' families as it is. To attend parole hearings is very painful, in fact cruel. Family members have to once again find the pain they have tucked away and bring it back to the surface, and relive it and think about what was done.
If a convict is denied parole, the victims' families will once again have to be prepared to do it again at another parole haring. They should not have to go through this, but they do. They present their victim impact statements to try to ensure the convict is not released. The scheduling of parole hearings is emotional torture.
 I ask members of the House to pass the bill. Families have already been victimized once. Having to attend parole hearings causes families of victims a lot of suffering and does not provide them with any closure. They should not have to relive their tragedy.
My bill would save families from going through parole hearing after parole hearing. We must save families from having to endure the cruel punishment of reliving their horror. Sharing a victim impact statement, revealing raw pain and memories is unimaginable.
Let us not fool ourselves. The Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Shropshire, stated “parole ineligibility is part of the "punishment" and thereby forms an important element of sentencing policy”.
I will close with the following quote from Susan Ashley, Linda Bright's sister, who said:
 ...once they have recovered from the horrific abduction, sexual assault and murder of a loved one, then a lengthy Court process, they can spend the next many years healing their wounds...not facing parole hearing after parole hearing. 


Government Orders
Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law)[Stage Direction]
(Bill C–17. On the Order: Government Orders:)
 May 27—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act—Minister of Health 

Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, following the comments of the opposition House leader, I hope that we can get unanimous consent for the following: 
I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health. 

The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to say that we are glad that the government finally got its act together after six months and finally asked the question. Of course, our response was, as it has been for six months, yes, let us move it to committee.
The Deputy Speaker: To the leader in the House for the official opposition, does this have the effect of you withdrawing your point of order from earlier this afternoon?
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, thank you for asking. No, it does not. As I mentioned earlier, it is the issue of the precedence around not asking us the question and then pretending that the government needs to bring in time allocation. That is something that is seriously a matter of parliamentary rights and privileges.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats stand firmly behind our democracy and our democratic rights and privileges that all Canadians enjoy.

Private Members' Business
Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, and I would like to ask him a brief question. Now that Bill C-587 has been introduced, and now that the government has introduced Bill C-32, has the member discovered specifically how Bill C-32 could affect his bill, Bill C-587?
Colin Mayes: Mr. Speaker, could the member pay reference to the bill that she was talking to, Bill C-32, please?
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to tell the member that it is about the government's so-called beloved charter of victims rights.
[Interjection]
Colin Mayes: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I should have known that.
It would support that bill in the sense that it is just another step to recognizing victims' rights and to protecting victims from this type of pain, which they would have to endure, listening to parole hearing after parole hearing. It would complement the initiative by Bill C-32.
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the member for Okanagan—Shuswap for his contribution with respect to putting this bill forward. Obviously, I also have to pay tribute to the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake for originally presenting this bill.
I have to say that there have been few private member's bills that have gotten as much feedback from my constituents. The member for Okanagan—Shuswap referenced David Shearing and the horrible murder of the Johnson-Bentley family. That touched my riding enormously. To this day, friends of the girls continue to put together petitions to see that the Parole Board denies David Shearing, who also goes by David Ennis, parole. 
There is a personal cost not just for the families but for the friends. Many people do not know that once a parole hearing has been given and denied, almost the whole process starts right over again, so I certainly commend the member for seeking to end the cycle in these kinds of cases of horrific acts.
 Can the member illustrate how Bill C-587 seeks to empower our judicial system to distinguish and differentiate these horrible acts and to grant more discretion to judges to call a spade a spade and speak out with our values so that for people who commit these kinds of crimes, the system recognizes that this eligibility for parole will protect not just society but also the victims?
[Interjection]
Colin Mayes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his support. 
When we look at the bill, we see we are talking about very violent, heinous crimes, things that are done to our fellow human beings that are just grotesque and offensive. I do not think it serves justice well to have to go through that as a victim, a relative, or part of a family over and over again.
Today, as we are living longer, 25 years is really not a long time. People are living into their eighties and nineties. A young mother and father whose children were murdered might only be in their fifties and have to live through this over and over. That is the sense of this bill that is being brought forward. It is to protect those folks from having to relive that, because in 25 years, they think they are healed, and then all of a sudden, they have to come to a parole hearing and hear it again and open up those wounds. It just prolongs the healing the families have to go through.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to rise as the NDP justice critic to address Bill C-587, introduced by the member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
He seized that opportunity when the member for Selkirk—Interlake, who initially introduced the bill, got promoted and could no longer present it. We congratulate him on his promotion. However, we need to revisit Bill C-587.
I am tempted to reread my improvised speech from the last time, because my view on this bill has not changed. It has some good points. Some might say the NDP should be satisfied, because it always calls for the continued exercise of judicial discretion, and that is in the bill. 
Indeed, it is always a good idea to leave it up to the court to decide whether someone should be eligible for parole after 25 years, or only after 40 years. This judicial discretion is definitely an improvement on many other bills introduced by the Conservative government. 
That said, one can read a bill and wonder whether it will achieve the goal stated by the member. During oral question period, the parliamentary secretary said that this legislation would greatly reassure victims. When we work on these issues, we always try to put the interests of the victims first.
However, because of the legal context, the laws that we rely on and the charters that we must abide by, we must ensure that our legislation will successfully meet the tough challenges that lie ahead.
The government should have learned some lessons from the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, including the one on the Senate, which it lost by a count of 8-0; the Summers decision on April 11 on pre-sentencing credit, which the government lost by 7-0; and the Khela decision on prisoner transfer, which it lost by a count of 8-0. I do not include the Nadon ruling, because no legal principle is involved in this case. Still, the government suffered a 6-1 defeat. It also lost 8-0 in the Whaling decision on early parole. Again, we ask the government to pay attention to existing laws.
When I rise in the House in my capacity as justice critic for the official opposition, I do not do so to irritate Canadians or my Conservative colleagues who are introducing bills. In fact, I have actually supported an impressive number of their bills. I have recommended that my caucus colleagues support certain government bills and even some private members' bills introduced by Conservative members.
In this case, the government would have victims believe that this bill will solve their problems. However, victims do not really have a problem with the sanctions. Let me make that clear right away: the problem with Bill C-587 does not have anything to do with the sentences per se.
Since we are talking about extremely serious crimes, such as abduction, sexual assault and murder, we are certainly not talking about minor offenders, such as people who rob convenience stores. We are talking about hardened criminals like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo. Everyone, including the victims, knows that these offenders are in jail for life. Is that clear enough? When they get a life sentence, that means they are in jail for life.
However, our legal system, our charter and our international conventions allow offenders to appear before the Parole Board of Canada.
The board will not free these people if they pose a risk. The public is not at risk just because an offender has been released. The problem—and the hon. member may be right about this— is that it is painful for families and victims to have to relive the unforgettable horror. Even if offenders cannot appear before the parole board for 40 years, victims will still be reliving the horror of their experience as though it happened yesterday. One does not just forget about these things overnight.
That being said, let us think about what would happen if the bill were to pass. The judge would ask the jury if it had any recommendations to make in the case of vicious murder.
I would just like to say, incidentally, that I am also concerned about the fact that these three crimes must all have been committed. A murder can be vicious even though the victim was not sexually assaulted or abducted. I think it is unfortunate that the focus is being placed on one type of offence when many other offences could easily fall into the same category.
Take the Bernardo case, for example, where the case was proven. I am talking about proving the case, but I would remind members that in the Bernardo case, they did not have to prove rape, kidnapping or anything else. The murders themselves were enough to result in a life sentence. Under this bill, all three will have to be proven. I already see the impact that this will have on trials under way and on what the Crown will have to prove. In my opinion, in an attempt to make life easier for families in terms of attending parole hearings, the member is unwittingly making things more difficult when they need not be. 
None of this may happen because the judge could instead hand down a 25-year sentence. He may not feel comfortable with a longer sentence. We are already waiting for Supreme Court decisions to find out if sentences of more than 25 years—such as three consecutive sentences of 25 years, where the person is sentenced to 75 years in prison—are legal in our Canadian system under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are still some Supreme Court decisions to come. The government may be surprised once again, and that will affect all these cases. 
Let us imagine that the jury recommends to the judge that there be no parole for 40 years. That means that there will be an appeal and the parties will go to court. Will that be considered unusual punishment under the charter? There are some concerns about this.
I asked the member the question earlier because, in my opinion, this provision was not included in Bill C-478, which was introduced by our colleague from Selkirk—Interlake. Bill C-32, introduced by the government, does contain provisions to make life easier for victims. 
There are ways to make sure that victims do not suffer as they would if they had to go back before the parole board. There are some who do not want to go to the hearings, but there are some who need to go, for the sake of their sanity, to say their peace before the board. I fully respect that. However, I believe it would have been better to do that with Bill C-32. Amendments of this magnitude to the Criminal Code should not be made with a private member's bill, but with a government bill, to ensure there is at least the impression of coherence with this country's fundamental laws.
That is not the case with a private member's bill, whether or not the member is a backbencher. There is no requirement in that regard.
I have serious concerns about this bill, which unfortunately will not do what it claims for victims. It really would be preferable to bring this forward with Bill C-32 and to drop Bill C-587.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-587, which sadly, is another initiative from a Conservative backbench to weaken the coherence of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The hon. member in whose name the bill resides is introducing a bill that is to a certain extent, sadly, a solution in search of a problem. Or if we were to be just a wee bit cynical, this private member's bill is a solution in search of a fundraising letter. 
The member will know that much of what his political party is really concerned with is raising money from its political base and there seems to be an obsession with the Criminal Code. This is not unlike the Conservative approach to veterans in Canada, an approach where symbolism is more important than substance. We saw an example of that just last night where the Minister of Veterans Affairs is spending another $4 million on self-promotion, all the while ignoring the real problems affecting our veterans.
 It is galling that the Conservatives would cut district offices for veterans, cut support staff and those who work with them using the excuse of cutting costs, while they spend another $4 million on advertising that is not meant to do anything except promote the Conservative Party and using taxpayers' dollars to do that—
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know what this has to do with the bill we are discussing right now. The member has made no mention of this member's bill in several minutes. I would like to see him show some relevance to this.
The Deputy Speaker: I suppose one has to try to judge the relevancy of it. We have a very broad range of what is allowed in the House. I do not think the member has crossed it whatsoever. I can see the point that he is moving toward—
[Interjection]
James Bezan: I don't.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: But I am the Speaker and I get to make the ruling.
The hon. member for Charlottetown.
[Interjection]
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, for the Conservatives, symbolism seems to be more important than substance, and spending millions on advertising is more important than actually helping veterans. 
It is the same with these crime bills, many of which are targeted to raising money from a base of supporters who neither like the charter nor embrace any sense of proportional justice.
With respect to the member's speech, and while he may very well have good intentions, I repeat that this legislation is a solution in search of a problem. 
The Conservatives should know that time and time again, the courts at all levels have been striking down their legislation. Why are the courts doing this? Is this part of some pan-Canadian conspiracy to thwart the efforts of the Conservative Party? No doubt some across the aisle would embrace that view.
I believe that there are a number of reasons the courts are striking down Conservative legislation, and one relates to due diligence. Many of these so-called tough on crime bills are not properly vetted to ensure that they comply with the charter. The member, in his remarks, indicated that this piece of legislation was charter compliant. I would be most interested to see the evidence and opinion that support that assertion.
It would appear that when Conservative members construct these bills, the last thing they do is assess whether they comply in principle or in spirit with the law of the land: the charter. On that point, I should note that just two nights ago, in this very chamber, on debate on the Citizenship Act, we had the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration heckling an NDP member and saying that the charter was not a law. 
It is not only a law, it is the supreme law of the land.
With respect to this bill, I would invite the hon. member to produce any piece of evidence or documentation that would suggest that the bill would survive a charter challenge. I do not believe he is in possession of any such evidence. 
What really matters is showing people that the Conservatives are tough on crime, which is much less effective than being smart on crime. The lack of respect for the charter and for the constitution is very troubling. 
I have read Bill C-587, and I have been on the hunt for any evidence to support this effort. The bill seeks to increase ineligibility for parole for a conviction that includes a sentence for kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder. 
In the last 20 years, according to the Library of Parliament, there have been three cases in Canada that would meet the bill's three elements of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder. I repeat, in the last 20 years, just three cases would have triggered the provisions of Bill C-587 had it been in place 20 years ago. In each of those cases, there is absolutely no indication that the judges acted with leniency or that the existing suite of laws are somehow ineffective.
Did the member know that one of these three cases relates to Paul Bernardo, who, because of his designated dangerous offender status, would still have been eligible for parole seven years after conviction? This is just one glaring inconsistency in this bill with respect to the dangerous offender designation.
The hon. member's proposal is flawed for other reasons. First, the act would eliminate one of the only incentives for a certain class of violent offender to behave while in prison, thereby making prisons more dangerous for other inmates, and more importantly, more dangerous for correctional officials.
Just last week the union representing Canada's prison guards went public, urging its 7,500 members to vote ABC, anyone but Conservative. This is what the vice-president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers had to say: “These guys have to get out”. He went on to say, “They've done more damage in three years than any government has done in our entire history”. I suppose it is only a matter of time before the Conservatives attack the correctional guards.
The second flaw in the bill is this: The five people convicted of kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and murdering the same victim are already dealt with harshly under Canadian law. Such persons already received mandatory life sentences and are already ineligible for parole for a period of 25 years, since murder in such circumstances is first degree murder. Under the current law, they may also be designated dangerous offenders.
The third flaw is that this legislation would produce a somewhat absurd result when the code's other provisions relating to parole are considered. Specifically, by increasing a somewhat arbitrary class of murderers' parole ineligibility to a maximum of 40 years, the act would allow these convicts to remain incarcerated without the possibility of parole for up to 15 years longer than notorious serial killers. This anomaly would also extend to those who have committed genocide and crimes against humanity.
Canadian law already deals harshly with the few persons convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder. This legislation would defy common sense by punishing a specific class of murderers more harshly than serial killers and persons who have committed genocide and crimes against humanity.
The overwhelming lack of an evidentiary basis for the bill is troubling. Again, just three cases over the past 20 years would have been affected by the bill, and in all of those cases, the courts have provided an appropriate and tough sentence.
Should the member appear before a committee to discuss the bill, I would hope that he would consider providing some evidence of facts pointing to the need for this legislation to become law. The member is perhaps in possession of some evidence unavailable to others, and should that be the case, I would most certainly like to see it.
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Okanagan—Shuswap for bringing this bill forward. As he mentioned, this was a bill that I introduced in the first session of this Parliament and because of my appointment as parliamentary secretary, my bill had to be withdrawn, although it did make it to committee. Therefore, I would hope that members will expedite this process so we can get this to committee, where it was a year ago.
Sitting here listening especially to the Liberal member really was disappointing. At no point did he mention the victims, not once. It comes back to this whole ideology of the Liberals about hugging the thug, about trying to protect the criminals rather than protecting Canadians and those victims.
The title of the bill is “respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act”. It is work that I started some time ago, and I am very happy that my friend from Okanagan—Shuswap has taken on this task in the House to ensure that families do not have to go through unnecessary Parole Board hearings and be re-victimized time and time again. Let us ensure we have our hearts in the right place, that they are with the families that have already lost their loved ones and now have to relive the horror of the most heinous criminals who have not only murdered their child or family member, but may have abducted and sexually assaulted them.
The bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code. I have to stress that Bill C-587 is about empowering our courts with the ability to increase parole ineligibility when sentencing individuals who have abducted, sexually assaulted and killed our innocent and often most vulnerable Canadians from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years. It is at the discretion of the courts. They make the decisions on whether to take it up any higher.
The bill is not about creating stiffer penalties for these sadistic murderers. These depraved convicts do not qualify for parole. We have already mentioned that. The worst case criminals who are in prison, these half dozen individuals who have been alluded to, never make parole. They never ever get out of jail. However, the reality is that families still have to go, every two years, starting at year 23, to hear the tragedy of their child or loved one being abducted, kidnapped, raped, sometimes tortured, and then murdered. We want to put an end to that. The bill is about saving the families of victims from having to go through this agony of attending these unnecessary and traumatic experiences at Parole Board hearings. 
Again, we have said that this is not about mandatory minimums. This is about empowering judges and juries in coming to reasonable decisions on parole ineligibility.
 Let us talk about this. Is this constitutional? Does it comply with the charter? The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The seriousness of the offence as set out in the bill would ensure that parole ineligibility, period, would only be applied in cases where the murderer's moral blame worthiness would be very high for abduction, sexual assault and murder. This would allow for judicial discretion and would ensure charter compliance because it would not be mandatory minimums.
This goes back to Bill C-48, which used the same principle, protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts by multiple murderers act. It is important to note that the NDP supported that bill back in 2011. That, in itself, is noteworthy. If it was okay to support it in Bill C-48 back in 2011, I would hope the NDP would support that same principle when it applies to these most heinous criminals.
 Jim Maloway, who was the NDP member at that time for Elmwood—Transcona said:
 Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to what is now is Bill C-48 [...]. I essentially support the bill, which our critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has already indicated that our party supports. In fact, all opposition parties support the bill. [...] 
 I guess one of the good things about the bill is that it does leave discretion to the judge, which opposition members have been consistent in supporting in the past. Perhaps the government recognized that by allowing the judge discretion it made it certain that the bill would actually go somewhere in the House. 
The compliance section that we are concerned about is section 12 of the Charter, and by going the route that is presented in Bill C-587, providing that judicial discretion makes it charter compliant. That is key.
As we are saying, this is about the most heinous and horrendous individuals we have in Canada. We are talking about Robert Pickton, Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams, Michael Rafferty, Terri-Lynne McClintic, Clifford Olson, Donald Armstrong, James Dobson, David Shearing and, just recently, Luka Magnotta. These individuals are repulsive in our society. They have committed the most tragic criminal acts on an individual that people could ever imagine. Yet, there is argument coming forward that they should only have to sit there for 25 years. We know that they sit there longer because they never ever make parole eligibility. They are never put back into society.
 In the sentencing of David Threinen, in 1975, Justice Hughes, who was the judge at the time, stated he should “never again should he be on the streets and roadways of our country”.
If judges already see how repulsive and dangerous these offenders are, then they need to make sure that they are never released back into society.
When we look at Robert Pickton, he was convicted of multiple murder charges, 25 counts, but unfortunately they were only second degree murder charges. That means 10 years. In 10 years, he can start attending his parole board hearings. He will probably never be released, but that means that 25 families are going to be reading victim impact statements at parole board hearings every two years, in a matter of a couple of years from now. That is sickening.
One of the reasons I was thinking about this case is that a few years ago I was in my riding listening to the Tori Stafford case. She was the little girl who was abducted, raped, and murdered. It broke my heart. It involved Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic. After they stole her from school and sexually assaulted her, they killed her with a hammer. Terri-Lynne McClintic got a life sentence, in 2010. Michael Rafferty got his life sentence. Tori Stafford's family, in 25 years, should not have to start reliving that murder, that abduction, that sexual assault, every two years from there on in.
We talked about Russell Williams, who abducted, raped, and murdered Jessica Lloyd and Marie-France Comeau. We talked about Clifford Olson.
I have to thank Sharon Rosenfeldt. I got involved with her and her organization, Victims of Violence. She supported the bill right from the beginning. Her son Daryn was murdered. My friend has already talked about how Daryn was killed and how they were retraumatized.
I also have to thank Susan Ashley, who also provided me with support and ideas for the bill, and Yvonne Harvey, from the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children, for their work on this bill as well, and ensuring that Canadians are aware that this was coming forward. 
Finally, I want to thank Senator Boisvenu, who founded the organization Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association because of his own person loss, for his support in ensuring that the bill will go forward on the Senate side.
Again, I would ask that members of this House to support the bill and get it to committee so it can be given the proper study.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-587, which was introduced by a Conservative member.
The bill would amend the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years, as determined by the judge.
This bill is basically a reincarnation of Bill C-478, which was introduced last year and then struck from the order paper when the member sponsoring it became a parliamentary secretary. Bill C-587 is designed to extend the parole ineligibility period depending on the severity of the crime, not the number of crimes committed or the number of victims.
I am opposed to this bill. While it seems well-intentioned, it is unnecessary, ineffective and open to attack in court. That is what I will be demonstrating.
As I already mentioned, Bill C-587 is basically the same as Bill C-478, which was not passed by Parliament.
The first federal ombudsman for victims of crime, Steve Sullivan, did not have a very high opinion of the bill. He felt it was nothing but smoke and mirrors. If someone is accused of first-degree murder, the Crown does not generally concern itself with lesser offences. If someone is sentenced to life in prison with a chance of parole after 25 years, this already takes into account that if the person represents a danger or a risk, they will not be granted parole.
I would also like to point out that criminals targeted in this bill, people like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and Russell Williams, are rare cases. They have already been sentenced to life in prison without Bill C-587.
Take Clifford Olson, for example. He murdered 11 people. After serving 25 years in prison, he applied for parole for the first time in 2006. His application was denied, as was his second in 2008. In 2010, his third application was also denied because the court found that he still represented a danger to society. He ended up spending 30 years of his life behind bars, where he died in 2011.
The bill before us will have no real impact on the legal reality in this country. Offenders convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder are very rare. They are well known because their stories get so much media attention. Bill C-587 will not change anything. These offenders will still stay behind bars.
The legality of the bill is the other point I want to address. First, I would like to point out that the 25-year period was not determined arbitrarily. Paragraph 110 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court states that life in prison is the maximum sentence, but that it must be reviewed after 25 years.
Therefore, international law does not allow for life sentences without eligibility for parole, even for the most serious crimes, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide. This is probably why Canada set the maximum parole ineligibility period at 25 years, even for the worst cases of first degree murder.
Other states often look to Canada to learn from its principles of justice et its criminal justice. We are off to a bad start if we begin to renege on our international treaties to pass cosmetic bills.
What international law imposes, and what Canada decided to apply, is a maximum prison term of 25 years, which applies to all crimes. Our role is not really to say which crimes are most serious. Rather, it is to define the rule of law. Moreover, this bill undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
The Supreme Court has yet to render a decision on the constitutionality of extending this maximum period in the case of consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murders.
Extending the ineligibility period from 25 to 40 years for murders involving abductions and sexual assault would probably be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. 
In the case of Bill C-478, the carbon copy of Bill C-587, we asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to check compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives voted against that and we were not able to do that study.
If Bill C-587 is challenged in court, taxpayers will again have to pay for even higher legal costs. The whole issue will end up before the Supreme Court, as it often happens already.
Since the Conservatives came to power, we have seen an increase in court action. There are challenges not only by the provinces, but also from the Supreme Court with respect to the compatibility and constitutionality of certain Conservative bills.
It should be noted that Bill C-587 continues the Conservative government's tradition of presenting measures to amend the Criminal Code through private members' bills introduced by backbench MPs.
We remain concerned about the provisions in Bill C-587 and their compatibility with the charter. Private members' bills are not submitted to the Department of Justice for review as to their compatibility with the charter and the Constitution.
We are opposed to this bill. All though it seems well-meaning, it is unnecessary, ineffective and easy to attack in court. Once again, the Conservatives are just using smoke and mirrors and this could cause more challenges with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
I invite all my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, this government is introducing yet another lousy bill. The government should have done a little more research and consulted experts in the matter to draft a better bill.
However, I do understand this government's intention. It must be said that the members across the way do have a genuine and deep desire to protect victims. All parties in the House can agree on that. There is certainly no disagreement between the government and the official opposition on that.
However, for all their zeal, they still have to do things properly. The government must take into consideration current legislation and even other bills that it has introduced.
It would have made more sense to put some of the provisions of this bill into their bill on the Canadian victims bill of rights. Why did the Conservatives not do that? I do not know.
My colleague from Gatineau, who does an excellent job as our party's justice critic, already mentioned that point. I want to commend her for the excellent job she does. I am honoured to have a colleague like her.
Bill C-48, which the member mentioned, was introduced during the previous Parliament. It amended the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act. Before the 2011 election, the bill had already been passed at third reading on division—not unanimously, as my colleague claimed. That is an important detail.
At the time, Steve Sullivan, who was the first ombudsman for victims of crime and who supports our position, said that the bill was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. If someone is charged with first degree murder, the crown is generally not concerned with less serious offences. When Mr. Olson was found guilty of murdering 11 children, the crown was not concerned with the charges of kidnapping or sexual assault, even though he clearly also committed those crimes. The crown would have had to prove each crime and could have used that to encourage a plea bargain, but it still depends on the judge's willingness to sentence someone to more than 25 years, which Mr. Sullivan thinks is unlikely.
He does not think that many judges would sentence a criminal to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years. He does not think that judges would do this. As a caveat, I want to point out that nearly all modern democratic countries offer the possibility of parole.
In the bill we are examining today, judges retain their discretion, so how is this a solution to the problem the member who introduced this bill is trying to solve?
Mr. Sullivan also went on to say that, when offenders are sentenced to life in prison without parole for 25 years, it is understood that they will not be granted parole if they represent a danger or a risk.
This affects a very small number of offenders, specifically those who abduct, sexually assault and murder someone. These sordid crimes are rather rare. Mr. Olsen and Mr. Bernardo are examples of offenders who fall into this category. This measure would be used, at the most, only a few times a year, but it would not change anything for the families of victims.
We should listen to the opinion of the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime. It is clear that Mr. Sullivan thinks that this bill does not do enough and would be useless. That is unfortunate.
The Deputy Speaker: If the member would like to continue his speech when we come back to this bill, he will have three minutes and 50 seconds.
It being 1:58 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:58 p.m.)