2014-06-20

Victims Bill of Rights[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their customary support. Today, I am pleased to be speaking to An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.
I should point out that we will be supporting this bill at second reading. That said, we are not giving the government a blank cheque, that is for sure. We are supporting this bill so that it can be studied properly in committee and so that we can hear from experts, witnesses and perhaps even victims. We want to amend this less-than-perfect bill. We will support it so that we can work together to improve the situation.
We clearly want to provide victims of crime with tangible support. However, for that to happen, we need to be sure that this bill of rights is not just empty rhetoric. I personally have never been a victim of crime, but I can put myself in a victim's shoes. I know it would not be fun.
A responsible government that promises such measures to victims of crime—people who have gone through difficult experiences—should implement those measures properly, by listening to experts. People on the front lines also need to be able to implement them.
I should also point out that we have been waiting for the government to do something about this for eight years. I say “we”, but of course I mean that victims, too, have been waiting for the government to do something. The government promised in 2006 to give us this bill of rights. Why did victims have to wait eight years? For that whole time, they have not had these tools, they have not had any help coping. It is appalling that they were made to wait so long.
Ministers held press conferences and photo ops and promised all kinds of things, but they never actually did anything. Now we have something, but as I said earlier, we really have to make sure that this is not just pie in the sky and that it will really be done. In the meantime, victims are still waiting. The government cannot keep human beings waiting so long when these are such serious and sensitive issues.
Another problem with this bill is that it creates no legal obligation for people working in the justice system to implement the rights that are being given to victims. The government is setting up a system, but it is not making sure that anything will really happen and has told us nothing about how it is supposed to happen. Will this law just gather dust while they talk about how we have a bill of rights? That is what I am afraid of. I wonder about that.
Does the government really care about victims, or did it just introduce this bill to look good? We will find out what the government's real intentions are when we look at this bill in committee. Will the government not just hear from experts but really listen to them? Will it take all of this into consideration? I will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but I sure am looking forward to finding out what it is going to do with all this.
I would like to talk about some of the highlights of Bill C-32. First, it broadens the definition of “victim” to include individuals who have suffered property damage, physical or emotional harm or economic loss. It also clarifies the fact that the spouse of a victim can testify if the victim is dead or incapable of acting on their own behalf if the conjugal relationship has lasted for at least one year, of course.
It is still a good improvement and it is important that it be implemented.
The bill also changes the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to permit victims to see a photograph of the offender at the time of his release, because his appearance may have changed, for example.
It can be difficult for victims to know that their attacker is free to walk the streets when they do not know what he looks like or where he has ended up. The bill also allows victims to obtain information about the offender, his progress in relation to his correctional plan, and his release date and conditions of release.
In my opinion, victims have a right to this information, and this really must be implemented and enforced.
The bill also makes this interesting improvement:
 The enactment amends the Canada Evidence Act to provide that no person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused. 
Bill C-32 also creates a mechanism that allows victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments if they feel that their charter rights were violated. Here again, we see that there is no legal obligation for stakeholders to put all this in place. Will this really be done and will victims really be able to file complaints with departments without having to fill out a ton of paperwork and take serious legal action?
We know that victims of crime are sometimes vulnerable and have difficulty coping with the situation. Will the government really help these people to do what needs to be done? I look forward to seeing that happen.
Finally, the bill also codifies the right to make a restitution order and specifies that the victim surcharge must be paid within the reasonable time established by the lieutenant governor of the province in which it is imposed. 
I would like the government to specify what constitutes a “reasonable time”. I know it is a small detail. However, it is not a small thing for victims because a reasonable period of time could be two years, five years or even six months. I think it is important for victims to have that information.
In any case, we can hardly say no to this bill. We support it because victims need a bill of rights to protect them. However, we question some aspects of the bill. The necessary resources for implementing these measures have not been included in the bill, and I want to see those. I want to see how the government is going to implement this bill, who is going to work on it and how. That is what we need to see in this bill. 
We are going to hear from experts in committee, and I truly hope that the government will consider what they have to say because, unlike us, they work in the field. We will see whether the government is open to real consultation or whether it plans on imposing a bill unilaterally and without consultation, just to look good. We will also see whether this bill really meets the needs identified by experts and victims.
I will gladly answer any questions.
Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her very fine speech.
She says she more or less trusts the government when it comes to implementing this bill. This is 2014 and we know there is an election coming up in 2015.
Does my colleague think this is essentially a ploy to make the Conservatives look good because they are trying to protect victims' rights, when in reality nothing will be done before the election?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good question.
My biggest concern about this bill is that the measures on paper will not materialize. That is often what the government ends up doing. 
Does the government want to draft a bill, print it and put it on a shelf and then, in 2015, say there is a victims bill of rights and target vulnerable people in that way? I do not know whether that is the intention. If so, I find that especially underhanded. I want this bill to be put into action. I think it is important that this bill be truly implemented.
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague some questions.
Does she think that this bill of rights is based more on the legal process or on the legal aspects of victimization? Have the psychological ramifications of being a victim of crime been sufficiently examined for this bill and when developing the bill of rights?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague for her questions.
In my opinion, during consultations, people often forget to consider the psychological impact on those who have had experiences that are often incredibly difficult. As I said earlier, I have never been a victim of crime and therefore I am not really in a position to say more.
That said, it is important to consult these people when the opportunity arises. Not only must we listen to them, but we must also hear what they are saying. We have to really consider what they have to say and what they have experienced.
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that it would have been useful to have had more consultations in order to determine how to help people deal with their experiences? How does she think that we could explore this aspect of the bill of rights when we study it in committee?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, the committee will hear primarily from legal experts. It would be informative to also hear from victims, if they are up to it, of course. That may not be the case, which is perfectly understandable. However, we could hear from psychologists, social workers or people working on the ground who are familiar with what victims go through. It would be interesting.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I would like to point out that we will be supporting this bill at second reading because we feel it should be studied at committee. However, we are definitely not giving the government a blank cheque. I do not think we should conclude consideration in committee until experts have spoken to us about specific aspects of the bill. That is why we feel very strongly about it going to committee. I sincerely hope that, for the victims' sake, we will take the time to conduct an in-depth study at committee and that the committee will be open to the potential amendments put forward by the opposition. I hope that we will take the time to do a non-partisan study. I think that it is particularly important, when talking about victims, not to be excessively partisan.
One thing disappoints me. The Conservatives have been talking about being tough on crime since they formed a minority government in 2006. They have consistently increased penalties for crimes, imposed minimum sentences and talked about victims. However, it was not until 2014 that they decided to introduced the Canadian victims bill of rights, when they could have done it at any point since 2006. I feel it is particularly disappointing to see that they have waited until their mandate is almost up to decide to work on this issue.
Since the government came to power, it has proposed increasingly severe legislation, as though the only thing victims want is harsher punishment for those who commit crimes. With respect to victims, I do not think that the various aspects were fully explored.
To begin, many of those aspects are not of a legal nature. They are related to the process and how we should be treating victims and listening to them. One of the first things that comes to mind is the whole process of revictimization or investigation.
Let us take a case of sexual assault as an example. Someone has been victimized in a very intimate way. As part of the legal process and obtaining evidence of the assault, the person undergoes an examination at the hospital. There is a kit for sexual assault, for rape.
I am a nurse. I have worked in emergency and intensive care. I was trained to use this kit. It is not much fun. When a person is raped, we have to look for physical, material evidence. To convict the rapist, we have to invade the victim's body when she is still in a very vulnerable psychological state. When we use the rape kit, we are kind of victimizing the victim all over again. Everyone understands that it is part of the legal process, but it is not easy to do. 
For the Canadian victims bill of rights, we have to make sure there is money so that the people using these kits are properly trained and have the tools they need to help people in such sad situations.
There is something else that is not covered by the Canadian victims bill of rights: the right to be heard, believed and listened to. Often during the investigation, whether the crime was serious or not, people ask questions that can be a little biased. The victim might get the feeling that nobody believes her, that they think she is responsible for what happened, that she is being accused of making excuses or making things up. That is a very hard thing to go through for a victim who experienced a traumatizing event and found the courage to talk about it. For example, from the way the investigator asks questions, the victim might get the feeling that the investigator is practically accusing her of making the whole story up. 
That can be unbearable for a victim. The bill of rights does not touch on the right to be listened to and believed, and that is a shame. That is exactly the psychological aspect I was talking about in the questions I asked my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
This bill of rights is very closely tied to the legal process. In some cases, there is no trial because the guilty party is never found. In many rape cases, the rapist is never found. If no charges are laid, the victim is not considered a victim in the eyes of the law because it cannot be proven that a crime took place if there is no trial. There can be obvious signs of rape on the woman's body, but if there is neither a trial nor a conviction, she is not considered to be a victim of crime.
In the case of other victims, the offender may be found, but lack of evidence may prevent the victim's case from going before the courts. These women will not be considered victims, even if a crime is committed against them and they are traumatized. The victims bill of rights will not apply to them because there was not enough evidence to take their case to court.
In other cases where a trial does take place, the criminal may be acquitted for different reasons. I will not go into all the details, but the victim is not considered a victim even though she has suffered psychological trauma. She lives with the impact of the crime day in and day out. That is also not recognized by the victims bill of rights.
There are other situations where people are not identified as victims. I am talking about cases where the attacker dies, for example as part of a family tragedy. The father kills his children and then kills himself. He will obviously not be tried in court, and thus the victim will not be considered a victim under the bill of rights. That is very unfortunate.
When the bill to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights is studied in committee, I recommend that the government take the time to talk to victims. I would like the government to step out of the legal realm and examine the possibility of giving rights to victims who will not be considered victims. I am talking about victims who do not press charges and whose attackers will not be incarcerated for the various reasons that I mentioned. Could they be included?
I hope that in committee we will take the time to listen to leaders of community organizations and health professionals who work with victims of crime in order to determine a holistic approach to helping victims. The bill of rights should recognize that victims have the right to be heard instead of just being linked to a judicial process.
There will still be a lot of work to be done when the bill is studied in committee, and we will do it. I sincerely hope that the Conservative government will take the time to do a thorough job.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very precise speech. She really analyzed this bill.
She said one thing that really struck me, which was that more extensive consultation was needed throughout the process. She started describing how she envisioned this broader consultation, which would make the bill of rights more inclusive of victims.
Could she tell us a bit more about the study in committee and how she envisions support for victims?
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, during its study, the committee will have to hear from front-line and second-line health care professionals. In many cases, these professionals respond to emergencies when the victims show up, whether they are victims of assaults or car accidents. The situations vary.
We need these front-line workers and police officers to tell us about how they respond to these individuals. We need to hear what it is really like for them, for example, when a mother comes out of her house in tears and clutches them in her arms. You have to know what to do, and you have to ensure that these people have rights and that they get the support they need. I think that is worthwhile. 
I also think it would be worthwhile for the committee to hear from victims, if they feel able to testify. I am thinking in particular of victims whose case did not go to trial, for various reasons that I have already mentioned. Perhaps the person who committed the crime is dead, either because he committed suicide after committing the crime or because he died when the police attempted to arrest him. There are also cases where the person who committed the crime was never found or where the victim was told that their story seemed truthful, but that there was not enough evidence to lay charges.
I would like these people to have an opportunity to share their thoughts and to talk about their experiences so that we can take them into account. We need to ensure that the victims bill of rights applies to all victims and not just those who fit the definitions in a very specific bill. 
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her very enlightening remarks.
I will be speaking about this bill later, and I must admit that I have mixed feelings on this topic. I feel hopeful, skeptical and perhaps even a bit of afraid of becoming disillusioned.
For eight years, the Conservative government has been bragging that it is the champion of victims. We saw it during photos ops and at press conferences. Although this bill does contain some good policy that I will of course support, it seems that there is still a huge gap between the stated objectives and the methods that will be used to attain them.
I would like to know whether my colleague shares my view and whether she too is worried that this will set victims up for disappointment?
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, the best way to answer my colleague's question is to quote the words of a mother whose child was murdered. Members may have seen her on CBC news on April 3, 2014. Her name is Lori Triano-Antidormi, and she expressed some doubts about how effective this bill will be.
According to Lori Triano-Antidormi, this bill could create false hope for victims. This woman is a victim of crime, but as a psychologist, she also helps people to cope with situations like the one she experienced. This is what she said:
 My concern is promising [victims] more involvement in a very adversarial system. Right now, victims have no role in a verdict unless they are a witness. The crown has the final say. If the government were to make that change, it would only fuel vengeance in the victim which from a physiological perspective doesn't help their healing or recovery. 
In many cases, victims are more concerned about knowing that the person who committed the offence understands the pain and suffering he caused, than they are about the sentence the offender receives. However, no justice system can guarantee that. The offender may be sentenced to 25 years in prison rather than 15, but if he continues to dig in his heels, remain in his shell and fail to understand the harm he caused, what purpose does that serve?
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts is an attempt—again, an attempt—to provide better support to victims. I am not a lawyer or a health specialist. Also, Mr. Speaker, allow me to stick to the principles. You will understand why a little later.
Support for victims should not be combined with revenge or vengeance. The judicial process is not just centred around the relationship between victim and criminal. I understand that there needs to be more room for victims in the judicial process, but settling for just that would be like having a body with no arms or legs. It is only part of the equation.
In fact, in my opinion, a victims bill must also support people who need assistance. That is the best thing we can do. We must take a holistic approach to supporting the victim. This bill, however, is only one piece of the puzzle.
Helping victims takes more than just using rhetoric to score political points, to look good, to have a photo op. That is not it at all. We must stop putting victims in the spotlight, in front of the cameras, and make room for people who need help in a process that, I repeat, is always painful. It is not a question of using fine words, but of taking action.
To cite a few examples to support that, on April 3, the Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes said:
 It is necessary to enhance victims' rights in criminal proceedings, but doing so must not overshadow their social rights, those that give them access to assistance, compensation and programs that help them deal with the multiple consequences of the crime. 
This example from the Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes alone illustrates the holistic approach I was talking about earlier.
I could also quote Sheldon Kennedy, the famous hockey player. He said: 
 [this is about] the process of trying to be better at the way we handle victims, not only through the court process, but really understanding the damage that happens to victims. 
He also talked about how we could assist victims to overcome their pain and, if possible, helping them return to a healthy, normal life.
I want to share a quote from Andrew Swan, the Attorney General of Manitoba. He said this:
 We don't want this to be an exercise where the federal government lays down some regulations, say they've done their job and then wash their hands of it. 
That is how it seems, but anyway.
 [I]f the government doesn't create a channel to make the bill enforceable—like Manitoba's support services office—then it is an empty gesture. 
The point is that it is important to support victims throughout the legal process and to provide better assistance, but some thought also needs to be put into this. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue spoke about this in her speech. We need to support victims throughout a process that, we must admit, is a painful one. There is nothing pleasant about the process. What we are saying is that we should not make things worse; the focus should be on healing. That is what is important, and it is a huge part of this. 
I am surprised that after all these years of talking about support for victims, the government did not give more consideration to how to provide support for victims outside the legal process. It has not gotten any further than that. My colleagues mentioned some necessary improvements with respect to support during the legal process.
I do not understand why the government has not assessed the issue of victim support more thoroughly after spending all these years talking about it.
 Let us not forget that the federal government and the provinces, its key partners when it comes to justice issues, share jurisdiction on this. Everybody has to move in the same direction, meaning the federal and provincial governments have to take a collective and collaborative approach to supporting victims. I hope that the minister will address the issue from that perspective. If not, we will see a political party's agenda instead of a real political will to support victims.
Moreover, the consultation has to be as broad as possible. We must not go too fast; we need to get it right. It is important to allow everybody—victims, experts, health care professionals and the general public—to participate in this discussion, which will lead to a better framework for victim support. 
If the government is willing to hold this broad consultation, this Parliament will have accomplished something noble. This is not a purely partisan debate where we and the government are on opposite sides. Fundamentally, the goal is to find out how we can best support people who have gone through a traumatic experience. That is the crux of the matter. Do we really want to work together to help these people in the best possible way? 
I ask the government to consider conducting this broad consultation, so we can hear everyone with something to say and use their comments to improve the bill. The committee stage would be a good time to conduct the consultation and transform this first draft into legislation that really benefits victims. It is of the utmost importance.
When it comes to supporting people, principles are not enough. We need to invest money eventually. We cannot promise to help people and offer only goodwill. A number of volunteer organizations support these victims. We need to support the groups that offer support. It will take money to make things happen.
I would also like to see a commitment spelling out how we are planning to help these people. Would that be possible? How can we support this measure? That is key. If we do not spell out how the support and collaboration will occur, we will never reach a viable solution, and victims need viable solutions.
In closing, I think that the government and, by extension, this Parliament, has no right to disappoint victims with a faulty bill. We will support the bill at second reading because it really needs improvement. Despite what we have seen these past years, our side remains optimistic. We hope that we can all work together to improve this bill, for the benefit of victims.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his speech.
I must say that I am having a harder time than he is being optimistic about all of this. He will know why once I ask him this question, even though I know he is not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer either, but maybe between the two of us we can figure this out.
When reading Bill C-32, as it now stands, it is clear that the justice system is not legally obligated to uphold the various rules in the bill of rights. That is why my optimism is somewhat muted. There should at least be some sort of basic minimum. I have a feeling that all of the witnesses we will hear from in committee will talk about the fact that there should be a clause like that in the bill. After eight years of working on this, it is still not there.
Does he feel that, once again, the Conservatives are creating false hope with these ideas that will not be enforced on a daily basis?
[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for his question. His comments are always spot on.
We have no right to make victims cynical about this whole political process. We simply do not have that right. Each one of us wants a better support framework for victims. That is what everyone wants. We just cannot agree on how to do that.
The government has often talked about victims, and the members on this side of the House agree that we should be offering them better support. As I said in my speech, I think that this bill is just a starting point. We need to change this bill by listening to the needs of each and every victim and taking advantage of our desire to truly help them. If we do not take that approach, if we are short-sighted and choose to ignore entire parts of the solution, then the hon. member for Trois-Rivières will, unfortunately, be right. However, in this case, I hope he will be proven wrong.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I say trepidation because I have an unlimited respect and admiration for the resilience of victims of crime. That is why we, as Canadian parliamentarians, do not have the right to mess things up by making victims believe or hope for options that the law would not offer them.
I have to say at the outset that I will support this bill at second reading so that it can be considered in committee, where numerous experts who are much more qualified than I am will give us their insight. We will then be able to improve this bill, which, by many accounts, already has flaws that we must address before it becomes law. It would indeed be embarrassing to pass Bill C-32 only to see it fail to reach its goals.
I must admit that the Conservatives' strategy makes me uneasy. It took them eight years to put forward such a flawed proposal, but, during all that time, they tried to score political points by holding press conferences and photo ops.
The NDP, however, has always supported victims' rights. We will continue to consult victims' groups and specialists to determine how to really help victims. If creating a victims bill of rights is indeed the right approach, and if it is to be more than simple lip service, then it must be properly backed up with the resources it needs. At this point in the debate, Bill C-32 still makes no mention of funding. The devil may be in the details, but it seems to me that resources are more than mere details. I am legitimately concerned that the bill will be just for show, a simple list of principles, rather than the outcome of a genuine desire to support victims.
A good number of people who work with victims share my concerns. Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime, has accused the Minister of Justice of not living up to his promises. In a CBC interview on April 3, he said that the bill itself was fine, the main problem being that the Minister of Justice had failed to live up to his promise to put victims at the heart of the justice system. He expressed some concern that many victims would only read the headlines rather than taking the time to read the actual bill, which would lead them to believe that the system has fundamentally changed when in fact it has not.
We are just as concerned as Mr. Sullivan is, and we will do everything we can so that the bill achieves the stated goals.
I could quote dozens of other people who worry that, as it is now, Bill C-32 does not seem able to meet expectations.
Our job and main objective in committee will be to make sure that the Canadian victims bill of rights fits into the Canadian judicial system, meets victims' expectations and responds to the recommendations they made.
For the people who are watching us, I would like to summarize the recommendations in nine simple and easy-to-understand points: enforceable and usable; integrated, accessible and simple services and resources with minimum standards across the country; inclusive definition of victim to include anyone in Canada harmed by crime; equitable, respectful and individualized; voice and standing; right to information; financial protection and support; psychological support and resources; and limited opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or reoffend. 
I agree this is an ambitious agenda. At first glance, we must recognize that the proposed bill of rights meets some of these requirements. For example, it broadens the definition of a crime victim and it codifies the right of victims to information, protection, participation and restitution.
However, this bill of rights does not create legal obligations for other stakeholders in the judicial system. It simply provides access to a vague mechanism to file complaints with various federal departments, agencies and organizations that have a role to play in the justice system when victims' rights are infringed.
As with many other Conservative bills, this bill seems to lack the means to fulfill its ambitions. It seems that no specific funds have yet been allocated to implement these complaint mechanisms or help out the provinces. The bill of rights also contains limitation clauses stipulating that the proposed rights have to be exercised in a reasonable way. 
“Reasonable”, that is the kind of weasel wording that causes confusion and that, unfortunately, is a trademark of the Conservatives. They used the same kind of wording in other bills. I could, for instance, mention the concept of “suitable employment”, which creates a major headache in the implementation of the new employment insurance system. The Conservatives seem to be masters at including deliberately undefined and confusing weasel words allowing the government to renege on its commitments as soon as things heat up.
This is why we hope that the bill will be thoroughly studied, clause by clause, in committee under the eyes of experts who are much more qualified than your humble servant. I will support this bill at second reading mostly so that we can study it thoroughly.
We sincerely hope that partisanship will give way to an effective and determined effort to seek the best solutions possible so that we can offer victims more than hope, namely the means to take action and the resources to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I had promised to follow up on some testimonies from people who expressed their concerns about Bill C-32. I am therefore keeping my promise so that we can be prepared to find answers for the issues we are considering in committee.
I would like to quote Mrs. Lori Triano-Antidormi, the mother of a murder victim and psychologist. While going through her own tragedy, she helps other victims overcome hardships. Here is what she told us: “This bill will create false hopes for victims.” Let us hope that we will be able to allay her fears about that.
The Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes also welcomes the bill. The Association points out, however, that the bill of rights will be effective only if the mechanisms giving the victims recourse when their rights have been infringed upon are truly accessible, and if we allocate the resources to make that happen.
A more scathing comment came from Mr. Frank Addario, a criminal lawyer. He said: 
 The Conservative government's agenda is to position itself as tough on crime, even though it knows its measures have little real-world effect. 
As you can see, these quotes show a wide range of perspectives. While everyone wants to give the government the benefit of the doubt, hoping that the bill will materialize and really meet the expectations that it created, there is also some degree of skepticism and concern. These three examples really highlight the challenge we are facing and the government's responsibility to be open and responsive to suggestions at the committee stage.
If the past is any indication, it does not bode well, as the Conservatives have often proven unreceptive, even closed-minded, when their proposals or methods have come into question. 
I sincerely hope that, when it comes to Bill C-32, our empathy for the victims' tragedies will bring us together as compassionate human beings, rather than divide us into different camps based on our party's colours.
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his very humanistic approach.
The government dragged its feet for eight years before providing victims with the meaningful measures we have all been waiting for. However, right now, we are working on a bill that has plenty of flaws, especially with regard to financial support for victims. We know that victims still have to pay 83% of costs. Therefore, this is doublespeak. The government does not really provide any financial help. Also, its proposed bill of rights does not include a legal process to ensure that victims' complaints are taken into account.
What does my colleague think about that? What should the government do to really improve this proposed victims bill of rights?
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
I could easily have gone into a full-scale attack on the preliminary steps that led to the second reading vote. But I chose not to do so because, of all bills, this is certainly one that should be considered without any partisanship. We can criticize them for taking eight years, but the fact is that the bill is now before us. 
My self-restraint comes from the hope that government members will show the same open attitude that would help us work together and send a positive message not only to victims, but also to all Canadians, who are fed up with the way parliamentarians work. It is in our best interests to send a positive message and show that we are able to solve problems when we work together.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There will be three minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the issue raised by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. 

Statements By Members
Royal Canadian NavyMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to wish the Royal Canadian Navy, in particular the submariners of our navy, a happy anniversary for 100 years of service to Canada.
Last week, I had the honour of representing our Minister of National Defence, in Halifax, for the opening of the new submarine maintenance facility, a $52-million investment by our government to maintain the Victoria class submarine.
It was named after Captain Bernard Leitch Johnson, a pioneer of submarine service here in Canada, and veteran of World Wars I and II. He won the Distinguished Service Order for saving his crew from a mine strike.
The bravery and service of our navy continues to today, and I have to note my classmate, Lieutenant Chris Saunders, who died in the service of Canada aboard HMCS Chicoutimi in 2004, off of Ireland.
The service and sacrifice of our submariners is appreciated and admired. I wish them a Dolphin code 38, and from a former Sea King navigator, a Dolphin code 25B. Submariners will know what that means. 
They remain ready, aye, ready for Canada, and I thank them for their service.
New Democratic Party of CanadaDenis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary session is drawing to a close, and I am proud of the work accomplished for Louis-Hébert. Petitions, speeches, statements, comments, questions in the House and participation in committees allowed me to defend the interests of my constituents.
Think of such issues as the Quebec Bridge, funding for the ice oval, maintaining home mail delivery, public finances, public administration, basic research and CBC/Radio-Canada, to name just a few.
Throughout the session, my colleagues and I were here, but we did not neglect our work in the ridings, where we met with thousands of people, individually or in groups, from the community, educational institutions and businesses. We help them find solutions to their problems and realize their dreams. 
I would also like to acknowledge the remarkable work done by my team, my colleagues in this place, who have diverse and exceptional talents, and also by our leader, who has shown that with solidarity and perseverance we can do politics differently by making people the priority.
Recognition of ServiceMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I, and constituents in my riding of Don Valley East and my party, would like to recognize Constable Mike Buzzetti, who is retiring this summer after 30 years with the House of Commons security services.
Many of us know Constable Buzzetti as the friendly face who greets us as we arrive each day, and who takes the time to say hello or exchange a few words when we pass through the entrance.
Constable Buzzetti's passion for this place and its history are evident to any of us who have been guided through this building by him.
Congratulations and best wishes on his well-earned retirement, and may he have many years of happiness.
Expo LabradorMs. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Labrador boasts some of the best opportunities in Canada, and we are open for business. Next week, people from all over the country and the world will convene at Happy Valley-Goose Bay to join in Expo Labrador, our premier resource development showcase. 
From the newest and greatest energy development projects to new iron ore developments, Labrador's agenda is fairly full. I will be bringing the focus of new infrastructure to Labrador's showcase. There is a need for a railway and a port in Labrador to support the mining industry, and fibre optic technology to support business and communities.
These are all necessary components of a progressive region. I would like to recognize the Labrador North Chamber of Commerce, and in particular, Julianne Philpott and Brian Fowlow, for organizing this great event on behalf of all Labradorians.
Outstanding Heroes in the Home AwardMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Community Care Northumberland, a non-profit organization, has a dedicated mission to strive to be the best volunteer-based community support organization in Northumberland County, and to assist clients to experience a higher quality of life by strengthening their connections with the community.
Community Care Port Hope branch recently recognized the efforts of six local heroes with an Outstanding Heroes in the Home award.
One of these heroes is 12-year-old Kameron Cross, from Garden Hill, nominated for his valiant efforts to assist his father. Andrew's father is confined to a wheelchair with multiple sclerosis, but this does not stop Andrew from helping his dad with daily chores, outings, and everyday events that we take for granted.
This outstanding young man compassionately serves his family with unwavering commitment and kindness, to ensure his father is included both in his family home and in the community.
I applaud all of our local heroes in the home, all those who work in the background to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities and experiences as the rest of us.
Saint-Jean-Baptiste DayRobert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, with just a few hours to go before the House adjourns for the summer, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all members from Quebec and all Quebeckers a wonderful national holiday.
Whether we are going to a big gathering, a block party or a small gathering with friends and family, we should all take this time to tell our loved ones how much we love them. In the words of our national poet, Gilles Vigneault, in his song Gens du pays:
  The time we take to say "I love you"  Is the only thing left at the end of our days.  
I also want to extend warm wishes to all of the francophones across Canada, from the Yukon to Acadia, who will celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on June 24. I hope that francophiles near and far will be welcomed by the francophone community that is so dear to me, so that we can all share the values we hold dear. 
This holiday was once a celebration of the summer solstice, and I hope that for everyone, it will kick off a beautiful summer filled with rest, holidays and joie de vivre.
I wish everyone a happy national holiday. Happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
Le Festival Haïti en FêteMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the eighth edition of Festival Haïti en Fête will take place July 18 to 20 at Petrie Island, a hidden gem of our beautiful Orléans.
[Member spoke in Creole as follows:]
 Féstival Haïti en Fête, c'est ou célébration impôtante dé divèsité kiltirelle nan pays nou an. 
[Translation]
Haïti en fête is proudly presented by the Kombite Outaouais, a non-profit organization founded in 2007 by Pierre-Richard Fidelia, Edy Joachim and Michel Paisible. It is a pleasure to thank this organization and everyone involved in presenting this event since this helps us become more familiar with the Haitian culture and francophone racial minorities in Ontario.
During the event, there will be music, a day of soccer, barbecue and much more.
The Government of Canada is very pleased to contribute funding for this festival year after year. I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of city councillor Bob Monette in the uptake of this event.
People of Orléans and everyone of the National Capital Region, this is a rendezvous.
Mr. Speaker, I say more than “thank you so much,” I offer you “piles of thanks”.
Criminal Organization Recruitment LegislationMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today with great pride to announce that my bill, Bill C-394, which will help protect our youth being targeted by gangs, received royal assent yesterday and has now become law.
This new law allows the law enforcement officials to combat the rapid growth of street gangs across our country. Criminals who seek to recruit innocent Canadians into gangs will now face jail time of up to five years.
I am overwhelmed by the support this bill has received from Canadians across our great nation.
We all know it is not very often we see a private member's bill pass and become law. Since 1910, only approximately 250 private members' bills have been passed, and I am truly honoured that my bill has received such wonderful support.
As a proud father of three children, I am overwhelmed by the passage of this legislation, and to know that this bill will protect our children and punish those who seek to harm them by bringing them into a life of crime.
Community Organizations in Hull—AylmerMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Entraide familiale de l'Outaouais is following in the footsteps of Soupière de l'amitié de Gatineau and Centraide Outaouais and calling on the public for help.
The Conservatives' irresponsible cuts to the public service have jeopardized our region's economy. As a result, hundreds of families that were able to give in the past are now the ones getting help from these organizations.
Because of that, Centraide Outaouais has had to reduce its contribution to the 68 organizations it supports by $300,000. That means $300,000 less for the poorest families in our region.
The situation is serious, but our organizations are extraordinary. Despite their challenges, they always manage to do more with less. They work tirelessly and passionately. The people of the Outaouais are generous. In hard times, we know how to pull together.
That is why today, I am asking for help on behalf of our community organizations. We can all show our support by donating time or money.
I would also like to take this opportunity to wish my Hull—Aylmer constituents a lovely summer.
Aboriginal VeteransMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to commemorate the aboriginal men and women who have served Canada.
Canada's military heritage has been enriched by aboriginal veterans who, in each major conflict that Canada was called upon to enter, proudly came forward to do their part for this land, our home.
Throughout wartime and peace support operations of the 20th century, many thousands of aboriginal men and women served in all branches and virtually every rank of the Canadian military.
Today we remember the sacrifices of Canada's aboriginal veterans and pay tribute to the more than 500 who ultimately gave their lives during the First World War and Second World War and in the Korean War. 
We thank them on behalf of all Canadians. Lest we forget.
Conservative Party of CanadaMs. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, never has a government shown as much contempt for our democracy as this Conservative government.
It invoked closure in the House more than 76 times in order to rush through bills such as the electoral “deform” bill, which undermines the very foundations of our democracy.
When Elections Canada warned the Conservatives about the risks of their reform, they attacked the Chief Electoral Officer. When the Supreme Court sternly reminded the government to comply with the Constitution, the government did not hesitate to attack the integrity of the highest court in the land.
After muzzling our scientists, shamefully mistreating our veterans and claiming that there was no way around cutting home mail delivery for the most vulnerable, this government has proven one thing: it is not working in the public interest. The decision to move forward with the northern gateway pipeline despite opposition to this project is just the latest example. 
Canadians deserve better than a government that is not working for them, and in 2015, they will have better: they will have the NDP.
World Refugee DayMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on World Refugee Day to recognize the world's most vulnerable populations.
Our government is proud of our record on refugees. We welcome one out of every ten resettled refugees globally, more than any other industrialized country in the world.
Today, Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced government support of more than $50 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which will help address the humanitarian needs of people affected by conflict around the world.
The UNHCR recently met with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He recognized Canada's international leadership when it came to providing assistance to refugees. Our comprehensive reforms to Canada's asylum system ensure that genuine refugees receive faster and fairer protections.
Shamefully, the opposition voted against the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, exemplifying that it does not share our commitment to improve Canada's immigration system to ensure protection is provided to those who truly are in need.
Canadians can be proud of our record of contributions and assistance. We will continue to be global leaders in resettling and assisting those who need it most around the world.
Retirement CongratulationsHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as MPs say our goodbyes to Parliament Hill today, we also say farewell, thanks, and good luck to one Parliament Hill personality who will not be returning in September. I am referring to House of Commons Constable Mike Buzzetti. After 30 years of service, Mike is about to begin a well-deserved retirement.
Originally from Montreal, he learned his craft as a security officer on the police force at Hampstead, and he was good at it. However, once he came to Parliament Hill, he saw his job in these buildings as more than a form of policing. He was a host, a guide and an educator. He took many VIPs on lengthy, personal excursions into every nook and cranny of the Centre Bloc, but what he liked best was the Peace Tower and the Memorial Chapel. He loved to explain the meaning of that solemn room and help visitors find the names of their loved ones inscribed in the Memorial Book.
Mike Buzzetti served us well. He served Canada well.
We thank him and we wish him, his wife Kim and their daughter Andrea every happiness in the years ahead.
International TradeMr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with one in five jobs in Canada dependent upon exports, our government understands the importance of opening new markets. That is why we have launched the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history.
Our government has signed or concluded free trade agreements with 38 countries, including the recent Canada-Korea free trade agreement, Canada's first free trade agreement in Asia, and the historic Canada-European agreement in principle. Others include Colombia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Honduras, Jordan, Panama and Peru.
Of course, the NDP opposed all of our free trade agreements. The NDP is stuck in the past. It wants to close the Canadian market.
On this side of the House, we know that there is no better job creator than free and open trade.
Conservative Party of CanadaMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the spring parliamentary session was a tough one for many ministers.
After weeks of denying that there was a problem, the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism had to admit that it was not okay for Canadians to be fired so that cheap labour could be brought in.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration put his bad faith and incompetence on public display by introducing an unconstitutional bill and showing that he is incapable of fulfilling his promises to Syrian refugees.
However, it is the Minister of Justice who wins the incompetency award, hands down. He presided over the boondoggle of appointing Justice Nadon and introduced an unconstitutional bill on cybercrime. He made sexist comments about women, saying that they prefer to focus on being domestic and motherly than on their careers.
Canadians deserve better, and with an NDP government in 2015, they will get it.
Rouge ParkMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the 1970s, the Trudeau Liberal government seized thousands of hectares of class 1 farmland from farmers in my riding. I am pleased to say that with the introduction of the Rouge national urban park plan, that wrong will be righted. In the plan, farmers who were forced onto one-year leases of their own land will be given long-term leases. They will be encouraged to use the best farming practices for long-term sustainable farming in the Rouge Park. Not only will this plan provide the highest level of environmental protection to some of Canada's finest natural wonders, it will ensure farming for a long time to come. 
I am very proud of the fact that it was this government, in an election campaign and through a throne speech, that made a promise and kept that promise. I am proud of the fact that it is this government, and the hard work of this minister, that is protecting more and more hectares of Canada's natural heritage. 
When it comes to protecting the environment, when it comes to protecting Canadians, and when it comes to protecting farmers in my riding, it is this government that has stood up, and we are very proud of that.

Oral Questions
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the humanitarian crisis in Syria has grown beyond all conceivable proportions. This is the greatest refugee crisis since World War II.
What we have from the Conservatives is a lot of talk about their intentions but no clarity on their actions when it comes to resettlement in Canada. The UN has asked Canada to do more.
On World Refugee Day, can the minister give the House a guarantee regarding the number of Syrian refugees who will actually be in Canada by the end of this month?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, Canada continues to have one of the most generous immigration and refugee systems in the world. We welcome 1 out of every 10 resettled refugees globally, more than almost any other industrialized nation in the world.
Today, Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced government support of more than $50 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which will help address the humanitarian needs of people affected by conflict around the world.
Canadians can be proud of the record of contribution that Canada is making to those most needy around the world.
EmploymentDavid Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, still no straight answer.
Conservatives are saying they will now, finally, fix the mess they made of the temporary foreign worker program. In fact, they are so proud of their changes, they are actually waiting until after the House has safely risen before they announce their changes.
Canadians know the damage this program has already done: lost jobs, abuse of workers, and suppressed wages. Can the Conservatives tell us if they will do more than just undo the damages their government has done to this program?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member will have to wait to see what changes are in store. The minister will make his announcement later on today.
Under the previous Liberal government—
[Interjection]
Mr. Peter Julian: You are ashamed of your changes.
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker program is to make sure that employees are available when no Canadians are available for the jobs.
We are going to take strong steps to ensure that employers respect this program. We will bring in tough and stiff penalties for any employer who tries to abuse this program.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, this is not just some tactical, political event. This is about people's jobs, their wages, and their future.
What we do not need is more political leaks and spins. We need action. For instance, has the government been considering a sunshine list, particularly to make the positions and wages, and the levels of those wages, public?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we are going to take strong steps in this program to protect Canadian employees across this country. We are going to make sure employers follow these procedures to make sure all Canadians have the first opportunity at any job.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment's catastrophic management of the temporary foreign worker program made these abuses possible.
The Conservatives ignored the fact that Canadian workers were being replaced by cheap foreign workers. They deliberately did not seek out valuable information about the state of the labour market, and that led to an inaccurate assessment of needs.
Why should we trust them to fix the temporary foreign worker program? After all, it was on their watch that the program went off the rails.
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is not a fair question at all.
Today, the government will announce that it is investing $14 million in two new programs to collect labour market information about wages and available jobs across Canada so that we can make informed decisions about labour market policies. 
Today we are undertaking a major overhaul of the temporary foreign worker program to make sure that Canadians always get first crack at available jobs.
JusticeNycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, let us stick to the subject of Conservative bungling.
We know that this is not the first time that the Minister of Justice has made sexist remarks. What he said was really shameful.
Last Friday, the Conservatives appointed 11 judges, but there was only one woman among them. Instead of trotting out his dime-store sociology and saying that women enjoy children too much to become judges, the Minister of Justice should have a clear process for achieving gender equality on the benches.
Will he put that process in place?
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our appointments are based on only one criterion: legal excellence and merit. The men and women appointed to the superior courts were recommended by 17 advisory committees. Since 2006, 182 women have been appointed to the superior courts and that is an increase of 17% in the number of women sitting on the benches.
FinanceHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the Conservative government's lottery scheme, Alberta is the big winner, and Ontario is the big loser. What kind of system is “fair, balanced and generous” for everyone else, but for Ontario is “unaffordable”? What kind of system insures that every other province gains, and Ontario loses $600 million?
Will the Minister of Finance ditch his pathological hatred of the Government of Ontario, respect the will of the people, dump the heads I win, tails you lose scheme, and write the cheque?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, federal support for Ontario has increased 76% since our government took office in 2006. Federal support will total almost $19.2 billion in 2014-15, a whopping $8.3 billion increase since the previous Liberal government.
After years of inaction by the previous Liberal government, our Conservative government took real action to support Ontario. We made changes the Liberals refused to make and then voted against, including moving to equal per-capita transfer support, a move supported by then Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty.
InfrastructureJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, there are two seasons in Canada: winter and construction. Every morning, GTA residents wake up to their daily nightmare, transit gridlock, which some estimates blame for a $1 billion annual loss in productivity. The $600 million the Conservatives owe the people of Ontario would go a long way toward alleviating GTA commuters' daily frustrations by financing a transit infrastructure fund.
Where is the cheque?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague is once again misleading the House. He is completely out to lunch. We have increased funding, we have given municipalities more flexibility and we have signed agreements with the majority of the provinces and territories regarding the federal gas tax fund, which is more flexible than before.
The EnvironmentJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, following President Obama's proclamation that he is regulating America's largest emitter, Secretary Kerry instructed U.S. diplomats that it is a priority that requires “elevated urgency and attention”.
Since we know that the Minister of the Environment has no ongoing negotiations with our largest emitter, could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us whether he has issued similar guidelines to Canada's diplomats, or are we offside once again with our largest trading partner?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many people forget that Canada represents less than 2% of global emissions, while the United States produces almost 20%, and that coal-fired electricity energy generation in the United States produces twice the greenhouse gas emissions as all the emissions produced in Canada.
We are pleased that the United States is following in Canada's footsteps. We will continue to build on our record and work with the United States to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions internationally.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today on World Refugee Day, with a global refugee population surging past 50 million people for the first time since World War II, it is time for the Conservatives to recognize the failure of their policies. Instead of a fair and accessible process, the Conservatives have passed laws to shut out refugees and cut access to health care and have spun themselves in circles on the Syrian refugee crisis. Canada must do better.
Will the minister commit today to focusing on protection for refugees instead of playing political games?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, since our government's comprehensive reforms to Canada's asylum system took effect, the number of new asylum claims from safe countries has decreased to historic lows, ensuring that genuine refugees, truly vulnerable people from some of the world's most vulnerable, volatile areas, receive faster and fairer protection. Claims from democratic countries are down by 87%, saving taxpayers more than $600 million so far in welfare, education, and health care costs.
Canada has a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it most, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we used to have a proud tradition with regard to refugee claimants seeking asylum. However, the numbers have dropped by half, so the government's numbers about people trying to get access are actually wrong. 
Let us be very clear. Today is World Refugee Day. The UN has asked Canada to support and receive 10,000 Syrian refugees. What we heard from the government today is that while it will provide some money, it will not provide safe passage to refugees.
The people of Syria need Canada's assistance. They need Canada to assure them that we are going to give 10,000 refugees support here. 
Syria is calling. Is the government going to answer the call and help the refugees of Syria, yes or no?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, the member's rhetoric is completely wrong. I have said repeatedly, as has the minister, that our government is one of the most welcoming countries in the world. We welcome one out of every ten refugees worldwide, but members need not take my word for it. Here is a comment from the Dandachi family—a refugee family from Syria, the member will be interested to know. 
Here is what Mr. Dandachi had to say:
 I thank Canadian government and I thank all Canadian people for what they are doing for us. They are doing their best things and giving us everything. I will not forget (the moment) in my life when I came to Canada. 
He said that the 17 days he has been in Canada have felt like a honeymoon.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, three million people have had to flee Syria as a result of the civil war. Instead of reaching out and doing as much as possible for these refugees, the Conservatives would rather argue over numbers. The worst is that they are not even able to tell us how many refugees sponsored by the government are now on Canadian soil. This is yet more proof of the Conservatives' incompetence.
We will give them another chance to give an answer to a very clear question: of the 200 refugees sponsored by the Government of Canada, and not by other organizations, how many are currently on Canadian soil?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to say that over 1,150 people from Syria have settled in Canada since the start of the Syrian conflict, but once again, do not take my word for it. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognizes Canada's international leadership when it comes to providing assistance. This is what Commissioner Guterres said:
 Canada has always been extremely generous in relation to international solidarity on refugee issues. So I’m confident that Canada will give a positive and adequate response to the needs that today exist. 

Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, we still do not know how many government-sponsored refugees are here. That is completely unacceptable.
Not only have the Conservatives shown their inability to provide assistance to Syrian refugees, but they have also cut health care services for refugees. The best way to evaluate a government is to look at how it treats the most vulnerable members of society. What the Conservatives are saying is that if you are a refugee as a result of conflict or persecution, you should definitely not get sick.
On this World Refugee Day, will the minister change his attitude?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, we have said repeatedly that we welcome one out of every ten refugees around the world. We have welcomed 1,150 Syrians since the start of the Syrian conflict. We are very proud of our government's action in looking after those people in the world who need it the most.
Shamefully, when we brought refugee reforms into Parliament for votes, the NDP was the first party to stand up and vote against any assistance that we want to give these vulnerable people around the world. Shame on the member for saying that.
EmploymentMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Canadian workers who have been replaced by cheap labour that are the victims of the current program. Temporary foreign workers have been exploited and abused. Some of them have had part of their pay withheld by unscrupulous employers. Others have had to work in conditions that were hazardous to their health and safety.
Will the Minister of Employment commit to releasing not only the list of employers using the program but also the job descriptions and the wages associated with those positions?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, today, we will announce fundamental changes to the temporary foreign worker program so that Canadians have first crack at the jobs available in Canada. These changes will prevent employers from abusing the program and exploiting temporary foreign workers. One of the measures is designed to ensure more transparency by requiring the program to issue a report every three months on the number of companies that made a request for temporary foreign workers. That way, more data will be available to Parliamentarians and the general public.
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is promising us for the 136th time that it is going to solve the problem. The temporary foreign worker program was irresponsibly managed by the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Conservatives have no idea what the local needs are because they gutted Statistics Canada. The department's database is unreliable, much like this government. Despite all their fine promises, the Conservatives did not send inspectors to visit the companies that hire temporary foreign workers.
As a result, some employers took advantage of temporary foreign workers while the Minister of Employment and Social Development turned a blind eye to the problem. How are we supposed to trust the government to find ways to fix the temporary foreign worker program now?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there was a question there.
I repeat that the government took action today after two years of consultation with all parties involved, including unions, to reform the program and ensure that Canadians have first crack at the jobs available in Canada, as well as to deal with employers' misuse of the program. We will make sure that there are consequences and penalties for employers who abuse the program.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment wears everything that is wrong with the temporary foreign worker program like some big stinking albatross around his neck. Now, at the eleventh hour, he wants to put lipstick on a pig, not to mix metaphors, on the very day that we adjourn for the summer. He knows that not a single temporary foreign worker should be working in our country if there is a single qualified Canadian available for that work.
In whose interest is it to give away Canadian jobs and drive down Canadian wages? What is he doing for all those people who were displaced while he mismanaged this program for the last eight years?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, what we hear is the very typical demagogy of the NDP that I do not hear from NDP provincial governments. When I talk to NDP provincial governments, what they raise with me is the opposite concern. They raise concern about certain regions and industries that do not have Canadians applying for jobs. They ask that we take a prudent approach to ensuring that we do not negatively impact those businesses and in turn end up causing Canadians their job.
 That is why today we are taking a tough but fair approach, a balanced approach that will crack down on abuse, will ensure that Canadians come first and that ensures this program operates only and always as a last and limited resort.
JusticeMs. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Justice was forced to explain why so few women and minorities sat on the bench, he claimed judicial advisory committees were improving things. The problem is that those committees themselves are examples of gender imbalance, with 75% men. In the last round of appointments, the government named 10 more men. That is not progress.
Here is an idea. When an NDP justice minister wanted greater diversity, he wrote to lawyers inviting them to apply. Has the minister at least done that?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, judicial appointments are based on one single criteria and one single criteria only: merit and legal excellence. Since coming into power in 2006, 182 women judges have been named to the superior courts of the provinces. This is a 17% increase in the number of women in the judiciary. They are critical to the judicial process.
 We will continue to encourage women to apply for these important positions because we know they are good for the country. 
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, instead of trying his best to make the courts more representative of our communities, the Minister of Justice has abdicated his responsibilities. He should have admitted his government's failure to appoint judges in a manner that reflects Canada's diversity and promotes gender equality. It is his responsibility to appoint judges. Will he make an effort to ensure our courts are more representative?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the judges we have appointed to superior courts in various provinces. Chief Justice Nicole Duval is the first female chief justice to sit on the Quebec Court of Appeal and Justice Guylaine Beaugé, who was born in Haiti, is the first black woman to be appointed to the Quebec Superior Court.
There are others. In Alberta, four empty seats have been filled by four highly qualified women. In Ontario, two empty seats have been filled by two highly qualified women. In B.C., two out of four empty seats were filled by women. We will continue to appoint highly qualified women to provincial superior courts.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently delighted us with his sexist comments about the role of women in our judiciary. Given the contempt that his government has shown the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, his comments clearly sum up how the Conservatives feel about the judiciary.
Can the minister explain if his thoughts on the role of women in society has inspired his refusal to investigate the disappearance of thousands of aboriginal women in this country?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, in recent years, there have been at least 40 investigations and studies. Nothing has come of them. Violence continues to be a problem in aboriginal communities. We will invest $25 million in these communities. We will work with them in order to truly address the problem, and that is how we will reduce violence against aboriginal women.
JusticeMr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, visible minorities make up 19% of Canadians, yet in the last six years, only 1.5% of federal judicial appointments were visible minorities. That is three judges, not even enough to fill a Conservative photo op.
 The justice minister says that Conservatives appoint so few visible minorities because few apply. The Prime Minister recently said, “You can't manage what you can't measure”.
Therefore, will the justice minister commit to releasing data on how many women and visible minorities apply for federal judgeships?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously very proud of our record in naming women to the bench. There are 182 who have been named since we became government in 2006. This represents a 17% increase. Obviously, we want to encourage good candidates to apply to the JACS. As far as diversity goes, we will reinforce the notion that this has to be reflected in judicial appointments.
I notice that Justice Michael Tulloch, who was born in Jamaica, was appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Justice Valerie Miller was the first black judge appointed to the Tax Court of Canada. Justice Leonard Mandamin was the first aboriginal Canadian appointed to the Federal Court.
 We will continue to appoint diversity.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the employment minister claiming that Irish workers are more culturally compatible with Canada to the immigration minister who slurs newcomers by saying that they cheapen our citizenship, the government's dismal attitude to diversity is clear. Now we have an Attorney General who wants to travel back to Leave It to Beaver. He does not care about the lack of diversity on the bench.
Will the government ignore these backward views and commit to creating a judiciary that reflects our country?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, it always helps to listen to the answers that are given. There have been 182 women appointed to the bench since 2006, a 17% increase.
 I have named the diversity of different members who have been named. There are more: Justice Diane Cameron, a Métis, was appointed to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench and then elevated to the Manitoba Court of Appeal; Justice Guylaine Beaugé was born in Haiti and was the first black woman appointed to the Quebec Superior Court; Madam Justice Neena Sharma, the first Indo-Canadian who was appointed to the B.C. Supreme Court; Justice Jennifer Power, an aboriginal, was appointed to the B.C. Supreme Court; Justice Shannon Smallwood, an aboriginal, was appointed to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. We will continue to appoint diverse Canadians to the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.
EmploymentMr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon criticized the high youth unemployment rate, describing it as an epidemic and a major challenge for our times. He is right. Young people are increasingly likely to take unstable, low-paying jobs. Over the past 12 months, Canada lost 47,800 full-time jobs for young people. My generation is getting further and further away from the prosperous society our parents dreamed we would have.
Can the government finally explain to us why it has failed to address youth underemployment and unemployment?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we have made unprecedented investments in job training for youth and in helping young people find work. However, it is not government programs that will create jobs for Canada's young people, it is a growing economy, a strong economy. The best thing to do is to keep lowering taxes and stick to our policies, which have given us one of the best economic track records in the world when it comes to job creation.
The worst thing we can do for young unemployed Canadians is to raise taxes, like the NDP wants to do.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, the government and the minister can brag all they want, but the statistics do not lie. In Canada, the youth unemployment rate is twice the national average. I repeat: twice as high. Is that the sorry record the government and the minister are bragging about? There is no benefit to keeping young people in low-paying unstable jobs.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon talks about a major challenge for our times.
When will the Conservatives start addressing the youth unemployment rate instead of denying that there is a problem?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we are doing no such thing.
Fortunately, the youth unemployment rate is lower in Canada than in most countries in the world. That being said, it is too high. We must address the youth unemployment problem. Indeed, this is a problem in all developed countries.
That is one of the reasons why I have reached out to employers and unions to train young people for better jobs, as is the case in Germany, where the unemployment rate is 7% and the training system is linked to jobs, like the Canada job grant, which will help young people find the training they need to get real jobs.
CBC/Radio-CanadaChristine Moore: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are going to cut another $45 million from CBC/Radio-Canada.
That does not bode well for regional news coverage given that 657 full-time jobs were already cut in April. Recently, because of a lack of resources, RDI did not even go to Lac-Mégantic to cover an important announcement. If RDI is not even able to cover an event that is 250 kilometres from Montreal, they are not going to be going to Abitibi.
When will the minister promise to support regional news coverage by stopping her attacks on CBC/Radio-Canada? 
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the CBC already receives significant taxpayer funds and it can operate within that existing budget. In fact, according to CBC, declining viewership in key demographics, the loss of the NHL contract and declining ad revenues are what is causing its challenges. It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want and deserve. 
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians care about their public broadcaster.
I have received more than 150 emails from people who want no more cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada. Last April, Conservative cuts forced CBC/Radio-Canada to eliminate 657 positions and cut $130 million. Now another $40 million is being cut. The broadcaster's very mandate is being challenged by this government.
Does the minister realize that by attacking CBC/Radio-Canada, an important engine of our cultural industry, she is attacking our identity?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much clearer we need to make this, but let me quote what the president of the CBC, Mr. Lacroix, said:
 A weak advertising market across the industry, lower than expected schedule performance in the key 25-54-year-old demographic on CBC Television, lower than expected ad revenues...and the loss of the NHL contract...have combined to create an important revenue shortfall. 
It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want and deserve, not for government to interfere. 
FinanceMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, innovation and investment are the key drivers of the Canadian economy leading to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. That is why our government launched the venture capital action fund.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance was on hand to announce a significant private sector led investment in helping Canada's entrepreneurs and innovative startups. 
Could the hard-working, dapper and affable Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance provide the details of this very important announcement?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton—Leduc for the excellent work he does as chair of our finance committee.
Yesterday, Cisco Canada, joined by the Minister of Finance, announced the Cisco Canada innovation program, a strategy to invest $150 million to support and accelerate innovation in Canada. Cisco's investment will create jobs across Canada and help turn the entrepreneurs of today into the business leaders of tomorrow. 
We commend Cisco for its initiative and encourage other private sector firms to take advantage of the tremendous talent and supportive business climate that business has to offer. 
Natural ResourcesPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives learned that Northern Gateway would endanger woodland caribou and grizzly bear populations, they said it was justified under the circumstances.
At least this time we can say that the Conservatives are not beating around the bush. They could not care less about the fauna, the environment, aboriginal communities or British Columbia.
Why will they not listen to concerned Canadians and British Columbians and say no to Northern Gateway?
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our decision is based on the conclusions of an independent science-based review panel. We have imposed 209 stringent conditions to ensure this project meets the highest safety standards. The panel heard from nearly 1,500 participants in 21 communities, and reviewed over 175,000 pages of evidence. The proponent clearly has more work to do with communities along the road. 
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the participants said no and the communities said no and the government should be saying no. The only people the Conservatives are trying to help are their friends at Enbridge. By approving the northern gateway, they made it clear they do not care what British Columbians want. Time and again, they have made it clear they do not care what scientists say. They have also made it abundantly clear that they do not care about the thousands of jobs that depend on a clean environment in British Columbia. How do the Conservatives justify approving this threat to the economy and to the environment of British Columbia?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, our decision is based on the conclusions of an independent science-based review panel. After carefully reviewing the report, the government is accepting the recommendation to impose 209 conditions on this project. Our government has always been clear that projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.
National DefenceMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' recently signed contract with Sikorsky relieves it of obligations to produce a military helicopter that meets a statement of requirements that all bidders were expected to meet. We have reason to believe that one of those reduced requirements may be the 30-minute run-dry capability of the gearbox, a defect that was responsible for the deaths of 17 offshore workers in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2009 with a civilian version of the same helicopter. Will the government confirm that Sikorsky is no longer required to meet this standard?
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after years of Liberal mismanagement of the maritime helicopter project, I am pleased that this contract has now been completed and that we can fulfill our government's commitment to begin to retire the Sea Kings in 2015, and deliver a new leading maritime helicopter to the Royal Canadian Air Force, while respecting taxpayer dollars.
 Our government is working tirelessly to provide our men and women in uniform with the equipment they need to get the job done. These amendments are a testament to that fact. The CH-148 Cyclone will be a highly capable aircraft, making it a leading maritime helicopter.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I was not asking whether they like the helicopter. I was asking whether there was a 30-minute run-dry capability. We hear the same cagey words reflected in the equally obscure language of the Department of National Defence press release.
Will Sikorsky have to meet the essential safety standards set out in the statement of requirements, or not? Will there still be a 30-minute run-dry capability for the gearbox, or will there not?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, the requirements defined by the Royal Canadian Air Force will be met by Sikorsky. The third-party expert that we hired to engage in this contract has confirmed the viability of the project under a new governance structure and a phased delivery of the maritime helicopters. Hitachi Consulting will continue to oversee aspects of the implementation plan, ensuring that delivery times remain as promised for the RCAF. This is good news for Canada and good news for our men and women in uniform.
Aboriginal AffairsYvonne Jones: Mr. Speaker, Parliament is rising for the summer with no progress by the Conservatives on northern issues. It is very distressing to know that many of the nutrition north vendors are selling food not only with outrageous markups but that is past the best-before date, kind of like the Conservative government I say. People in Nunavut and Labrador have been speaking out on this program for a number of weeks. I ask this. Why are the Conservatives taking no action to improve food quality and affordability for the people of northern regions?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the hon. member would not know what the mission of nutrition north is. This government introduced this program in order to ensure that northerners had access to nourishing food that is missing there because of the location. The program is working. The price of these goods has gone down substantially and compared to the rest of the country, prices are actually going down. The program is working. We have the input of all the communities. We have a board that is working hard to keep the program going in the best interests of northerners.
Air TransportationYvonne Jones: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has requested the federal Conservative government to upgrade and expand the Wabush Airport and build new airports for Nain in the north and for south Labrador. The Conservatives have failed to implement these necessary infrastructure projects. Why are the Conservatives refusing to fund critical infrastructure in northern communities, leaving people with sporadic and inadequate services? There is plenty of money for advertising for the Conservatives' platform. Why not spend some money on infrastructure for northern communities?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to the specifics of the member's request to this government, I will take it under advisement and report back to the House. 
However, when it comes to making investments in airport infrastructure through programs like the airport capital assistance program, I would remind the member that she and her colleagues continue to vote against those substantial investments to provide safe airport infrastructure for small communities.
HousingRobert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, every time I ask a question about pyrrhotite, which is destroying thousands of homes in Trois-Rivières, the Conservative government refuses to take responsibility. Every time the government tells me to talk to the Government of Quebec.
A recent court ruling—specifically about the CSA A23.1 standard, which determines the amount of pyrrhotite that can be contained in concrete before causing a disaster—contradicts the Conservatives' argument. That is a federal standard. I repeat: that is a federal standard.
Will the government commit to amending the federal CSA A23.1 standard to protect the public?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the use of pyrrhotite is a provincial jurisdiction. It is up to the provincial government to resolve. In this case, it is Quebec that needs to resolve this issue for Quebeckers. This is not a federal jurisdiction. 
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, no one uses pyrrhotite, since it can cause concrete cancer. The government said that it would help victims, but, based on what it is telling us now, we can see that that was a joke.
Pyrrhotite victims are demanding answers. It is our duty to prevent any further victims in Trois-Rivières or elsewhere in Canada.
Can the Conservatives explain how the federal standard that regulates the tolerances of concrete structures can be a provincial jurisdiction? Will they continue to make up excuses to avoid helping pyrrhotite victims back home?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the member, his question about the use of pyrrhotite is a provincial jurisdiction. The provincial governments, including the Government of Quebec, are responsible for this issue.
Veterans AffairsMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, due to the efforts of our government and based on our tremendous respect for their service to our country, Canada's injured veterans may receive an average monthly benefit of between $4,000 to $6,000. These are supports that our injured veterans need and deserve. 
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update this House on the benefits that our government provides to injured veterans and their families?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Wild Rose for the question and his hard work on this file.
Indeed, the average monthly financial benefit that an injured veteran may be eligible for is between $4,000 to $6,000 a month, and in some cases injured veterans are receiving a total income that exceeds $10,000 a month.
Our government is committed to ensuring that our injured veterans and their families have the support they need and deserve. Unfortunately, the members opposite have voted virtually against every single initiative that our government has brought forward to help Canada's veterans.
Employment InsuranceHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that record out-migration from Prince Edward Island is not caused by his EI changes, when nothing could be further from the truth. We know that because of the Conservative government, thousands of people are being forced to leave Prince Edward Island to go west. EI changes have devastated our seasonal industries, and Conservative cuts have taken tens of millions of dollars out of the Island's economy. 
Will the Conservative government admit to the devastation it has caused to Prince Edward Island and reverse these changes?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, what changes? What complete balderdash. There is no rule, and there never has been. I doubt that there ever will be a rule that requires people to leave their province in order to receive EI benefits if they have lost their jobs in their province due to no fault of their own. That is completely ridiculous. 
The statistics are clear. The member may want to invent political arguments, but one cannot invent the statistics. They indicate that fewer than a fraction of a percent of Islanders did not receive EI benefits because of the new program, to ensure that they were actively seeking available work in their communities. 
However, at the same time that the member wants easier EI rules, he wants more temporary foreign workers in P.E.I. We think unemployed Islanders should come first for the available jobs.
TransportationMr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in Atlantic Canada yesterday, and showed again his disrespect for the region. He failed again to make a commitment to the gulf ferry.
The federal government has an obligation to ensure Newfoundlanders have access to ferry services, but Marine Atlantic will be laying off employees and reducing crossings.
Instead of dodging responsibility, instead of denying their own mismanagement, instead of letting down those who depend on this vital service, Conservatives need to step up and act.
What will the government do to ensure Newfoundland ferry service is protected?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, as the member would know, Marine Atlantic is an independent crown corporation responsible for its operational decisions. That corporation has the responsibility to ensure investments by Canadian taxpayers are used in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador to serve the needs of its citizens.
In like fashion, that member is responsible for getting on his feet and explaining his part, with 22 other NDP MPs, in bogus mailings for partisan flyers that ripped off the taxpayers, and when he and his colleagues plan to pay them back.
International TradeMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Pacific Alliance is a forum that gives Canada an important opportunity to shape the future prosperity of the Americas.
Opening new markets and increasing Canadian exports is a key part of our government's plan to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
Can the very auspicious Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister please give this House an update on Canada's engagement with the Pacific Alliance?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the extraordinary member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale is such a hard-working member. 
The Minister of Foreign Affairs is at the Pacific Alliance meetings in Mexico where he will be announcing a new $25 million Canadian trade and development facility. 
This facility is to unleash the potential of the private sector in the Americas, while at the same time helping them understand better the opportunities that exist in Canada. That is good for jobs and good for economic growth here in Canada.
We know that the NDP are opposed to every single trade deal. The Liberals can never decide which ones they want to oppose; they can never close them. We will continue to open new markets for Canadian small, medium and large business producers and job creators, because it is good for the economy and it is good for Canada.

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 10 petitions.
PetitionsAnne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first is from citizens in the rural region of Havelock and surrounding area. They want SBA Canada ULC to conduct public consultations about its proposal to build a telecommunications tower in the municipality on Covey Hill. As stipulated in Industry Canada regulations, there is supposed to be a formal public consultation. They are also asking for a moratorium. They want environmental and health impact studies, among other things.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting was also signed by people in my riding. They are petitioning in support of jobs at Canada Post, postal workers and the public service. They want the government to overturn the decision to eliminate home mail delivery. 
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present petitions from people from Pembroke, Petawawa, Deep River, and Ottawa. These citizens call on the Canadian government to have a national strategy for dementia and the health care of persons afflicted with Alzheimer's disease and other dementia-related diseases. 
Recently the United Kingdom held a G8 summit on dementia. The people of England in the United Kingdom are getting leadership from David Cameron of 10 Downing Street. Unfortunately, here in Canada, 24 Sussex Drive is leaderless.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I would encourage all members to present petitions in a way that does not express an editorial commentary.
The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table petitions from hundreds of residents of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, both in NDP-held ridings and in Conservative-held ridings. They are joining their voices together to say “no” to the cuts to home delivery service to five million Canadian households. They say that eventually this reduction in service will result in the privatization of Canada Post. We are talking about thousands of jobs lost. The petitioners are saying that the government is breaking its promise by cutting back on home service delivery. Hundreds of people in Conservative and NDP ridings in British Columbia are saying “no” to the cuts and the elimination of home delivery service in Canada.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, today, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the people of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
They are asking the government, which gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to put the lakes and rivers that it removed from the list of protected waterways back under federal protection. I am presenting this petition today because, yesterday, I was in my riding at the Musée régional d'Argenteuil, which was unveiling a new permanent exhibit on the lakes and rivers in Argenteuil. These rivers and lakes have all been removed from the list of protected waterways, with the exception of the Ottawa River, of course.
Given how important Argenteuil's lakes and rivers are to my riding, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage anyone who is passing through Saint-André-d'Argenteuil to visit this wonderful new exhibit.
Ryan Cleary: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of citizens of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, as pretty a Newfoundland and Labrador outport as one could find. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reinstate the hours of operation, from 24 hours a week to 32 hours a week, at the community post office. 
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski:  Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement and consent to see the clock at 1:15 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Victims Bill of Rights Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, June 18, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
 Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. 
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee) 
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there have been further discussions among the parties. I am pleased to report that I believe you will find consent for the following motion:
 That this House do now adjourn. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 15, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 12:11 p.m.)