2014-06-13

Adjournment Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved. 
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, South Sudan faces three concurrent crises, with an ongoing conflict, an acute humanitarian crisis, and a chronic food and security problem.
South Sudan is a level three humanitarian emergency. Violence has displaced more than one million people, 923,000 within the country, more than half of them children, and 300,000 people having fled to neighbouring countries.
With the rainy season, the situation will only get worse. Life-saving supplies must be deployed to the hardest to reach in order to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Air drops are taking place and famine is probable.
The UN has warned that, if the conflict in South Sudan continues, half of the country's 12 million people will either be starving, internally displaced, refugees abroad, or dead by the year's end. According to the UN in May, the international community urgently needed to donate at least another $500 million if South Sudan's devastating slide into famine and humanitarian crisis was to be stopped. 
Therefore, on May 16, 2014, I asked the government, “Will Canada attend the May 19-20 donor-pledging conference in Norway, and will it increase its support?”
Unfortunately, the response I received was only an expression of concern, a statement of what the government is currently doing, and a promise to monitor the situation. That is, I received no answer, no promise to attend the donor conference, and no promise to pledge. 
That is not good enough, when the political divisions within South Sudan had resulted in heavy fighting and mass atrocities. In Bentiu, for example, civilians were targeted on the basis of their ethnicity and nationality. Radio stations were used to broadcast hate speech, urging men to rape women of specific ethnicities and demanding that rival groups be expelled from the town. 
After receiving no answer from the government regarding the donor conference, we issued a press release calling on the government to send representatives to attend the international conference to see what further help Canada could provide to address the dire humanitarian crisis in South Sudan.
Why did the government refuse to answer my simple question: that is, would the government attend or not? It is shameful that Canada refused to pledge at the conference. 
There is overcrowding, competition for shelter and life-saving humanitarian aid, and an increased risk of disease and infection in South Sudan. We have to stand by the people of South Sudan. Expressed concern is not enough. We have to do more.
Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for raising this issue of the situation in South Sudan. I agree on many of the points with respect to the situation in South Sudan. Due to the conflict and other reasons, it is deteriorating very badly and requires attention. I can tell her in no uncertain terms that, contrary to what she has been telling us—that Canada is not involved—Canada has been involved in South Sudan from the day that country became independent. Prior to that, Canada was one of the major countries, not only as a donor but in assisting toward achieving peace.
I myself have visited that country twice. Following the birth of this nation, we had great hopes that this would move forward. Unfortunately, the political infighting that has taken place has really put South Sudan way back with respect to development assistance.
Together with its partners, Canada has been working to see what is the best way forward, working with the Government of South Sudan in moving forward to meet its development assistance needs. 
It is true that the UN is there now to stop the fighting.
Some good news that I want to share with the hon. member, which came yesterday, was that both parties who were fighting have agreed to peace in Addis Ababa, led by the African Union. Hopefully, that peace will work toward assuring a climate where all the assistance we have been giving reaches its destination.
Making announcements or attending donor conferences is not the one effective way to reach out or to offer assistance. Rather, it is to work together jointly with the other partners that we have identified. In the case of South Sudan, we have identified partners and what we can do. 
Only two weeks ago in Calgary I announced development assistance to the Red Cross so it can use mobile units for the child maternity cases in South Sudan. We are working with our NGO partners. Canada is on the ground in South Sudan. We hope that the people of South Sudan very quickly resolve their differences and move forward, and that the situation, as the hon. member has described, is averted, most importantly the humanitarian crisis.
[Interjection]
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we all hope that the good news yesterday will hold.
The government has given in the past, but its approach needs to be rethought and needs to take into consideration the long-term problems caused by the civil conflict begun in December 2013. Will the government support civil society coalitions that are working for peace and reconciliation in South Sudan? How will the government monitor humanitarian needs and respond in a timely fashion to the changing needs on the ground? Will the government consider support to UNMISS to protect civilians, especially women and children, from violence? Will the government encourage the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict to travel to South Sudan and request a report to the UN Security Council on the situation of children in South Sudan?
Canada must remain engaged to keep South Sudan at the forefront of international attention. We do hope that this news yesterday continues, and that the good news holds.
[Interjection]
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that Canada is working with the United Nations on many of the issues the member is talking about, including, as I just said, with NGOs to provide development assistance out there. However, most importantly, we need a climate of security in that country so that we can work there and build on development assistance. There is no point in building all those things, and then intertribal fighting breaks out and we lose everything.
 However, let me say that Canada is very much engaged internationally with our partners, most importantly with the United Nations, in achieving what the member has said. We both have the same interest, which is South Sudan finding its feet in Africa as a new nation and moving forward.
Rail TransportationMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis at VIA Rail. The number of passengers has dropped as has the frequency of trips. Equipment is in terrible shape and is often out of service. Trains are increasingly late. The train no longer even goes to my region, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. We have not had service for two years. Rail service in eastern Canada has been cut by 50%. There is no service on Vancouver Island as well. They have not had service there for four years. This is a crisis.
The government's support for passenger rail service in Canada is woefully inadequate. VIA Rail has reduced service in all of eastern Canada. The Ocean only runs three times a week. Many stations in eastern Canada have closed. VIA Rail stopped running through the Gaspé almost two years ago. Although the Gaspé railway is now safe, VIA Rail still has not resumed service to the Gaspé, in spite of its commitment. It is unacceptable.
It is about time the government addressed this issue, which is very important to all Canadians. VIA Rail must be able to provide proper passenger rail service for Canadians. That is why I introduced a bill today to provide a better framework for VIA Rail. During the summer, I will present my bill to Canadians, and I will have the privilege of hearing the comments and suggestions of my constituents.
VIA Rail is a very popular service, not only in my riding but in all of eastern Canada. VIA Rail reduced the service in my riding to zero passages per week. We do not have any VIA service whatsoever. VIA promised to come back when the rail line was in a secure state. It has now been confirmed to be secure, and VIA Rail still has not started service. It reduced service to the Maritimes by 50%.
I remember when VIA Rail issued a press release soon afterward, claiming that it was a great success because it only lost 40% of its clientele. I hardly think that losing 40% of the clientele of VIA Rail is in any way, shape, or form a victory. VIA Rail should be ashamed of itself.
The Canadian government must give VIA Rail what it needs to provide proper service. VIA Rail is a vital service for the Gaspé region. We need it to ensure that the tourism industry is well supported.
A remote area such as ours must have transportation that properly serves the region so that its inhabitants can have access to major centres like everyone else. We need a network that will provide these services. Unfortunately, VIA Rail is not fulfilling its obligations towards the people of the Gaspé, and more and more it is not fulfilling its obligations towards Canadians.
The Government of Canada must give more support to VIA Rail. It has missed the boat. It is about time the government put more emphasis on rail transportation.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail, is an independent federal crown corporation. It is responsible for the safety of its operation and its passengers. This includes ensuring, to the best of its ability, that the track and infrastructure on which it depends is safe and reliable.
VIA Rail suspended service along the Gaspé Peninsula because safety inspections undertaken by the Province of Quebec revealed that the tracks and signalling on this rail line did not meet standards for safe passenger rail operations. The rail line is owned by a private company. It is the rail line owner, not VIA Rail, that is responsible for repairing the tracks and signalling and ensuring safety for operations.
It is important to note that the rail line in the Gaspé Peninsula is entirely within the province of Quebec and is provincially regulated, so the safety regime of Quebec must be followed. The Government of Quebec will therefore review any work that has been undertaken to ensure that it meets provincial rail safety standards. Once the provincial government approves the repairs, VIA Rail will determine whether the track and signalling are safe to resume its operations on the line. VIA is responsible for ensuring that it has the appropriate staff and resources in place to provide safe and efficient rail service.
Given the rail line is solely within the borders of Quebec, any public funding for infrastructure repairs and upgrades for this line would be a provincial responsibility. Nevertheless, our government has taken action and has provided funding for upgrades to this line in the past. In 2007, our government provided a one-time contribution of nearly $18 million to the municipalities in the Gaspé region to allow them to acquire the rail line and to make repairs to bring the rail line back into a state of good repair.
Aside from that, our government provides VIA Rail with a significant operating subsidy to support a national network of passenger rail services. In 2013-14, this subsidy was $305 million. Over the past seven years, our government has provided VIA Rail with more than $1 billion in capital funding to upgrade infrastructure and equipment such as tracks, bridges, stations, locomotives, and rail cars.
Our government supports a passenger railway network that meets the needs of today's travellers, while supporting the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. VIA must work to ensure it is not a burden to taxpayers. It is very concerned that it is, at this time, also posting significant losses.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that the rail line in the Gaspé was owned by CN. The government allowed CN to sell the railway to the municipalities. The municipalities in the Gaspé are the owners, not a private corporation per se, but a conglomeration of all the municipalities.
The government allowed the track to deteriorate to the state that it was in. It now says it washes its hands of it, that it is no longer responsible because it allowed the sale to provincial municipalities. That is abdication of responsibility. It should have ensured that the track was in a good state in the first place before it allowed the sale. It did not. It did not order an engineer's report. It simply evaluated the value of the track based on CN's own numbers. That is just not the proper due diligence. The government failed in its obligations.
What it should do now is make up for that and ensure the track is safe. It is in fact safe, according to the corporation that owns it. As of June, VIA Rail no longer has reason not to start service again in the Gaspé. The government should not hide behind this arm's-length argument. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, the government invests heavily in VIA Rail. VIA Rail will come to the Gaspé if it has proper support from the government. I would argue at this point that it does not have adequate support.
[Interjection]
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my hon. colleague is saying, as I just stated, and let me repeat again, in 2007 our government provided a one-time contribution of nearly $18 million to the municipalities in the Gaspé region to allow them to upgrade the rail line.
Again, let me point this out to the hon. member. Since the entire line is within the Quebec region, it is the Government of Quebec, the provincial government, that is also responsible for its safety and for looking after its regulations.
It is clearly important that it is a joint effort by all of them. At this current time, once the Government of Quebec feels the railway line is fine, it can tell VIA, and VIA, when it knows it has the capacity to do that, it will do it.
Let me say this quite clearly. As far as I will set it out here, we do provide support and will continue to provide support, but we also expect others to take on the burden as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 12:18 a.m.) 

Government Orders
Agricultural Growth Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
Today we are debating yet another omnibus bill, which is nothing new with these Conservatives. They throw all kinds of different things into the same bill. This one has to do with agriculture.
The bill deals with plant breeders' rights for new varieties or new species. Research labs, including government labs, work on breeding new plants for years, even decades. Marketing comes into play because these labs need to be viable. However, we need to be careful of certain companies that cause problems when they try to profit by limiting access to many varieties of seeds.
I have been gardening since I was eight years old. I grow vegetables, flowers, perennials and shrubs. This is my hobby. I love tomato plants. A few years ago, when I would visit the displays at hardware stores and garden centres, I could pick up 30 or 40 varieties of tomatoes to try out. This year, I was not able to get more than 12 varieties of tomatoes. This means that both individuals and farmers need to be careful when buying seeds. Some companies restrict access to many varieties in order to sell the ones that they want to sell.
For example, you can buy packages of seeds for $2, $3, $4 or $5. I bought a package of new certified seeds for $4.95 and I got 11 plants. However, in another package of traditional varieties, I would get 50, 77 or even 100 plants for $2.95. There could be problems if this were to happen with grains.
In the regions, farmers developed seeds that were adapted to their climate. Traditionally, year after year, they would save their best seeds to sow the following year. The new legislation will force them to register those seeds. Farmers who used to pay next to nothing to reseed will now have to pay for more expensive seeds.
Because agricultural co-operatives belong to all of the farmers, they expect to get the best possible price. Now that multinationals have patented seeds, access to traditional seeds will be limited. We need to ensure that our traditional varieties will still be preserved for use.
At one point, there were problems with certain varieties of cucurbits, or cucumbers. People were researching heirloom varieties to improve genetics because cross-breeding the same varieties led to a loss of genetic quality.
It is important that we preserve those older varieties. Large companies in France—such as Kokopelli, an international company—are posing problems because they do business with developing countries. They trade seeds so that the prices are better. For a few years now, France has been regulating seed sales. Major seed producers are constantly in court, fighting this company because it has overstepped its boundaries. 
Organic farmers may also run into trouble if their neighbours use new seed varieties. Corn and most grains are fertilized by the wind. The organic farmer's seeds are contaminated by the GMO seeds. His products decline in quality. Not only do his products decline in quality, but the neighbour then accuses him of mixing seeds, using GMOs and using his neighbour's registered seeds. That is when things start to go downhill.
Will there be a system in place to protect the small farmers from the bigger ones, who may contaminate seeds? It is important to know.
We know that this bill is the next step in ratifying the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. As usual, every government since 1991, whether Conservative or Liberal, has stalled on this, and now here we are in 2014. Other countries have ratified it, but not Canada.
This is a kind of copyright act. Looking at the Copyright Act itself, there is the case involving Robinson versus television producers. He has spent 19 years fighting for his fair share. We can see that it is important to have laws that protect patent-holders. However, we have to ensure that heritage varieties that have been around for a long time are not patented as new varieties because that would prevent ordinary people from using those heritage varieties.
Amateur gardeners and co-operatives exchange seeds, and that system works very well. We have to make sure that people can still do this and that multinationals will not be able to prevent people from using heritage varieties.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the NDP might be moving another motion for adjournment this morning. It is nice to see that it has decided not to do that and would rather continue the debate. I really encourage that.
The government has had the opportunity to bring in different pieces of legislation that are affecting farmers throughout our country. This is a fairly large bill that takes into consideration what could have been separate pieces of legislation. There is always a risk when a government does that. There are many different stakeholders who would like to participate through consultation to provide input when the government wants to change laws. However, because the bill is so large and has a fairly significant impact on many aspects of legislation, it is that much more difficult to give it the due diligence and accountability it needs.
Would the member not agree that there are certain aspects of the legislation that are good? One example is that it authorizes inspectors to order certain unlawful imports removed from Canada or destroyed.
There are some good things in this legislation, but there are also others that are causing concern.
[Interjection]
Réjean Genest: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I would agree that there should have been several bills rather than just one and that this bill should have been studied in detail to determine the implications. We are very concerned about the fact that we will not be able to do a thorough study of this bill. 
I agree with my colleague that we should be concerned about the cursory treatment of these issues and the lack of opportunity to study the minor repercussions that could end up being quite significant.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is the NDP caucus's go-to guy for dirt-under-the-fingernails issues. I would like to ask him a question about his comments on tomato varieties.
Can he tell us more about how this is changing and why?
[Interjection]
Réjean Genest: Mr. Speaker, it is simple. When there are more varieties, there is more choice. Seed producers want to promote certain varieties by using displays and other methods.
Limiting the number of varieties automatically leads to the sale of more expensive seeds. There are fewer and fewer varieties being sold with a lot of seed in the packet. Instead of putting 100 seeds in a packet, they put 10 and instead of selling the packet for $2.95, they sell it for $4.95. It is not hard to see that the profit margin goes up. The seed companies' strategy is to limit choice in order to increase their chances of selling more. Someone who has a garden with 50, 100 or 150 plants will have to buy several packets of seed instead of just one packet.
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-18, an omnibus bill that will alter a number of aspects of farm life.
Bill C-18 proposes nine amendments to federal laws and will affect almost every aspect of farming. The statutes that will be amended under the Agricultural Growth Act are the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. Currently, all these statutes fall under the CFIA. The bill also amends the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act, which fall under AAFC. 
I will now get to the heart of the matter: the issues surrounding plant breeders.
According to the government, this bill will stimulate innovation, which will benefit farmers by increasing the choice of crops and in turn increasing revenues. 
However, many stakeholders are worried that the bill will limit farmers' use of seeds. Like me, farmers have concerns about the proposed amendments to the plant breeders' rights legislation that would commit Canada to UPOV '91. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, or UPOV, an intergovernmental organization established in 1961, promotes the interests of plant breeders by allowing them to claim intellectual property rights in countries that sign the agreement. Canada is currently part of UPOV '78, a former version.
Those who support joining UPOV '91 allege that it would result in greater investments by seed breeders in Canada. Those opposed believe that this will cost farmers more money, not just at the time of seed sale but also when crops are sold and beyond.
This is a very delicate subject and we must understand the nuances. We must strike a balance between the interests of seed breeders who want to be compensated for their work and farmers who work hard every day to feed our country. We absolutely must ask ourselves what consequences all the amendments proposed in this omnibus bill will have for both Canadian farmers and food safety.
Has the government done its homework? Is the bill part of a long-term vision for farming in Canada or, once again, is the government blindly making decisions that will benefit the same people?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you are aware of this, but the NDP is the only federal party to propose a Canada-wide food strategy, which was unveiled last week. We have received a lot of support for this. It is not something we put together in one day; we have been working on it for years. We consulted not only Canadians, but also producers across the country. I am truly proud of this document.
I want to focus on the farmers' privilege aspect for a few minutes. It is a key piece of the legislation that needs clarification. The bill states that farmers' privilege is an exception to subsection 5(1). This article states that the holder of the plant breeders' rights has the exclusive right to produce and reproduce, condition, sell, export, import, or stock seed, and authorize any of these actions. Farmers' privilege allows farmers to produce and condition seed only for their own holdings. 
This raises many concerns. For example, can a farmer have his seed cleaned by a neighbour as a favour? Or does the farmer need to condition the seed on their own holding? What about saving seed? The bill clearly says farmers can only produce and condition seed. That means that farmers will have to pay a royalty in order to stock their seed. No matter how many assurances the minister provides, I want to be sure that these provisions are clearly stated in the bill and will not be left open for interpretation.
We need to carefully study the bill to fully understand its effects. I look forward to calling experts to the agriculture committee on this issue in order to hear about the effects of the bill. I hope my colleagues from across the way will be open to amendments to improve and clarify the bill to ensure it is advantageous for all of our farmers.
There is another aspect of farmers' privilege that worries me. Farmers' privilege is explained in the negative. It does not look like a right to me. It looks like an exception. The fact that farmers' privilege can be changed through regulation is more worrisome. These limited exceptions to seed companies' total control on seed could change or disappear without having to consult Parliament. That would give the minister a lot of power. I am not sure I trust the minister with that much power and control over farmers' lives and livelihoods. He does not have a very good track record. I do not think I need to remind members of the grain prices, XL Foods, or listeriosis.
When it comes to plant breeders' rights, I believe that a balanced approach is essential. We need to protect Canada's farmers and public researchers.
The minister has said the bill would increase investment to our agriculture sector by creating incentives for companies to come to Canada. My concern here, again, is the farmer. Innovation needs to benefit farmers. We want to ensure that all Canadians can access and benefit from our agricultural legacy. This is why I would like to see more public funding of innovation, which is something that our party has called for.
In order to prevent the privatization of existing varieties of seeds deployed, we must ensure a variety registration system that would ensure new crop varieties are as good as, or better than, existing ones. We also have to ensure that farmers would continue to have access to existing cereal varieties that were developed by public plant breeders.
Turning to another aspect of the bill, I was pleased to see increased flexibility in the advance payments program. The APP provides producers with a cash advance on the value of their agricultural products during a specific period. This would improve producers' cash flow throughout the year and help them meet financial obligations to benefit from the best market conditions. The grain transportation crisis has shown the value of such a program. It is too bad it was not in place at that time to help grain producers.
Allowance for multi-year agreements would allow the administrative burden for those who are applying to the advance payments program in consecutive years, which would make the program more accessible to producers and program delivery more efficient, hopefully. It is unfortunate to see that the maximum amounts have not been increased. The CFA has called for an increase in order to address rising farm costs. Overall, the changes to the APP make the program more accessible and flexible, which is something I applaud.
I would like to end my remarks on the bill by reflecting on the policy direction of the government. The bill's short title is “agricultural growth act”. Whether the bill would actually help grow the agriculture sector is yet to be determined. Once again, can we trust the current minister? It is questionable. I would like to see the government have a comprehensive vision for agriculture in this country. Agriculture is such an important sector. It represents one in eight jobs in Canada. It is vital to our economy. 
The minister is bringing in pieces of legislation that seem to be reacting to an issue, rather than leading the way on agriculture issues. That is very sad. It seems we only have the chance to debate agriculture when there is a problem or a crisis. That is something that I do not want to see. I want more positive things. I want to be talking about agriculture more positively in the House, rather than reacting.
The latest grain transportation crisis is a good example. Once again the government waited months before acting, then scrambled together a piece of legislation that could help farmers but would not be a long-term solution. We can all agree on that. The government only acts when it needs to, and it delays the action as much as possible. I wish we could work with the current government on a forward-thinking vision for agriculture in this country that would be dedicated to supporting big farms and small farms and would also give farmers the tools they need to succeed.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments with respect to thinking positively about farmers.
Not enough is done to generate debate within the chamber about how farmers from all regions of our country contribute to our well-being. It goes far beyond our borders with the first-class quality product that goes throughout the world.
Often, as the member has made reference to, when we are in the position of having to talk about farm-related issues, it happens in different types of crisis situations or when government is taking action that might not be in the best interests of the farmers.
An example of the issue that this bill attempts to deal with is farm debt. Farm debt is real. It is tangible. It affects literally thousands of farmers. It causes a great deal of anxiety on family farms, particularly on our smaller farms. There is an attempt in this huge bill to deal with that issue by amending the Farm Debt Mediation Act to clarify the process. That is something we want. We want to see more clarity with respect to that processing issue. We want to facilitate the participation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the mediation process when the minister is a guarantor of a farmer's debt.
Does the member see this as a positive change within the legislation?
[Interjection]
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, this is an omnibus budget bill. We cannot forget that there are some aspects that we do support, but then there are some contentious aspects that worry us. 
I am present in the House for petitions and I have seen colleagues from across the way, Conservatives and Liberals, who have tabled many petitions expressing concern for farmers and for Bill C-18. I mentioned in my speech that we often debate agriculture issues because we are reacting to something. This bill should definitely be separated.
 We will support this bill. We are looking forward to having great witnesses come to the agriculture committee to have their voices heard and to voice their opinions. We are hopeful to amend this bill to make it better, but I know the government does not like to work together.
Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the incredible representation she has been doing on behalf of Canadian agriculture producers. At every opportunity she is standing up and defending their rights and opportunities. The member is making a strong, valuable, and truthful presentation here. We have not had the government of the day take action in advance of issues arising. Here we have one of the largest contributors to the Canadian economy being given short shrift as a result of all their issues being thrown into one bill. We know well that these bills are fast-tracked through the House and through committee.
I am wondering if the member could speak to this. Is it possible to take this bill out to our agricultural communities so they have the opportunity to provide their input, not only on the ideas that are in the bill but on additional items that the government could be taking in the way of constructive advance action on behalf of agriculture?
[Interjection]
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, since this bill was announced I have done a lot of consulting in my riding, with different stakeholders on the Hill, and in communities. I had the chance to go to Saskatchewan for the grain crisis and meet with farmers to get a more in-depth feeling of what was happening on the ground. We did talk a lot about Bill C-18.
 The government is trying to push this forward. We will be breaking for summer shortly. I will continue to consult with my colleagues from Welland and also Edmonton—Strathcona. We could all be very present with our constituents and consult and continue to make sure that we are hearing the voices of the people who want to express their concern or approval of this bill. However, it is important to be present. We cannot forget that UPOV was signed by the Liberals. They brought it in, but then they kind of dropped it. Now the Conservatives have picked it up and they want to ratify it. We just have to make sure it is in the best interests of farmers and the vision for agriculture in the long term.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île
I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, which, as members have mentioned in previous speeches, is an omnibus bill.
This is an issue that is important to me, my riding and my region. Agriculture accounts for 12% of the Lower St. Lawrence region's economy. Agriculture is an important part of the region's economy.
I frequently consult with farmers in my riding, members of the Fédération de l'UPA du Bas-Saint-Laurent. Some aspects of this bill are similar to previous legislative measures that raised concerns, and they are raising the same concerns as before.
As my colleagues mentioned in their speeches, we are going to support this bill at second reading so that it can be thoroughly examined in committee. That is the purpose of second reading. Since this is an omnibus bill, we are in favour of some provisions, but we may be opposed to others if they remain as they are right now. That is true of the seed issue, among others.
The ratification of the 1991 accord on seed intellectual property raised many concerns, which is not a bad thing when it comes to intellectual property protection. The provisions regarding patents and intellectual property rights allow for research and development. They also make it possible to promote investments in this area and provide a certain amount of protection for investments made by companies that want to improve seeds and various farming techniques.
However, we must always ensure that there is a balance between the protection of intellectual property provided by patents and the protection of farmers' historic rights, rights that have existed since farming became a human activity. According to these rights, farmers and producers can freely reuse seeds that they have saved from previous harvests. However, Bill C-18 does not afford such protection. There seems to be an imbalance. Far more importance is being placed on the protection of intellectual property provided by patents than on the historic rights of farmers.
There is one case in particular that I think illustrates this imbalance and the danger it represents for farmers. A Saskatchewan farmer named Percy Schmeiser, who farms canola, had organic plants, meaning that he did not use a product from Monsanto, which produces herbicide-resistant seeds called Roundup Ready. Mr. Schmeiser did not use these seeds. However, Mr. Schmeiser's field was contaminated by canola plants from nearby fields when those seeds spread. He found canola plants from nearby fields in his harvest.
Monsanto took Mr. Schmeiser all the way to the Supreme Court to demand that he pay for using the seeds. Mr. Schmeiser, who did not use these seeds, had not paid Monsanto for them. Monsanto demanded that Mr. Schmeiser pay the company, even though Mr. Schmeiser's field had been accidentally contaminated. Mr. Schmeiser lost in the Supreme Court as a result of the provisions in the current legislation.
These are the concerns shared by farmers who want to retain the power to choose their own seeds, which they have saved from previous harvests. They could have to pay for seeds that accidentally contaminated their field against their will and despite any safeguards they may have put in place. Unfortunately, Bill C-18 does not provide this kind of protection for farmers. We are very concerned about that.
I would like to reiterate that we do not oppose protecting intellectual property, meaning the protection provided by patents. However, we need to strike a balance so that we protect farmers in a sector that is extremely complex and includes many factors that cannot be calculated in advance.
Here, again, we have an omnibus bill that contains a number of different elements. Bill C-18 amends nine different laws. Clearly, we support some of the provisions, but we think that some others are unbalanced or do not serve the common good or, in this case, the common good of farmers.
For example, one aspect that we support is related to the advance payments program. Farmers really appreciate that program. It is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. Farming is a very unpredictable sector. Good crops depend on the weather and climate conditions. A poor climate will yield far more disappointing crops. The advance payments program allows farmers to reconcile their anticipated income with their expenditures and anticipated expenditures. It is a welcome program, one that is appreciated.
Another aspect of Bill C-18 that we feel is beneficial is the fact that red tape will be reduced in the future. That is good for the industry. It was one of the major concerns with the current program. In this case, we cannot really oppose a measure that will help farmers.
There is another element that was not part of the program in the past but that will be now, namely raising breeding animals. Of course, grain farmers had access to the program, as did beef producers, but not for breeding animals. Now, farmers who raise breeding animals will have access to the program. We think that is worthwhile progress.
That said, there are various elements that will require the committee's attention. I hope that the committee will make good use of its time to move forward with these favourable provisions, but also to respond to concerns. I am certain that the committee members will hear testimony from agricultural representatives, whether at the Quebec provincial level from the UPA or the Union paysanne, or at the national level from the National Farmers Union or the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I hope that the government will take into account the common good, not just corporate interests. Right now, agriculture is at a crossroads. There is tremendous pressure from the United States in particular. There is currently a tendency in the United States and some other countries toward vertical integration. In Mr. Schmeiser's case, it was not about large-scale production; it was really about a family farm. There really seems to be a movement afoot to make life much more difficult for small-scale farmers and much easier for large-scale producers. Vertical integration is when big agricultural conglomerates or corporations, such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, buy up family farms that are barely scraping by, thereby reinforcing their market dominance. 
We need to strike a balance in Canada. One way to achieve that is through supply management. I know that both our Conservative and Liberal friends have repeatedly expressed their support for the supply management system. The system enables us to protect something really important, our agricultural diversity, by protecting family farms, which are guaranteed stable incomes and predictable expenses. Parts of Bill C-18, even though they do not affect the dairy industry directly, are in line with that thinking, and that is why we have to support it. However, I really hope that the government will pay heed to concerns about other elements of the bill.
We will support this bill at second reading, but I cannot guarantee that we will support it at third reading if those concerns are not addressed.
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am a little taken aback by some of the comments made by the member opposite.
I am one of the farmers here, and I am quite proud of our Conservative government and all of the actions it has taken on behalf of agricultural producers across the country. The member opposite has suggested that we do not have family farm operations anymore and that we are going into corporate farming. This is a complete fallacy. Although farms are getting bigger, there are still family operations. Instead of just one part of the family on the farm, it is usually parents with their kids and families, all farming together and farming larger.
There is no question that farms have become larger, especially in western Canada, where I am from, but there are still family farm operations. They may have been incorporated for better tax breaks and purposes, but they are still family farms.
The New Democrats keep saying that they are opposed to this bill because it would not allow producers the right to use their own seed. I can tell members that Canada is finally coming into line with international norms to allow plant breeders' rights, as every country around the world has already implemented, and that from this bill, farmers would get to keep their own seed for their own purposes.
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there is an issue with interpretation, but that is not what I said. I did mention that there were family farms. The 12% of the Lower St. Lawrence economy that depends on agriculture is made up exclusively of family farms. I know full well that there are family farms in this country; there are some in my riding. There are family farms everywhere and we must protect them and be sure to help them be productive so that they can survive. I did not say that there are no family farms, on the contrary. 
However, I did say that we have to be vigilant and ensure that these farms can continue to be productive and competitive.
Moreover, I did not say that we were opposed to this bill, on the contrary. We have said many times that we would vote in favour of it at second reading and that we wanted the committee to do its job and take into consideration the concerns that will be brought forward, because there will be some.
Seed is one of the main concerns that were raised. For example, I mentioned a case that had to do with contamination. Farmers could end up being responsible for crops that they did not seed, but that were contaminated in their own fields. This is not something we can ignore. On the contrary, we must address this and I hope the committee will do its job.
Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very well documented, as usual. I would like him to know that the Quebec chapter of the Friends of the Earth is concerned about Bill C-18. I would like the hon. member to tell me whether they have cause for concern:
 This bill considerably diminishes farmers' ancestral rights by requiring them to pay agribusiness giants royalties on their entire crop. 
Are they right to be concerned?
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. There is indeed cause for concern. That is why the committee must be especially careful when examining this bill.
It is important to understand that a farmer's right to reuse his own seeds is not only an ancestral right but a truly historic one, dating back to when farming became a human activity. There are changes happening in the industry, and some of them are positive. I do not think that we need to abandon all of the progress made by the industry in improving our crop productivity and yield. We must not abandon everything and say that it is all bad. However, we need to make sure that farmers who want to can continue farming and we need to preserve the ancestral rights that they have been exercising since the beginning of human history.
I know that there are a lot of concerns about this. I do not want to be like the Conservatives and dismiss these concerns out of hand. They must be taken into account. Contamination is an important issue. Why should someone have to pay for accidental contamination of fields, for example? If people are using patented varieties of seeds, then those who paid to develop those seeds must be compensated. If that is not the case, these farmers need to be protected. Personal choice must take precedence. I hope that the committee will have a chance to hear from witnesses on this.
Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to everyone who is watching. I hope they enjoyed their cereal this morning because we know that cereal is a product of agriculture. Everything we eat is a product of agriculture. There are stories of people and farms behind everything we eat, stories of farmers who were taken to court by big companies and lost money. Family farms have had to shut down because they could no longer fight against the big companies.
It is good that we are modernizing and keeping up to date with new regulations. That is not a bad thing, but in so doing, we have to come up with a plan to protect those who may be pushed aside as a result and who do not have the expertise, money or ability to be part of such a market. It is important to recognize that.
My colleague gave an excellent speech about the type of situation that can occur. The farm he mentioned is not the first farm that has been taken to court by a big company for unknowingly having patented plants on its land, and it will not be the last.
We know how agriculture works. The wind scatters seeds elsewhere. There are no borders. It is important to comply with the new regulations, but there must be a plan for the smaller farmers. There must be a plan to protect those who do not have the capacity to keep up with the big multinationals.
It is important to mention that no one is opposing intellectual property. However, in agriculture, intellectual property does not necessarily have borders, as my colleague demonstrated. If I own a field and the seeds from the adjacent property come over to my field, I cannot do anything about it. I cannot put a net over my field so that other seeds do not land on it. The situation is more complex than what the Conservatives are trying to tell us. They are telling us that everything is fine, that everything is going well and that the regulations will work. It is more complicated than that.
One of the first things that the Conservatives did when they came to power was eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. What was the role of the Canadian Wheat Board? It protected small farmers from bigger farmers.
I went to Europe where I met farmers who dreamed about having that kind of board to protect them from multinationals. We know how it works: the bigger farms swallow up the smaller ones, and the Conservatives have decided to disregard this type of relationship by giving more power to agricultural multinationals. What will we end up with? Agriculture that will no longer have local products or local farms.
If the Conservatives do not adopt a Canada-wide agriculture strategy or a national strategy to protect local producers, what will we end up with? Agriculture that does not respect the Canadian tradition of protecting its farmers.
The second thing they did was jeopardize supply management by putting it on the table during trade agreement negotiations. Small farms that are protected by supply management will not be able to keep up with the market and will once again be swallowed up by bigger players.
The ideas in Bill C-18 are valid and legitimate, and it is important to stay up to date and bring in new regulations for the agricultural sector, but we must not forget that people and farmers might suffer as a result. That is all I am trying to say to the government. We need to have a plan.
For example, the National Farmers Union opposes this bill because, it says, it will deprive the smallest farmers of their independence, increase costs for farmers and increase their exposure to lawsuits.
Is that really what the government wants to do? Do they really want to create that kind of instability for our farmers? The Conservatives have already done away with the Canadian Wheat Board, and now they want to get rid of supply management. Is that really how they want to treat our farmers? Do they really want to put them in a position that threatens their security and robs them of their independence?
That would give multinationals an unfair advantage, more power and more control. Is that really what our farmers deserve? No. I can name many people who agree with me. For example, the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, which represents Manitoba farmers, said: 
 We're hearing this has been very successful in other countries in attracting investment in our industry, so that should be positive in the long-term for producers. 
 We'll be looking to our members for guidance on how they want to see this played out, but I'm glad to hear the Minister talk about farm-saved seed being a priority. That's what I hear from members as well. 
Keystone Agricultural Producers believes that intellectual property is extremely important, but that we must also protect our farmers. Therefore, seeds stocked by farms are a priority. I hope that the witnesses who appear in committee will be heard and that the Conservatives will vote for our amendments, if we propose any, or that they will change the legislation.
Based on the Conservatives' record, they very rarely vote for opposition amendments. Yesterday alone, the NDP proposed some thirty amendments to improve Bill C-13, and the Conservatives voted against each and every one.
The Conservatives must stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. They tell farmers from their provinces that they take their interests to heart, but then they introduce legislation that, unfortunately, will eliminate their independence and create economic uncertainty. 
This could open the door to legal action against them by big multinationals who have plenty of lawyers and plenty of money. Unfortunately, smaller farms will be swallowed up by the bigger farms. That is the Conservative ideology.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time provided for government business has expired. We will now proceed with statements by members. 
The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

Statements By Members
Distinguished Principal of the YearMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour a very special constituent, Fernando Runco of Edmonton, who last month was awarded the 2014 Distinguished Principal of the Year Award. 
The 37-year-old principal from Katherine Therrien Catholic Elementary School in Edmonton—St. Albert was honoured by his peers from the Canadian Association of Principals. 
Principal Runco stood out for his ability to get students, parents and staff involved in the school, and his outstanding efforts to connect with parents and students. Mr. Runco has only been principal at Katherine Therrien for three years, but has clearly developed exemplary skills as a principal in that very short time.
In that time, Principal Runco has engaged the outside community, bringing in guest speakers and community leaders to mentor his students. He also employs multimedia and multigrade activities to enhance community within the school.
I would like to congratulate Principal Runco and the entire team at Katherine Therrien Catholic Elementary School for their dedication in educating our children, and their positive contribution to community building in northwest Edmonton.
Ontario ElectionMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is Friday the 13th, and only now are some Ontario voters waking up with the worst hangover of their lives. Ontarians now have four more years of pain and misery to look forward to with the return of the most financially incompetent, corrupt administration since the days of Bob Rae and “Pink Floyd”. 
Faced with four more years of out of control electricity bills, all of rural Ontario is mourning today with the prospect of the Toronto-centric Liberal high electricity rate policy that is causing high unemployment among our youth, and energy poverty among seniors and others on fixed incomes. 
Today in Ontario, electricity costs average over 15¢ per kilowatt hour, up from 4.3¢ in 2003. The increase in the past 10 years has averaged over 11% annually, and well above the cost of inflation. Electricity bills are scheduled to jump another 33% in the next three years, and 42% in the next five. 
The only thing saving Ontario residents from financial ruin is a strong, stable Conservative—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Shefford.
GranbyRéjean Genest: Mr. Speaker, Granby, halfway between Montreal and Sherbrooke, is in a strategic location both geography-wise and tourism-wise. Granby is a vibrant city and a wonderful place for tourists to visit. 
This easily accessible city has the Granby Zoo, the Amazoo aquatic park, the beach at Parc national de la Yamaska, the Festival international de la chanson de Granby, more than 80 parks and fountains, many cycling trails, some of the most beautiful campgrounds in Quebec, a number of golf courses, just as many renowned restaurants, and I could go on. These are exactly the kinds of things you are looking for on a family vacation. Granby also offers agri-tourism activities, shopping, sports and recreational activities.
Granby is a city to discover. We look forward to welcoming you in large numbers this summer.
Trinity Western University School of LawMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the decisions made by the Law Societies of Upper Canada, Nova Scotia and British Columbia regarding the Trinity Western University School of Law are not right. They go against the Canadian values of the right to free thought and belief. Tolerance cannot and should not be used as an excuse to persecute others' deeply held beliefs.
 The Trinity Western community promotes religious values and has policies that reflect those values. It is a tragic irony hat these law societies discriminate against Trinity Western University with the express intent of promoting tolerance. It is blatant hypocrisy.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought, and the freedom of expression. It is against the public interest to deny future lawyers the freedom to hold and express those core values, values these associations are supposed to uphold and defend.
Philippine Independence DayKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, I participated in a flag-raising ceremony at the Philippine culture centre in Winnipeg. It signalled the beginning of a week-long celebration of Filipino heritage and pride. 
It was on June 12, 1898, in Cavite, where the Filipino people witnessed the public reading of the Declaration of Independence. The national flag was also unveiled, along with the singing of the new Filipino national anthem. 
Yesterday, our Canada-Philippines Parliamentary Friendship Group hosted a special event to mark the importance of June 12. I especially enjoyed seeing the young children dressed in their heritage attire. 
The Philippines is a beautiful country, a place where I have been on many occasions. My desire is to see an expanded relationship between Philippines and Canada. 
As MPs representing all areas of Canada, I would challenge this chamber to not only recognize the many achievements and contributions that the Filipino community has made to our great nation, but to also encourage members to consider the potential if we were to build upon that relationship. 
On behalf of the leader of my party and my caucus, I stand to acknowledge 116 years of Philippine independence, and say to my kabayans and friends, let us celebrate our diversity and treasure our heritage.
Menachem Mendel SchneersonMr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, July 1 marks the 20th anniversary of the death of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, known by the Chabad Lubavitch movement as the “Rebbe”.
Chabad Lubavitch is a Chasidic movement founded in a shtetl in Russia in 1775. Today the Chabad movement has over 4,000 centres in over 50 countries around the world running community centres, day schools, summer camps, synagogues, drug rehabilitation centres, soup kitchens, and halfway homes. The activities of Chabad are open to all, regardless of race, colour, or religion.
 During his time as the Rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson's love, wisdom, and tireless leadership motivated millions around the world to positively contribute toward a better and gentler world. As we mark 20 years since his passing, let us all pledge to carry on his legacy and reflect on his message of kindness and goodness, thereby bringing more light and warmth to the world around us.
May his legacy carry on for many years to come. Alev ha shalom, Rebbe.
Forestry IndustryMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian forestry industry employs about 600,000 people across the country and is the most important business sector to the economies of many communities, including many aboriginal communities. In my riding, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, more than 5,000 families make a living from the forestry industry
In Quebec and the rest of Canada, people count on the government to take the necessary measures to ensure the sustainability and development of the forestry industry. 
That is why I recently moved a motion that proposes that the government work with the provinces, territories and first nations to develop a national strategy to advance Canada’s forestry sector. The purpose of Motion No. 518 is to create good jobs and develop our forests in a responsible and sustainable way. 
We must also find ways of diversifying and promoting wood-based products, developing building systems and expanding markets for Canadian wood products. 
That is why I hope that all members of this House will support my motion and the Canadian forestry industry.
Très-Sainte-Trinité de Rockland ParishMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to congratulate the Très-Sainte-Trinité de Rockland parish on its 125th anniversary.
I am also lucky to be joining the clergy and the parishioners for a mass and consecration this weekend. 
I also want to acknowledge the important historical presence of this community of believers in the Rockland region. Founded in 1889 as a francophone Catholic parish, the church is a spiritual home and an important gathering place for the region's faithful.
I know that generations of believers and clergy in Rockland have worked hard and made lots of sacrifices to build this sacred place. We are blessed to be able to see the fruits of their labour now, 125 years later. 
Once again, I would like to congratulate the Très-Sainte-Trinité parishioners and their priest.
Birthday CongratulationsMr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to offer my heartfelt congratulations to a great Canadian World War II hero, my constituent, Mr. Anthony Bartoszewicz, who is celebrating a milestone on Sunday when he will become 100 years young.
Born in Siemiany, Poland, on June 15, 1914, he experienced the Bolshevik war as a young boy. As a young man, Tony served active duty during the Second World War and rose to the level of colonel. Coming to Canada in 1947, Tony worked hard in the prairies before moving his family to Ontario. He still cuts the grass and manages his own home.
This evening there is a special celebration at the Cooksville Legion where Mr. Bartoszewicz regularly attends the Friday evening dinners.
As Mr. Bartoszewicz shares this incredible milestone with his wife, Loretta, along with his three children, nine grandchildren, and fifteen great-grandchildren, may he find happiness in the many memories of these moments spent together.
Congratulations, Tony. Sto Lat.
Father's DayMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is Father's Day, so I would like to take a moment today to wish a happy Father's Day to all of the fathers in our lives.
I am thinking about all my colleagues in the House who have to balance their work as an MP and being a father. We know that it is not always easy.
I am thinking about my staff in Louis-Saint-Laurent: Yves has five beautiful children and many grandchildren already, and Boris is a new dad who could not be more proud of his beautiful little girl.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will be able to celebrate with George and Molly on Sunday.
Of course, I am especially thinking about my father, Germain, who has always been a positive force in my life. My father was there for my sister, brother and me, but he was also there for hundreds of children in need at the youth centres where he worked as a psychoeducator during his career.
Mr. Speaker, my father taught me to be a better person and to do the right thing. Even more importantly, he taught me never to judge others and to always have an open heart and acknowledge the kindness of those around me.
Dad, I love you. When I dream about angels tonight, you will be in the front row.
Happy Father's Day.
InfrastructureMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past Monday, my colleagues the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the member of Parliament for Saskatoon—Humboldt made an important announcement for the city of Saskatoon and surrounding area. The Government of Canada will invest $66 million through the P3 Canada fund for the replacement of Saskatoon's 107-year-old traffic bridge and the development of a new bridge crossing in Saskatoon's north end. Once the parkway and two bridges are opened, traffic congestion will be reduced, making travel times shorter and resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality.
This project is a great example of how our government is working with municipalities and the private sector, not only in Saskatchewan but all across Canada, to reduce procurement and overhead costs, to the benefit of all taxpayers.
I would like to congratulate His Worship, Don Atchison, Saskatoon City Council, and the staff at city hall who all worked diligently on this proposal.
Grand Chief Stan LouttitMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart I rise today to pay tribute to a personal friend and a great leader, Grand Chief Stan Louttit of the Mushkegowuk Cree.
He was tireless in his dedication to transforming the lives of the James Bay people, indeed all first nation people across Canada. He was passionate about issues like education, health care, economic development, and above all, treaty rights.
Stan was born on his family's hunting territory out at Lake River, north of Attawapiskat. His grandfather signed Treaty 9. He was rooted in the culture and the history of the people there, and he was a relentless advocate for holding Canada to account to live up to the commitments it made when it signed the treaty. Even as he was becoming increasingly sick, he was still active on so many files.
 Stan loved music, storytelling, and yes, even the Montreal Canadiens. I even cheered for the Habs one season, just to make him happy.
I was deeply honoured to know Stan Louttit. Go to the angels, Stan. You served your people and this country with honour and dignity and vision.
Veterans AffairsMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government works very hard to ensure that Canada's veterans have access to the benefits they deserve and need.
I would like to share a recent example that a member of the Canadian Air Force shared with us. He had been receiving veteran's benefits for over 13 years. He used the toll-free number to access the benefits and services. While he did that, he received instant approval for counselling, no questions asked. He then went on and was provided with a list of counsellors. This particular veteran was very impressed and satisfied with the ease with which he was able to access these services in this particular request.
I am very proud of the services our government is delivering for veterans. I also want to congratulate the veterans affairs committee on a recent unanimous report with recommendations to help us move forward to continue to do the work we must do for our veterans.
Ontario ElectionMr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it turns out that reports of the death of liberalism in Canada have been greatly exaggerated. Yesterday, Ontarians went to the polls and voted for the Ontario Liberal Party's plan for investment in much-needed transportation infrastructure and more accessible education for Ontario's children, from full-day kindergarten to assistance for college and university students.
They voted for jobs, not cuts, a robust health care system, and filling the gap to ensure that Ontarians across the province are better prepared for retirement, something this federal government refuses to do. It is a win-win, and while some did not think Kathleen Wynne would be elected Ontario's first female premier, we never had a doubt.
Running for office is not an easy task, so I want to take a moment to not only congratulate those who won their races yesterday but to also congratulate every Ontarian who was courageous enough to put their name on the ballot for what they believe in.
I am sure this whole House will join me today in welcoming Ontario's strong, stable, majority Liberal government.
AgricultureMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier today Canadians were once again forced to witness another New Democratic Party filibuster on Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act. In the many times our government has brought this bill forward, the NDP has used every trick in the book to block its passage.
What benefits are the NDP preventing farmers from receiving? One, the NDP is preventing the explicit right to save seed on the farm, a right farmers currently do not have. Second, the NDP is preventing access to new and innovative seeds that will allow farmers to plant and harvest better-yielding crops. Third, the NDP is preventing modern farm inputs, like fertilizers and feeds, that will increase farm profitability. Fourth, the NDP is standing in the way of an expanded advance payments program with less red tape and bureaucracy, which will save farmers time and money.
The NDP do not have to take my word for it. Let this bill get to committee and let us hear from farmers. What is the NDP afraid of?
Conservative Party of CanadaMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the history, with a capital “H” of the Conservative Party is fraught with corruption and dirty money. These revelations were made by Jean-Yves Lortie, the “man with the briefcase”, who spent at least $20 million to corrupt Conservative politicians. At a Conservative convention, he spent no less than $500,000 in cash, in part provided by none other than Karlheinz Schreiber, to promote Brian Mulroney's leadership bid.
 This man who invented turnkey elections, that famous strategy scrutinized by the Charbonneau commission, proudly served the former Conservative leader. 
We can see who the Conservatives hang around with. Yesterday, it was suitcases filled with cash, charter flights and all-expenses-paid trips to go to vote at a convention. In 2011, it was robocalls, to prevent people from voting, or tricks like the in-and-out scandal to circumvent the laws and election spending limits.
Today, we have the reform of the Elections Act, which will give their party an edge in the next elections, and a kangaroo court to unfairly attack the NDP. The years come and go and the methods change, but the Conservatives are just as crooked. Canadians deserve better.
EthicsMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a former senior Liberal cabinet minister and member of Parliament, and mayor of London, Ontario, Joe Fontana, has been found guilty of several serious offences in relation to his time in office. Former Liberal cabinet minister Fontana has been found guilty of breach of trust by a public official, fraud under $5,000, and forging documents. All of these charges stem from a $1,700 expense he filed with a doctored wedding contract for his son's wedding while serving as a federal Liberal MP and cabinet minister. Fontana admitted at the trial that he altered a Marconi Club contract that he had helped negotiate for his son's wedding reception. He then submitted it as an expense to cover a political reception in February 2005 for the member for Wascana, who was supposed to visit London.
These types of actions by an elected official are completely disgusting and disturbing and have no place at any level of government. We hope the former Liberal cabinet minister will apologize to the taxpayers of London and those across Canada whose tax dollars he gravely misused.

Oral Questions
Natural ResourcesMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there are only a few days left for the Conservative government to make a decision on the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline. First nations have not been properly consulted. Community after community along the route have rejected this proposal, and two-thirds of all British Columbians say they do not want it.
B.C. Conservative MPs have an opportunity to side with British Columbians, listen to the people who elected them and who say “no” to this project. Will Conservatives do the right thing and say “no” to this pipeline that is risky for the environment and for the economy? Will they say “no” to northern gateway?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times this week, we are carefully reviewing this report and a decision will be forthcoming. 
What I wonder is if that member and his party will say “yes” to paying back the $1.7 million they owe taxpayers.
PrivacyPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, Conservative incompetence has reached a new high. This morning, the Supreme Court ruled what the NDP and privacy experts had been warning all along, that allowing police to pull private information from telephone companies without warrant was unconstitutional. Yet the Conservatives are steamrolling ahead with Bill C-13, which also allows unconstitutional spying on Canadians.
 With yet another bill struck down by the Supreme Court, when will the Conservatives finally take a balanced approach that keeps Canadians secure without infringing on constitutional rights?
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have just received the decision and we will review it. In addition, we will continue to crack down on cyberbullies and online criminals who work against and make our children and all Canadians unsafe. We will keep Canadians safe.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court unanimously reminded the Conservatives yet again that they cannot circumvent the law and do whatever they want with Canadians' privacy.
The police need a warrant to obtain personal information from telecommunications companies. This latest defeat is yet more evidence of the Conservatives' unconstitutional approach.
Will the Conservatives amend their electronic surveillance bills to comply with the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we just received the decision and we will review it. We always respect the work of the court. We will continue to crack down on cyberbullies and online criminals to keep children and vulnerable communities safe in Canada.
Social DevelopmentMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians do not have access to disability benefits because of the Conservatives' mismanagement. Some people have been waiting over a year to appear before the Social Security Tribunal because there are not enough umpires.
At this rate, even if the tribunal did not receive any new cases, it would take nine years for it to catch up. That is unacceptable.
Does the minister think it is acceptable for people to die before they receive the benefits they are entitled to?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tribunal started its operations on April 1, 2013, and received higher than anticipated caseloads from the legacy tribunals. These income security legacy cases are all deemed ready to proceed as of April 1, 2014, according to the regulations. The SST is giving top priority to these legacy cases.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, the Income Security Section has just 35 umpires and has a backlog of 3,700 cases. When the Conservative government phased out the 1,000 part-time umpires, the crisis worsened. The least fortunate are once again the first victims of this government's negligence and mismanagement.
What emergency measures will this government take to fix this massive boondoggle at the Social Security Tribunal?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Social Security Tribunal is dealing with these legacy cases that were left over from previous tribunals. We have taken steps to ensure that we are aligned in this process from coast to coast to coast so we can have consistency in the decisions that are made. 
However, when it comes to bungling and incompetence, why do the New Democrats not pay back the money they took from Canadian taxpayers to fund their campaign offices across the country and also for flyers sent to many ridings, illegally using taxpayer money for partisan purposes.
Public Works and Government ServicesMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse by telling us that its F-35 panel of four has blessed the DND evaluation process. The problem is that it is still the same old DND evaluation process based on the same mission requirements that were written so that only the F-35 could be chosen. Therefore, nothing has really changed.
 When will the government initiate a proper procurement on behalf of all Canadians?
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, several reports have been received by the government, including that from the independent panel of experts. The government is reviewing these reports in terms of the overall defence capabilities and the benefits to Canadian industry, and, importantly, the total life cycle costs.
When that analysis is completed, an announcement will be made to the Canadian public.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in other words, nothing has changed. This situation is still a fiasco. The Conservatives are announcing that the process was impartial to hide the fact that it is just as biased as it was before.
The specifications for the replacement of the CF-18 are such that there could be only one winner, the F-35. The matter was over before it even began.
When will the government do its job in a competent, transparent and impartial manner?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the government has received several reports, including that from the independent panel of experts. The government is reviewing these reports in terms of the defence capabilities, the total life cycle costs and the benefits to Canadian industry. 
When the government has assessed the options, an announcement will be made. We will ensure that our air force has the equipment it needs to do its job.
EmploymentHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's job market has not just stalled, it is going in reverse. Last year we lost 27,000 net full-time jobs, but we can turn this around. 
David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, says that we should take advantage of low interest rates and our pension fund strength to invest in and fix infrastructure. He says that the better infrastructure would make Canada more competitive and productive.
Will the Conservatives listen to David Dodge? Will the Conservatives reverse their cuts to infrastructure spending? Will they create good, full-time jobs for Canadians?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government is more concerned than any other government about the importance of economic growth across this land. That is why we are making record investments in infrastructure. 
The new building Canada plan is open for business, with over $53 billion of funding over the next decade, stable and predictable funding. Through this funding, we will work with our partners, the municipalities and the provinces, to renew our infrastructure and create jobs. 
We are getting the job done.
Foreign AffairsMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the violence in Iraq is growing. Aid groups are warning of a looming crisis that will spin out of control. 
This week half a million people fled Mosul after a heavily armed terrorist group took over the city. Iraq is already struggling to provide aid to 200,000 Syrian refugees, and funding is running low right now.
What is the government doing to help with the crisis? Specifically, what concrete steps is it taking to help with the refugee crisis?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada is very concerned about the rise in terrorism in Iraq. We stand in solidarity with the Iraqi government and the people as terrorists occupy parts of the country. Canada condemns all acts of terrorism. We extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those affected by this horrific violence.
We call for restraint on the use of force in populated areas. We call on all parties to refrain from targeting civilians and to protect medical facilities.
Citizenship and ImmigrationPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we need a lot more than just words on this file. 
The refugee situation next door in Syria is spinning out of control. It is one of the worst humanitarian crises in the last two decades. Almost three million Syrians have fled their homes, half of whom are children. Canadians want to know what their government is doing to help these families.
Will the government tell Canadians how many government sponsored refugees are here in Canada?
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is the fourth largest donor of humanitarian aid to Syria in the world. 
Canada continues to have one of the most generous immigration and refugee systems in the world. We welcome one out of every ten resettled refugees globally, more than any other industrialized country in the world.
Since the start of the Syrian conflict, Canada has provided protection to more than 1,100 Syrians. Members opposite should reflect on that record and be proud of what our government is doing.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was unable to give a clear answer, just like the day before, when he hung up on an interviewer.
The minister is unable to say how many Syrian refugees are in Canada right now, and when he does give answers, they are contradicted by the Syrian Canadian Council.
Can the minister tell us how many government-sponsored refugees are physically in Canada right now?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, on May 28, the minister met with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, and highlighted how Canada was working to assist the world's most vulnerable populations. 
Since the start of the Syrian conflict, Canada has provided protection to more than 1,100 Syrians. Moreover, we are committed to resettling 1,300 Syrians by the end of 2014, and we are on track to do that. 
PrivacyÈve Péclet: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives have rejected almost all the opposition's amendments to Bill C-13 on cyberbullying.
This morning, the Supreme Court rebuffed the Conservatives again. The court unanimously ruled that a warrant is required in order to obtain a client's IP address from Internet providers. This casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of their Bill C-13. 
Why did the Conservatives not agree to the NDP's request to await the Supreme Court ruling before moving forward with the clause-by-clause study of their bill?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, we always respect the work of the court and appreciate its work. We have just received the decision and we will take the time to review it properly.
 However, we will continue to crack down on cyberbullies and online criminals who work against the best interests and safety of children and vulnerable people in Canada. 
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Supreme Court reminded the Conservatives that they cannot make up rules when it suits them.
The right to privacy and the protection of personal information are very important concerns for Canadians. The way in which the government rejects these concerns is unacceptable.
In light of this morning's ruling, will the government finally accept the NDP's request to split Bill C-13 in two, so that the provisions that constitute serious violations of privacy are taken out of the bill? This must be done so that victims of cyberbullying can quickly obtain justice.
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 has been extensively studied, as the member will know, both in committee and in the House of Commons. We have had 12 hours of debate in the House of Commons and 22 hours of study and extensive evidence from all witnesses and all experts on all sides of the issue. 
We respect the work of the court, but we will continue to crack down on cyberbullies and online criminals to protect children and all Canadians. 
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, today's Supreme Court ruling is another setback to the government's reckless and unbalanced tough on crime agenda. Legal experts and the New Democrats told the government all along that allowing authorities to spy on Canadians without a warrant was not constitutional. Now the Supreme Court has released a ruling that shows the government's warrantless access legislation is just not going to cut it. 
Rather than picking another fight with the Supreme Court, will the government do the right thing, go back to the drawing board and respect the constitutional rights of Canadians to privacy?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want us to protect children. They want us to protect all people who use the Internet and could be abused by cyberbullies who hide behind the anonymity of the Internet.
We will review the decision of the Supreme Court and determine the best course of action. In the meantime, we will continue to protect Canadians against online criminals. 
Aboriginal AffairsCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to believe it is there to protect children, but the government seems to have two kinds of victims. 
Let us talk about the government's treatment of the survivors of St. Anne's Residential School. It presented hearings with a false evidence narrative. It suppressed thousands of pages of police evidence relating to the abuse of these children. It was in an Ontario court this week, again, for obstructing a ruling where the judge said that it had denied these survivors access to justice. 
Why does the government use its enormous legal power to go after people whose only crime is that they were first nation children and subjected to horrific criminal abuse in a government institution?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our government will continue to receive and disclose the documents through the process that was agreed to by all parties. 
The hon. member refers to a matter that is presently before the court. Out of respect for our court system, I will not make further comment. 
Social DevelopmentMr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are turning their backs on disabled Canadians across the country and gutting services that people rely on. Thousands of Canadians who have been denied disability benefits are still waiting for a hearing. As of last April, there were 1,000 fewer referees who were hearing appeals. The tribunal now has a backlog of 10,000 cases, and only managed to hear 348 appeals last year.
It is a great example of the Conservatives breaking something that did not need fixing. Why did the Conservatives create a tribunal that was designed to fail?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure. We fixed a problem because we wanted to make sure that there was consistency among decisions from coast to coast to coast. Now, with the new Social Security Tribunal, we do have a case of backlogs that were left from the previous legacy tribunals. These are being cleared. As of April 1, 2014, these cases are now being heard. We are going to clear up the backlog.
Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, actually, the problem has not been fixed.
The Conservatives have no problem sticking their hands in our pockets, but things get complicated when it is time to pay people the benefits they are due. 
Consider how hard it is to collect the guaranteed income supplement or the disability tax credit. The poorest are always the first to suffer at the hands of the Conservative government.
What will the government do to fix the problem at the Social Security Tribunal and to ensure that those who contributed to the pension plan receive the disability benefits they are entitled to?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the SST and the government are committed to providing fair, credible, and impartial appeal processes in a timely manner to those people who apply. The SST is an independent administrative tribunal. It operates at arm's length from the department. 
The department and the SST are now putting these legacy cases at the top of the priority list. We are going to clear up that backlog.
Natural ResourcesKirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the government claims that the northern gateway will only be approved if it is “safe for Canadians and safe for the environment”. When the joint review panel examined the northern gateway project, it clearly said “the project would cause adverse environmental effects, after mitigation, on a number of valued ecosystems...”.
My question is very simple. Does the minister agree with the finding of the JRP, and, if so, will he commit to rejecting the northern gateway?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, our government relies on independent regulatory review boards to make recommendations based on science. We are proud of the work that they do in ensuring that projects are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. As we have said, we are reviewing their report, and we will make a decision in the days ahead.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the review also said clearly that if there was an oil spill off of the B.C. coast, “there would be significant adverse effects on lands, waters, or resources used by residents, communities, and Aboriginal groups”.
It went on to say that local populations and species could be permanently affected by a spill. I ask the minister again, does he agree with the finding of the JRP? If so, will he commit to rejecting the northern gateway?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, as we have said, the joint review panel has submitted its report on the proposed project to the government. We are carefully reviewing this report, and a decision will be forthcoming.
Citizenship and ImmigrationFrank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration continues to stand by his degrading comments about the loyalty of immigrants who arrived in Canada after 1977. By smearing generations of newcomers and talking about cheapened Canadian citizenship, he is creating different classes of Canadians. Many of the people that he is deliberately insulting are doctors, architects, shop owners, and legislators, among so many hard-working and contributing members of Canadian society.
Will he stand and apologize for his despicable comments, or do he and the Conservatives stand by his slur?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, Canadians take pride in their Canadian citizenship. We are taking action by reforming the Canadian Citizenship Act. They are the first comprehensive changes to the act since 1977. The minister said nothing of the sort that the member is alluding to. 
When my parents came here in the mid-fifties, there was a five-year requirement. People had to be in Canada for five years before they could apply for their Canadian citizenship. In 1977, the Trudeau-led Liberals reduced that to three years. I would argue that is what cheapened it.
Public Works and Government ServicesMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, it came as no surprise yesterday, when we learned from the panel on the replacement of Canada's fighter fleet, that the decision would be a political one.
However, we also know that the acquisition will be based on a document that is out of date and almost entirely unfunded, the Canada first defence strategy.
Would the government tell us why it is not using this stale strategy for the rest of the Department of National Defence's planning, but it thinks it is fine for the F-35s?
Bernard Trottier:  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the government has received a report from the independent panel of experts, including several other reports that it is reviewing right now. It is looking at the different options in terms of defence capabilities, benefits to Canadian industry, and finally life-cycle costs. These are all important factors.
What is really important, though, is that the men and women in uniform have the equipment that they need to defend Canada and to participate in missions with our allies.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, days come and go, and still the Conservatives refuse to answer our questions. We still have no guarantee about the industrial benefits of buying the F-35s.
The report from the independent review panel has yet to be made public. Government members have it in their hands. If it contained good news, they would not hesitate to talk about it at every opportunity.
What is in the report? When will it be made public?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the government has received a report from the independent panel of experts. There are several other reports. Many of them are available on the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat's website. I invite the member to take a look. 
Meanwhile, the decision will be based on the benefits to Canadian industry, as she said. We will also look at life cycle costs.
What is really important, though, is knowing what the Canadian Forces need to protect Canada and participate in missions with our allies.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's report on the fighter jet replacements was clear: the decision, regardless of what it is, will be made by the ministers alone. Public officials did the work and now the final decision is in the hands of the Conservatives. This will be a political decision, period.
However, the only way to get the best jet at the best price and to guarantee industrial benefits is to proceed with an open and transparent bidding process. 
Why are the Conservatives going to make a political decision instead of letting competition do its job?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, the member is completely wrong. The decision will be based on the needs of our military, but what is even more important is that it will be made on the basis of what equipment the Canadian Forces need to protect Canada. That is what matters most at the end of the day. This includes participation in foreign missions.
This decision will be made. We do not need any lectures from the member's party.
LabourMathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, we will see.
Cascade Aerospace, in B.C., does maintenance work for our military transport on search and rescue planes, but now Cascade is asking for huge concessions from its workers. Even worse, it is bringing scabs into a labour dispute.
 Would the government sit down with Cascade Aerospace and ask it to take its demand for a two-tier contract off the table? 
Does the minister not agree that the maintenance and upkeep of our Hercules aircraft, and other search and rescue aircraft, is too important to be put on the line by these bullying tactics?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to safe and fair labour practices. Of course, if anyone has any concerns in terms of practice, they do have the ability to make reference to the Industrial Relations Board. We have no intention of making any changes to our regulations at this time.
International TradeBob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, our government continues to advance the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. In March, the Prime Minister and the president of South Korea announced the conclusion of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. The agreement is a landmark achievement. It is Canada's first free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific, which is one of the fastest-growing and most dynamic regions in the world.
Would the hard-working Minister of International Trade advise this House on the next step in implementing this important free trade agreement, which would help create jobs and opportunities?
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his keen interest on the trade file. Three months ago, our government was pleased to conclude free trade negotiations with South Korea. This is Canada's first trade agreement in Asia. It would provide Canadian exporters and investors with a gateway into the larger Asian marketplace.
Yesterday, in this House, I tabled the complete text of the trade agreement.
Our Conservative government continues to focus on the priorities of Canadians by delivering on the most ambitious trade plan in Canada's history.
Public SafetyMr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness justified his inaction in terms of the management of the airspace over provincial prisons by saying that, at the time, he did not want to deal with a separatist government.
Separatist government or not, it seems to me that the Conservatives should have done something, since Quebec asked the federal government to take action to prevent prison breaks. When will the minister impose a permanent no-fly zone over provincial prisons?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to let the member opposite know, the Government of Quebec did in fact receive a response, so his allegations are completely false.
Let us talk for a moment about a no-fly zone and what exactly that would do. We are talking about a helicopter that illegally landed in the middle of a prison courtyard, illegally picked up escaped convicts who were waiting to be picked up, and then removed them from that facility.
We are talking about multiple crimes here. I hardly think that a no-fly zone would stop a helicopter from landing because I do not think the operator was concerned about getting a ticket.
Tarik Brahmi: Usually criminals do things illegally, Mr. Speaker.
The minister said that he discussed ways of improving penitentiary security with his Quebec counterpart. Can the minister tell us what concrete measures he is going to take to prevent any more helicopter-assisted prison breaks, which are obviously illegal?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to remind the member that this is a provincial jail under provincial jurisdiction. Of course our government is working with the Quebec government on this issue, and of course we also expect that the criminals responsible for the escape and those who did escape should be found and put behind bars, where they belong.
HousingRuth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Justice Michel Richard of the Superior Court made his decision on the class action suit filed by homeowners affected by pyrrhotite. The NDP has repeatedly asked the government to change concrete standards in order to prevent another such tragedy. The Conservatives keep refusing. 
In his decision, the judge wrote that the standards have to be adjusted. Can the government commit to respecting this decision?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, as we have heard before, the regulations around pyrrhotite are controlled by the provincial level of government, so I would ask the member opposite to refer her questions to the Quebec government.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, the pyrrhotite problem is a serious one. It is quite troubling to see the Conservatives refuse to assume their responsibilities. Homes in the greater Mauricie region are ruined. Families have to cover the very high cost of these renovations.
It is not just the NDP calling on the government to do something about this. A judge is ordering the government to take action. Will the Conservatives respect the court ruling and update the standards?
Scott Armstrong: It is the same question, Mr. Speaker, and it will receive the same answer. This is under the regulation and jurisdiction of the provincial level of government, so I would suggest that the member opposite take these concerns to the provincial government of Quebec.
PrivacyHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was another Supreme Court decision this morning, this one telling the Government of Canada that it cannot request telecoms companies to provide information on citizens without a warrant. In layman's terms, it means that spying on Canadians without a warrant is illegal.
Beyond Bill C-13 and its misdirection, we know that the Government Operations Centre has ordered all departments to report on any and all demonstrations within their jurisdictions. These are not illegal demonstrations. 
Will the government suspend that directive to spy on Canadians through the Government Operations Centre immediately?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, we always respect the work of the Supreme Court, and we will take the opportunity to review the decision.
However, what parents have told us, what victims have told us, what victims organizations have told us, and what all Canadians have told us, is that they want legislation that will protect Canadians from online criminals, and that is what we will do.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I know sometimes the members on the government side do not hear criticism really well.
 We are talking about the Government Operations Centre and its directive to look at all the demonstrations in Canada and compile data on those demonstrations. What is the government doing with that information?
 If farmers are out there demonstrating in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board, does it compile that data? When it gets that data, does it threaten to cut off their agristability? What about public servants demonstrating against job cuts? Does it compile that information? Will it cease and desist?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this question half a dozen times in the House. 
Let us take a look at what a protester rally is. The people who are in the protester rally are there. The spectators or the people who walk by them are aware of the situation. In fact, many times the media shows up. Of course, once the media shows up, it is across national television and it is on the Internet. Not only are the protesters, the people watching the protesters, Canadians and people all around the world aware of this protest, but suddenly someone in the government is aware of this and those members think it is a public safety concern and a privacy issue. Give me a break.
The EnvironmentLinda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Alberta has announced a $30 million program to incent home energy retrofits and the potential for solar installations, which is good news for families whose energy bills are on the rise. This also responds to Albertan calls for deeper action on climate change and the health impacts of fossil fuels.
 Energy retrofit and solar installation projects would create well-paying jobs across our nation's communities, but the Conservatives axed the federal program. Will the government take real action to address growing family debt and reinstate the federal eco-energy home energy retrofit program?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the fact that Canada relies on non-emitting sources for more than three-quarters of our electricity mix. In fact, the International Energy Agency rated Canada second in energy efficiency improvements between 1990 and 2010. 
Our government will continue to invest in Canadian companies that develop innovative and sustainable technologies.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government could check that. The majority of electricity in Alberta comes from coal power.
The Conservatives malign U.S. efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, yet we remain way behind our neighbours in reducing energy costs for the federal government.
 In 2005, the U.S. passed a law imposing mandatory energy reductions and renewable power targets for all federal departments. Even George Bush enacted an energy security law for Americans. Where is the parallel and long-promised Canadian clean energy strategy, or was it deep-sixed with the demise of Bruce Carson?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a leader in the environment. What Canadians need to know is that we only account for less than 2% of global greenhouse gases. For this reason, Canada supports the international agreement on climate change that includes real action by all emitters.
In the meantime, our government is doing our part by taking action to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada. Since 2006, we invested significant funds in more efficient technologies, better infrastructure adaptation and cleaner energy. We have done it without a $20 billion carbon tax.
We are protecting the environment. Canadians want us—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Brant.
EthicsMr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as Canadian taxpayers found out this week, 1,800,000 first-class stamps do add up. The NDP found out that it was responsible to repay $1.17 million to Canada Post for abusing and misusing its MP mailing privileges.
Canadians want to know that MPs are respecting taxpayer money. Could the chief government whip tell us what steps are being taken to ensure there is accountability in the House?
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have led the way in ensuring transparency and accountability. We are the only party that has been posting our MP travel and hospitality expenses fully and voluntarily since last October. We will continue to be transparent and respect taxpayers.
On the other hand, the New Democrats have refused to post their travel and hospitality expenses from the beginning. They have refused to be transparent and they have refused to be accountable. Now they are refusing to pay Canadians back for what they owe the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.
Regional DevelopmentMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period in response to a question, the Minister of Transport said that she will work with Mayor Cecil Clarke to help out the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. 
So far, the Conservative government has walked away from its commitment to Mayor Clarke to provide fifty-cent dollars on municipal infrastructure projects. It has cut 160 EI processing jobs in his backyard, shut down the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, run away from the MV Miner, and shut down the Veterans Affairs office in Sydney.
Cape Bretoners want to know: is the minister working with Mayor Clarke, or is she just working him over?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that our government is committed to supporting economic development in Cape Breton and throughout Atlantic Canada. 
The hon. member went off on several issues there, but on ACOA, we maintain the office in Sydney. The minister has also directed ACOA staff to re-staff the office in Port Hawkesbury in order to better assist entrepreneurs, local economic development organizations and community leaders in Cape Breton.
Public Works and Government ServicesMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that the construction of the Quebec City covered ice rink will be delayed. 
The minister committed to paying for one-third of the cost of construction. She promised us that the old building Canada fund would make the project possible.
Now they are telling us that the money might no longer be available.
Did the minister carry over the money earmarked for the ice rink this year, and will she commit to delivering the federal money that was promised until the project is complete?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, our government is determined to provide the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard with the equipment they need and to provide taxpayers with the best value for money.
Many companies, including the Davie shipyard, will be able to participate in our national strategy and in these contracts. 
Canadian HeritageMr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Aquarium is a jewel in Stanley Park. Millions from around the world have come to visit this world-class facility, which is dedicated to the conservation of aquatic life and to education and research.
Today is the grand opening of the newly renovated Vancouver Aquarium. This project has added 55,000 square feet of high-tech exploratory space. It is the most ambitious project ever undertaken by the aquarium. It vastly improves the habitats of more than 50,000 fish and animals. 
Can the minister please update this House on how this important project will help the Vancouver economy as well as the province of British Columbia?
Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the member for Nanaimo—Alberni from the great province of British Columbia for that question.
Today in the heart of Stanley Park, local residents joined our government and the Province of B.C. to celebrate the completion of extensive renovations to the Vancouver Aquarium, which hosts over one million visitors per year. 
These renovations will help maintain the aquarium's reputation as a world-class leader in aquatic research and as an international destination, providing hundreds of local jobs and generating over $100 million annually for the local economy.
Through the Vancouver Aquarium's revitalization expansion, our government is showing its continued commitment to tourism, jobs, and the local economies of—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
Intergovernmental RelationsMr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on one hand, we have the Liberal and NDP leaders who are hiding under the robes of the Supreme Court justices to avoid having to acknowledge the merits of the Quebec bill that allows those who are suffering and close to death to die with dignity.
On the other hand, we have the Minister of Justice, who is fearmongering and threatening criminal action against Quebec doctors who obey Quebec law.
Quebec does not care about the minister's threats. It clearly stated that Quebec prosecutors would not prosecute doctors who obey Quebec law, which falls under health care.
Will the Minister of Justice stop using scare tactics and misleading Quebec doctors and Quebeckers who are terminally ill?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, Parliament dealt with exactly that issue four years ago. It was defeated with votes from members of all parties in this House. The government has no intention of reopening that issue in this session of Parliament.
Brent Rathgeber: Mr. Speaker, economists from the Bank of Montreal this week reported that the Alberta economy is in a league of its own and that more, not fewer, temporary foreign workers are required. 
However, given higher unemployment rates in other regions of the country and the Conservative government's lack of political will to provide meaningful reforms to the temporary foreign worker program that will allow employers who play by the rules access to the program, will the government take the Alberta labour minister up on his offer to devolve responsibility for the temporary foreign worker program in Alberta to the Alberta government?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the temporary foreign worker program is to provide workers for employers who cannot find available Canadians in areas of acute labour shortage in certain regions and certain sectors.
The minister has already made several indications that he is going to make new announcements to tighten up this situation to ensure that all employers follow the rules and always offer the jobs to Canadians first before they approach temporary foreign workers.
JusticeBrent Rathgeber: Mr. Speaker, the government claims that Bill C-36 would keep sex workers immune from prosecution except at or near where children are present. However, when it comes to child prostitutes, they are not only reasonably expected to be present wherever the child is selling sex, but a child is in fact present. 
Does the government seriously intend to prosecute the most marginalized and most exploited members involved in this trade, the child prostitutes?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, through Bill C-36, the government is balancing the interests of protecting vulnerable Canadians and minors and our communities. Bill C-36 shows compassion toward those trapped in this awful practice. It would also crack down on those responsible for exploiting the persons who are trapped in this industry. That is what Canadians want us to do, and that is what Bill C-36 would do.

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 31 petitions.
Rouge National Urban Park ActBernard Valcourt:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseBob Dechert:  Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.
The committee has studied the bill, and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
The committee has studied the bill, and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities entitled “Interim Report on Rail Safety Review”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comments regarding the majority report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that was just tabled.
We studied rail transportation of dangerous goods and safety management systems. I would like to thank all the witnesses who took the time to come and share their views, as well as the Library of Parliament analysts who worked extremely hard so that we could produce a well-balanced report.
We will nevertheless be tabling a supplementary report to differentiate our way of doing things from that of the Liberals and Conservatives, who let things go and allow rail companies to self-regulate. We addressed such issues as inspections, audits, violations, exemptions, better planning, emergency preparedness and safety management systems. There is a full explanation in the supplementary report, and I invite all members to read it.
Foreign Lobbying Transparency ActCheryl Gallant:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-618, An Act to amend the Lobbying Act (reporting obligations).
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure on behalf of the people of my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the people of Canada to introduce this bill, an act to amend the Lobbying Act, to read as the foreign lobbying transparency act.
This legislation is all about following the dollar, in this case to foreign capitals with very un-Canadian agendas. 
I am proud to be Canadian. All Canadians have built something very special in this country. Any time there is a national discussion, Canadians have a right to know whose voice is being heard and why.
Canadians have been made very aware that foreigners have been secretly funding single or special interest groups whose lobbying efforts do not enjoy the support of regular hard-working Canadians. Many of these groups could not exist without foreign funding.
In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, thousands of hard-working Canadians depend on their livelihood from the working forest. Misinformation jeopardizes those jobs. Canadians have a right to know the sources of funding for those groups that seek to take away jobs from Canadians.
The foreign lobbyist transparency act would achieve financial transparency and improved accountability through the public reporting of payments made by foreigners to lobbyists.
I welcome the member for Scarborough—Guildwood to refer to this legislation as a sunshine bill.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve ActHon. Tim Uppal (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC):  moved that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada), be read the first time.
 (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time) 
Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActHon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is a propitious opportunity for me to provide the following notice to the House. I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-6, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill. 
Tougher Penalties for Child Predators ActPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the high risk child sex offender database act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill. 
Victims Bill of Rights ActPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights and to amend certain acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill. 
PetitionsKirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, violence against women is an abomination, yet in communities across Canada women and girls of all ages face violence every day. Violence against women and girls takes an incalculable human toll. Violence drives over 100,000 women and children out of their homes into shelters each year. In Canada, women continue to outnumber men nine to one as victims of assault by a partner or spouse. 
The petitioners call upon the government to work in partnership with the provinces, territories, and stakeholders to develop a national strategy and action plan to end violence against women and hold a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to table this petition on behalf of Development and Peace in Gatineau. This group is especially concerned about the actions of Canadian mining companies abroad. This petition calls on the government to create a legal ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, as we were hearing today in question period and on the news, people are gravely concerned about the situation in Syria. I have a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians, particularly in the region of Ottawa-Carleton, asking for the government to do more to help the Syrian refugees who are in camps in Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan. 
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I have today a series of petitions, petition after petition, from people in my riding and neighbouring ridings in northern New Brunswick demanding improved service from VIA Rail. My riding, members will remember, has absolutely no VIA Rail service whatsoever as of a few months ago. Northern New Brunswick almost lost VIA Rail service, but it still has only half the service it used to have. The petitioners absolutely insist that this service be re-established. 
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition from residents of Edmonton, who are concerned that Bill C-24 unfairly treats current Canadian permanent residents. I have met with a number of these signators, who are expressing concern with the longer wait times. They have diligently learned to speak English well, in some cases French, have even played hockey, and they think that this bill would treat them unfairly. They would like to have their time served as permanent residents and students put toward becoming citizens.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 483 will be answered today.
Mr. Scott Simms: With regard to the current 2015 code review cycle of the National Building Code of Canada: (a) are amendments to the code under consideration that would make the safety of firefighters and other first responders an objective under the code; (b) are amendments to the code under consideration concerning the installation of sprinkler systems in existing and new health-care and assisted-living facilities or other collective residences; and (c) which industry associations or unions have been consulted with respect to any amendments under consideration as described in (a) or (b)? 
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the National Building Code of Canada is developed through an independent consensus-based committee process that undergoes extensive public review. Consultations for the 2015 National Building Code are currently ongoing.
With regard to (c), in terms of consultations, the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, or CCBFC, and staff at the Canadian Codes Centre have been and continue to be in communication with the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, CAFC; the International Association of Fire Fighters, IAFF; the Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners, CFMFC; the Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association, CASA; and the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA. In addition, provincial and municipal fire services are represented on the commission and its various standing committees.
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Victims Bill of Rights Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 6 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.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to speak in support of the bill. Our party has been very clear that we are in support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time speaking over the government House leader. If he could have the decency to quietly—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. All hon. members are happy to see the two House leaders speaking, but possibly they would like to take it outside the chamber. 
The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. It is important that we show respect to all members of this place, particularly given the nature of the bill before us, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.
 As I have mentioned, we fully support this bill, but we have raised a number of issues. The bill could be strengthened with some straightforward amendments. I note that a good number of the inadequacies that we have pointed out mirror those raised by the ombudsman, and I will reiterate those shortly.
I am pleased to say that in the courts in my province, and most likely courts across Canada, victims of crime and families of victims have been allowed in many instances to present victim statements both for sentencing purposes and during parole proceedings. It is very important that those most impacted by crime have an opportunity to be heard.
We fully support the principles of this legislation. These promised provisions have been a long time coming. It is good that the government has finally come forward with the bill. It is regrettable, however, that the government failed to include resources in the budget to enable people to participate constructively in these processes. That is one of the inadequacies clearly identified by the victims and the families of the victims and the ombudsman herself.
We support sending the bill to committee. We look forward to recommendations from many quarters as to how the bill could be strengthened to protect the rights of victims while participating in the criminal process.
The media covers bad cases in every jurisdiction. There is great sympathy for the families of victims of serious crimes. In my city there was the case of Dougald Miller, who was attacked and seriously injured and has been bedridden ever since. He is being tended to by his wonderful wife Lesley Miller, who has attended every court session and every parole hearing. Our heart goes out to her. At committee we hope that one of the recommendations will be for more resources to be provided to the families who are left to deal with the impacts of crime.
As I have mentioned, one of the most cogent presentations on this bill was made by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. I would like to reiterate to the House what the ombudsman's comments have been on this bill. 
She, as we have, commended the government for introducing the first ever victims bill of rights and for the consultative process that took place, but there continues to be debate about the bill's contents and some of its inadequacies. She said that Bill C-32 marks a significant cultural shift. She recommended that it be strengthened by adding additional provisions. I would like to outline some of those provisions to the House. 
The federal ombudsman previously made 30 recommendations to the government to be included in the bill. Her commentary speaks to where she feels the government has and has not addressed those recommendations.
It is important for us to keep in mind that the ombudsman prepared her recommendations after direct consultation with many victims of crime. They are solidly based recommendations premised on the actual experiences and needs of the victims and their families.
The ombudsman also stated that she supports expanding the definition of “victim” to include those who experience property damage, but she is concerned that it excludes certain categories of persons who might be harmed. She suggested that could be revisited.
The ombudsman supports, as do we, victims of crime being recognized, but there is no way for them to exercise that right. While it is called a right, there is no recourse to exercize that right. Normally when rights are enacted, there is some kind of mechanism whereby those rights can be enforced, such as in the courts, at a tribunal, or some kind of formal complaint process where there is redress. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide that. A number of people have raised that issue. I think that will be discussed in committee. We are hopeful, as is the ombudsman, that those inadequacies will be addressed.
It also allows the victim, on request, to have access to the defender's bail or probation order. Suggestions have been made that this should not have to be a request, because many victims or their families may not be aware of these rights and opportunities, and that this information should simply be automatically provided. 
Here is one issue that has been raised by one of my colleagues, our critic for public safety. Interestingly, simultaneous to the tabling of this bill, there was another bill tabled that dealt with victims' rights. It was victims' rights before the Parole Board, I understand. These two bills will come forward to two different committees simultaneously. One will go to the justice committee and one to the public safety committee. However, they do not seem to be particularly consistent. Therefore, it is recommended that this be considered during the review of Bill C-32. 
One of the recommendations has been that in many cases with these crimes—and certainly I can speak to this because I was one of the founders of the sexual assault centre in Edmonton—victims may not feel comfortable attending proceedings and coming face to face with the accused. Therefore, the recommendation is that, in the review of the bill, perhaps we give consideration to video conferencing so that the victims could, potentially, just observe the proceedings, or they may even be willing to give testimony or statements, but not be physically present.
In addition, the ombudsman has commended the fact that judges will have to take victim safety and security into account at various stages of the criminal process including bail, plea bargaining, sentencing, protecting against production orders, testimonial aids and measures to protect witnesses. Indeed, it is good that victims of crime and their families who are impacted should have potential access to all of these proceedings. However, from my experience, the biggest barrier for impacted persons—whether it is a regulatory offence, or whether or not it is an important decision impacting a community, or whether or not it is an alleged crime—is that they do not have equal access to the resources to participate constructively. This has certainly been the problem in many environmental reviews, many environmental appeals, and is also the same problem with victims coming forward. 
Regrettably, there are also few to no resources made available in many cases. For example, there may be a crime that occurs in Fort McMurray, Alberta, but the family of the victim may be based in Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, it would be a huge expense for them to appear at a trial or a parole hearing and actually testify. They would have to pay the travel expenses. They may have to take time off work. They may have to get child care. There are two potential solutions here. One is to provide the funding so that they can genuinely intervene, or secondly, use video conferencing. 
Therefore, I look forward to all parties taking a close look at this bill in committee. It is one thing to suggest that it is good that victims should be able to participate. It is another thing to actualize that right. That right is only actualized when they can constructively and realistically participate.
I look forward to questions from members on the bill. Again, I commend the government for coming forward, but we look forward to the government actually being open to amendments, and open to amendments coming from all quarters. I know that all parties look forward to witnesses coming forward and testifying. 
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. The amount of work she put into it reflects really well on the amount of work she puts in her own riding. She is probably the best MP that riding has ever had. 
As for the bill, she mentioned toward the end that there is a problem with financing. Once again, we are in a situation where the government is downloading onto the provinces the costs of these programs. There seems to be a real misunderstanding with the government when it comes to affording individuals rights without any ability to exercise them. It would seem it only cares for rich people, the bourgeois, who can afford rights. If one is less well off, how can one possibly be able to afford the rights that are being presented? Is this not just another example of the government ignoring the average Canadian and just making bills for people who are wealthy and probably already have sufficient access to the courts?
I am wondering how we can address the problem of the lack of funding.
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, actually, that was one aspect I meant to mention but did not. My understanding is that this law would empower the courts to impose restitution orders. The problem is that in not all cases does a convicted person have the resources to compensate the victim or the family of the victim.
There are a lot of cost issues related to crime. One of them is direct compensation if one's property or person are harmed. The ombudsman has pointed out that the bill would also not accommodate people if there was damage to property in the course of a crime.
In addition to that, I note that the MP for Toronto—Danforth said that what we do not have is a fund to generally support the victims of crime who might suffer trauma. We talk a lot about support for mental health. There are a lot of needs associated with the victims of crime, and we look forward to finally seeing something in the budget to address this bigger issue. However, it should also be addressed in the bill to be a real right.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions and I would like to put one of them to the member, who gave an excellent speech.
In Quebec, there is a law that helps victims of crime. Has the member noticed whether laws have been harmonized or the provinces have been consulted about harmonizing different laws in order to move in that direction?
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I am afraid I cannot answer it, but it is obviously an important factor. 
It will be important when the bill comes to committee that we hear testimony from the Attorneys General and the Solicitors General across the country, not simply from victims rights groups that are NGOs and are probably grossly underfunded. It will also be really important to know which of these provisions would duplicate what is already going on in the provincial courts. Do they conflict in any cases? Are there any cases where there could be dual funding for some of these initiatives?
It is an excellent factor that should be considered in the review of this bill.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives always say that they are tough on crime and that they stand up for people affected by crime. However, my colleague just said that the people targeted by this bill will not necessarily be aware of the recourse they have.
Will victims advocacy groups be required to give them that information? What does my colleague think the government could do to ensure that there is greater awareness of victims' rights and that the law is fully implemented?
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I guess I could briefly reference the ombudsman's report. She has very carefully laid out a number of recommendations that would embellish and strengthen this bill.
It is certainly important that if people are going to access rights, they have to be informed of their rights. There should be an obligation on the government in this bill to inform all victims of what their rights are under the bill, who is responsible, and what the process would be.
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.
I would like to begin by saying that the NDP is going to support this bill so that it can be examined in committee. We should examine it clause by clause as carefully as possible. We are going to ask the witnesses called by the government, the NDP and the third party good questions, because that is important.
We have been waiting eight years for this bill. Finally, it is here and we have to be able to work with the government to make changes and amendments if necessary.
I am going to provide a bit of background. This is a promise that the Conservatives made eight years ago. When the Conservative government took office, it promised, at several press conferences, that it would introduce a bill to enact a Canadian victims bill of rights. It happened this year. Until September 2013, Justice Canada held in-person and online consultations and finally Bill C-32 was introduced.
The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime actively participated in these consultations and provided a list of nine recommendations, most of which the government took into account.
My speech will focus on our concerns and what aspects of the bill we should examine together in committee.
The office made the following recommendations for a bill of rights: 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 limit opportunities for offenders to profit from crimes or re-offend. 
At first glance, the Canadian victims bill of rights takes into account most of these recommendations. However, there are a few that I am concerned about, and that I believe weaken this bill. As I mentioned a number of times, I hope that we will be able to work together as good parliamentarians should. The victims of our country are already fragile enough and we must give them all the help we can. That is how we will make progress.
The problem with this bill is that it does not provide for any financial assistance. We have heard that no one knows just how familiar victims will be with their rights. My colleague also talked about that. We do not know whether victims will be aware of what assistance they can request. We have to wonder whether support will fall to community groups. 
I have an interesting statistic that shows that, right now, community groups provide the bulk of assistance to victims. The work is often done by volunteers. Groups that provide services to victims usually have employees, but they also have volunteers who provide assistance to victims. In 2011-12, 72% of victim service providers relied on volunteers.
I love volunteering and I think it is important, but I am not sure whether victims of crime should be dealing with volunteers. Should they not have access to someone with training in that field? It is not always easy to work with crime victims. They are dealing with a lot of feelings, emotions and an incredible amount of stress. It would be good for the bill of rights to provide for some funding to organizations that provide assistance to crime victims.
I have another concern about the money being allocated. A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99.6 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims.
A victims bill of rights should, first and foremost, provide financial assistance. Costs borne by victims could be associated with transportation, communication or support, for example, when they need help getting to a particular location. A first step would be to help cover the costs associated with the consequences of being the victim of a crime.
Furthermore, according to the 2009 General Social Survey, 7.4 million Canadians reported being a victim of a criminal incident in the preceding 12 months. Since this bill affects one-quarter of Canadians, we must listen to them. I am sure that that the topic of costs came up during the consultations that were held.
According to that same survey, 47% of women over the age of 15 who said that they had been sexually assaulted by their spouse or a partner in the preceding 12 months said that they did not report the assault to police. It was sometimes out of shame, out of fear of retribution or out of fear that no one would believe them or that they would be blamed for what had happened. If nearly half of women who are victims of assault do not feel they can report it to police, out of shame or for other reasons, perhaps it is because we need to provide services to those women.
If women are ashamed to report that they are victims of a crime, we need to ask ourselves what can be done. The victims bill of rights will help victims who go to the police and take legal action, but we need to make sure that we have something to help the men, women and children who are afraid to go to the police. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any provisions to address that problem.
We are calling on the government to send this bill to committee. We want victims to have access to the support and services they need. That is of the utmost importance to us. That is how we can best address victims' needs. We acknowledge that, for many victims, being able to participate in sentencing and parole hearings is progress. However, as I said, there are elements in the bill that could be strengthened.
To conclude, I would like to quote Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime. On April 3, he said:
 It’s a good bill, as far as it goes. I think the biggest problem though is that the minister of justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that. 
He added: 
 The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t. 
These days, it is all about keeping people informed. Without financial backing, it will be difficult to make sure that victims are well informed. The bill of rights should include provisions to ensure that victims get the support and help they need. The government says it is tough on crime, but when 50% of female victims of crime do not report the crime to the police, we have to ask ourselves some questions. We have to convince these women that there will be progress and that the police will take them seriously and be with them every step of the way as they deal with their very difficult situations.
I would like to reiterate that I will be proud to support this bill, but I hope that my Conservative colleagues will be able to work with us to improve the final version of it.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. Clearly, she knows what she is talking about. This goes to show how knowledgeable she is about issues that affect her community. She is doing extraordinary work in her riding.
Our party will definitely support this bill at second reading because it deserves to go to committee for further discussion. The bill does have some flaws that we need to talk about. 
The Conservatives have been promising us this bill for years, but have not introduced it until now. They keep campaigning on empty promises and never come through with something we can read. They try to convince Canadians to support bills without telling them exactly what is in those bills. We are glad that they have finally put things down in black and white in this case.
Even though we have it in black and white now, it is still a mirage. The government introduced a bill that is supposed to help victims, but it is not giving them the means to use the tools that will be available to them. Moreover, as my colleague pointed out, because none of this will be advertised, victims will not even know what tools are available to them.
The tools will be in place, but unfortunately no one will know it. Furthermore, the victims will have a hard time using those tools.
What does my colleague think of the lack of funding in this bill?
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he was here when we were talking about this bill and that he is also very interested in moving it forward.
I would like to read an excerpt from a press release issued by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes on April 3 that supports what my colleague is saying. Although this association supports this bill, it feels that “certain conditions must be met if this bill of rights is going to have real influence and not just make empty promises”. 
That is kind of what my colleague was saying. When the government proposes a charter like the Canadian victims bill of rights, it has a responsibility to ensure that victims will be given all the psychological and financial support they need to move forward in the justice system.
It is important to give the justice system leverage, but the victims have to be at the heart of that approach and that is not the case at the moment. By providing victims with financial support, we would be putting them at the heart of these initiatives.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, my colleague rightfully noted that there is a general lack of funding. Community groups do very good work and are very generous, but their resources are limited. There is going to be a big problem.
Speaking of resources, this will take police training or legal training. Will the provinces or municipalities have to cover these costs through their police forces? The bill does not seem to provide funding for training, but I would think that funding is required.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.
Police training is another expense that is passed onto the provinces by the federal government. In the time that I have been here, this seems to have become a vicious circle, or a bad habit. For example, criminal penalties continue to increase, but the provinces are not given the money to provide proper services to prisoners. The government says that this bill will help victims but, once again, it is not giving money to the provinces so that they can provide appropriate assistance. 
I am certain that the police system acts in good faith and tries to help victims and to support them as they navigate the judicial system. That said, the government must provide the funding and the means to do just that. It was very important to include some money to that end in the bill.
However, I am sure that my Conservative colleagues who are carefully listening to us will accept some of our amendments in committee. I hope that I can convince them.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-32, a bill on establishing a victims bill of rights for Canadians. 
As New Democrats, we are certainly interested in the issues of the bill going forward. We are particularly interested in a number of provisions, including the widening of the definition of “victim” and the creation of a complaints mechanism for victims to file a complaint to a federal or provincial agency if they feel their rights under the charter had been denied.
I was looking at that particular provision this week when the survivors of St. Anne's Residential School were once again in the Ontario provincial court over the Conservative government's obstruction of a provincial court order calling on the federal government to release thousands of pages of police testimony regarding the crimes that were committed against the children at St. Anne's. When we talk about victims, I think it is important we say that, under the current government, there are two kinds of victims in this country, and unfortunately for first nations victims, their rights continue to be undermined. 
Under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, a legal agreement was put in place because Canada was found to be the defendant in thousands of cases of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against first nations residential school children.
Under the residential schools agreement, the independent assessment process was established. It was supposed to be non-adversarial to allow the victims of these horrific crimes to tell their story and be compensated. However, as the people of St. Anne's found out, this process was anything but non-adversarial. I will certainly be looking at Bill C-32 in terms of the complaints mechanism that needs to be in place for victims.
Under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the Government of Canada's representatives from the Department of Justice played two roles. One role was to be the lawyer for the defendant, which was Canada, and so they were there to defend Canada's interests. However, they were also there to create the evidence narrative and provide the court hearings with all the evidence that the claimants needed. They told the claimants that they did not need to bring their lawyers. They just needed come and tell their stories. The evidence would be there, and they would look at it. 
However, when the people from St. Anne's went into the hearings, they found that the federal government had prepared a false evidence narrative. The narrative was essentially a lie that was being presented at a legal hearing. 
The narrative stated that there was no known documentation of sexual abuse at the Fort Albany Indian Residential School. The victims who came forward to tell their stories were being challenged day after day by Department of Justice lawyers who said that there was no evidence to back up their cases. Now, what the federal government did not tell the survivors, nor the adjudication process, was that it was sitting on thousands of pages of police testimony of the horrific crimes that were committed at St. Anne's.
 In fact, in a 2003 affidavit, the federal government obtained this information from the Ontario Provincial Police, which identified 180 perpetrators of physical and sexual abuse, including the actual torture of children at St. Anne's, from 154 different plaintiffs. It also collected over 860 witness statements that verified the crimes. 
Many of these criminal acts were not prosecuted in the Ontario court because many of the perpetrators had disappeared, could not be tracked down, or were dead. However, a number of criminal convictions did come forward. One of those criminal convictions is against Anna Wesley. Therefore, the federal government was aware of these horrific crimes and had the evidence.
 In the 2003 affidavit by the Department of Justice to obtain this evidence, it told the Ontario provincial court at the time that it would be unfair for the defendant if its representation did not have access to this information. However, what was unfair for the defendant was considered perfectly fair for the survivors, the victims, who went in without this evidence. 
Then, in the 2003 court ruling, the evidence was transferred to the federal government. The court said that future plaintiffs should also have access to the evidence. However, that did not happen.
The government lied to the survivors of St. Anne's and it lied to the independent assessment process. In 2012, as the process was going on with claimant after claimant being challenged over the fact that they had been put in homemade electric chairs for the amusement of the staff or forced to eat their vomit when they were sick, the federal government was saying that it had no evidence to back this up. However, the victims' lawyers found out that the government had this evidence and challenged it, but then the federal government said that it did not have to produce it.
The very federal legal institution that was there to protect the victims would define the independent assessment process. In July 2013, I wrote to the Indian Affairs minister and asked how it could be that the government would have produced a false evidence narrative and suppressed evidence in a legal hearing.
He wrote to me: 
 Canada is, of course, aware of the Ontario Provincial Police investigations regarding the St. Anne's...Residential School and resulting...trials. 
But then he said that they had no legal obligation to seek out the documents. He did not say they were sitting on the documents, that they had the documents. He then said the evidence was not admissible. 
This is what he said:
 The statements made to the Ontario Provincial Police in the course of their investigation...cannot in Canada's view, be used as evidence in the Independent Assessment Process....only oral testimony of a witness is considered evidence. 
That is not true. That is another falsehood. The terms of the IAP state, “Relevant findings in previous criminal or civil trials...may be accepted without further proof”.
He stated then that corroborative evidence does “not need to be submitted to corroborate the oral testimony of claimants”. This is one of the key elements because the independent assessment process actually states: 
 ...the standard of proof is the standard used by the civil courts for matters of like seriousness. Although this means that as the alleged acts become more serious, adjudicators may require more cogent evidence before being satisfied that the Claimant has met their burden of proof.... 
The survivors who went into that process were lied to. They were told, “you don't need to produce evidence, just come and tell your story”, when it actually said if people are making serious allegations of criminal acts against children, they have to prove it. They sat, with all the access to the evidence, and told the survivors that they were making things up and that they had no evidence to back it up. 
On January 14, 2014, this was heard at the Ontario Superior Court. Justice Perell stated that Canada had a legal duty to “search for, collect and provide a report” on the crimes that were committed against these children, and that “Canada's failure to produce OPP documents about St. Anne's compromised the IAP and denied the Claimants access to justice”.
This week, these same survivors were in court again because in spite of a provincial Superior Court ruling, they went back into the hearings and said they are not producing the evidence. The evidence on Anna Wesley and the crimes that she committed against children and the corroborating evidence that was used to convict her, they will not turn that evidence over. They said this to people whose only crimes were that they were first nation children.
The officials told the Ontario Superior Court they could not explain why they had produced a false evidence narrative. They did not know. It was maybe an accident, but that is not true. On July 26, 2013, after I wrote to the Indian Affairs minister, they began an internal rewrite of the narrative and it is called Amendments to St. Anne's Indian Residential School in response to the Member for Timmins—James Bay.
Think of that for a moment. The top legal system in this country, which is there to protect the interests of the law and the citizens of Canada, only started to create a clear evidence narrative after it was outed. Otherwise, it would have continued with the misrepresentation and falsehoods.
Edmund Metatawabin was in court again this week. Edmund is the spokesperson for the survivors. He has to fly down from Fort Albany on his own dime. He has been trying for years and years to get the government to work with him. Instead, all he has found is abuse. He wrote to the justice minister and said, “My god! We were just children, undergoing torture, abuse....the federal government was conspicuously absent and negligent to give us solace and protection” and “nothing has changed” in 2014.
I want to end by saying the government spends about $106 million a year in Indian Affairs fighting the rights of first nations people. That is almost double what it spends going after tax cheats or criminals. I would like to quote Doug Cuthand in the StarPhoenix. He said:
 The federal government has adopted an expensive, two-pronged legal strategy....it conducts a scorched earth legal strategy that drags out cases and starves First Nations organizations of funds.... Sitting down for honest negotiations is simply not a part of the government's strategy. 
The Conservatives made an apology to Canadians and they undermined that apology. They see only two kinds of victims and first nation victims are never part of their narrative.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a truly impassioned speech. It revealed a lot that I think Canadians do not want to hear, because I am sure they could not believe our government is capable of this kind of lawyering.
I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that the time might have come for some of kind of task force on the ethics and professional responsibility of the federal government's lawyers. 
I am thinking about the residential schools case that we just heard described. I am thinking about the role of government lawyers in the Afghan detainee situation before the Military Police Complaints Commission. I am thinking of the current Privacy Commissioner, who argued before the committee against torture at the UN, under the Liberal government, that people could be deported to a substantial risk of torture if they were serious criminals. I am thinking of the farce of the constitutional compliance review that supposedly goes on in the Department of Justice, which we now know does not. Lawyers should not simply be mouthpieces for unconstitutional and otherwise unethical government policy.
I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that it is high time for a task force to look into this situation. 
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a deep respect for my hon. colleague and I think his question on a task force is very important.
The lawyers for the Department of Justice went into those hearings and lied and produced evidence that was a lie and suppressed evidence. If that was in a normal criminal proceeding, people's licences would be taken away and the cases would be thrown out, but in the case of the independent assessment process, the position of the courts and apparently of the independent assessment process is “Oh, well; we got caught. Life carries on”.
As Edmund Metatawabin said, they were poisonous in their treatment of people whose only crime was that they were children, first nations children, who were taken away from their families. 
Then they went back into the hearings and acted in defiance of an Ontario Superior Court ruling. They acted in defiance of the basic laws of this land, in terms of the obligation for disclosure and the obligation for the federal government to uphold the so-called honour of the crown by producing evidence that is not fraudulent, and they think that this can carry on. 
I agree with my hon. colleague. Something must be done.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question, it is a comment.
I am completely disgusted by what I have just heard and by the hypocrisy of a government that, on the one hand, says it wants to protect victims with a bill and, on the other hand, does these types of things. The big brother of the MP next to me, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, died in one of those schools. His mother found out by chance several years later. The family had no idea of what had happened.
Therefore, it is appalling that one part of the population is being protected but that another large part is not. I am thinking of all the aboriginal people and the missing and murdered women for whom they do not even want to set up an inquiry. That is hypocritical.
I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that, please.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, Canadians saw that historic moment of the apology and thought that things would change. We took our government at its word.
 Then we think of the disappeared women. Shannon Alexander and Maisy Odjick, two young students with top marks, walked out of their home one day in Kitigan Zibi and were never seen again, and nobody ever seemed to go looking.
I saw the family, a year later, putting up posters. Is there supposed to be an inquiry? Hell, yes, there needs to be an inquiry, yet we saw the justice minister take all the supposed documents about these women, their lives and what happened, and throw them on the floor of the House of Commons. Then the Conservatives stand up and talk about victims. They stand and want their pictures taken with the so-called victims, but they would not stand outside on the House of Commons grounds when the mothers, the daughters, and the sisters stood out there.
 It is a crime. It is a crime against the larger humanness of the government and the country when the Conservatives relegate a section of our population to worthlessness and say they do not count and that they can abuse them and take away their rights. They can go into a legal process in 2014, lie in court, and say, “We're the Government of Canada. We will lie if we want to”. 
That is not acceptable.
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak about the Canadian victims bill of rights.
I will begin by providing a brief summary of the bill. It codifies the federal rights of victims of crime to information, protection, participation and restitution in the justice system. It also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to incorporate some of those rights.
Everyone here will agree that we need to protect victims of crime and that victims have rights. However, the government's attitude is rather hypocritical. A bill of rights is a good idea. However, we know what the Conservatives think about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example. Day after day, they continue to introduce bills that turn out to be unconstitutional. It is therefore all well and good to introduce a Canadian victims bill of rights, but no funding is being allocated for this bill of rights, no programs are being developed and no plan is being made to enforce these rights.
Yes, the government is recognizing that victims have rights. That is a good start. However, the government is going to once again ask the provinces to spend money and implement the appropriate mechanism to support federal policies. Once again, the government is going to take credit for a bill, but it is not going to allocate the necessary resources or implement the necessary measures; it is going to put that burden on the provinces.
I would like to know whether the Conservatives consulted with their provincial counterparts to ask them whether their justice systems could accommodate this type of measure. Obviously we know that there are problems with delays in the justice system. These delays are the most difficult thing for victims. For years and years, they are re-victimized whenever they have to appear in court and then are told that they will have to come back again later. 
Reducing delays is a priority for victims. I can testify to that because I met with people who, unfortunately, had to wait for years to obtain justice. What is more, they did not even get the help they needed because the waiting lists are too long. There are not enough resources, and victims are left to fend for themselves.
Of course, victims have rights. I have met many victims, and that is obvious. I am sure that everyone agrees; however, there are some concerns. For example, as I said, the federal government held consultations and many recommendations were made. I will share some. For one, there was a recommendation for integrated, accessible, simple resources and services with minimum standards across the country. Unfortunately, the government did not follow that recommendation. Victims are also asking for equitable, respectful and individualized rights, a voice and standing in the justice system. There is a major problem here, because none of the provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to uphold and apply those rights. Rights are being granted, but there is no funding, no program, no plan and no obligation. Nothing is being provided.
This is basically all smoke and mirrors. With all due respect for the Conservatives, they may have had good intentions in proposing that we adopt this bill; however, they are just using victims as political leverage. That much is clear. It is a political calculation. They used victims, as they always do.
Whether it is children or victims of cyberbullying, they are using victims to try and get their legislation passed and benefit politically. Anthony Moustacalis, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, said that the majority of the measures in the bill are already being practised in courts of law. I will quote him:
 Were it serious about aiding victims, the government could ensure that Criminal Injury Compensation Boards have sufficient funding to act as a genuine source of relief. It would also ensure that those victims who require counseling are able to obtain it. 
That is the crux of the issue right there. It is all well and good to recognize rights, but ensuring they are respected is a whole other story.
Bill C-32 was introduced few months ago and is still at second reading. The government did not send it to committee to be studied. It consulted people, but we do not even know whether it consulted its provincial counterparts. It still has not sent the bill to committee, and we still have not heard from experts. Nothing has been done. This is the first time I have spoken to the bill we are discussing. If the government truly cared about the interests of victims, why did it not include legal obligations for people who work in the justice system in the bill?
What is the point of creating rights if they unfortunately become obsolete when they do not apply in certain cases? I have read this bill. The Conservatives will try to say that I have not read it, but I have read it many times. The rights are conditional. I do not have the bill here in front of me, but I could point out the clauses. The rights are conditional in some circumstances.
I understand that the government is trying to score as many political points as it can. This bill is nothing but a charade that recognizes victims' rights but does nothing to ensure that these rights—which are conditional, I must point out—are enforced.
I want to mention that even the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime said that the bill of rights does not cover everything that victims think it should. The bill of rights is certainly an important and historic change for victims, and I will give the government that. The bill of rights acknowledges the role that victims must play, and it attempts to address their needs for information, consideration and protection. However, the ombudsman said that she had examined the bill of rights carefully and noted that many of the recommendations had been incorporated, but not all of them.
If victims are so important to the Conservatives, then why not invest the necessary resources in the program? Why not try to improve access to justice? Why not try to give the justice system the resources it needs to eliminate waiting times? I will say it again: the key elements are resources and waiting times. The longer victims wait, the more likely they are to be revictimized. The Conservatives recognized their rights, and that is great, but will the government ensure that victims can exercise those rights within the justice system? It has to make it possible for them to do that, cut waiting times and give everyone in the justice system the resources to ensure that victims' rights are honoured and that justice is done.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how she feels about the fact that the Conservatives are standing up to say they are protecting victims, but when it comes to protecting aboriginal women, they are failing. When it comes to protecting military women, who are subject to five assaults a day in the armed forces, and when it comes to protecting women in the RCMP, they are failing dismally. 
I would like her to comment on the fact that they failed dismally on the very issues where they could have taken action.
[Interjection]
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, to ask the question is to answer it.
My colleague was clear. As I said, the Conservatives are all about the smoke and mirrors. However, when the time comes to do the work and walk the talk, the Conservatives are not in the game. They are nowhere to be found.
I just want to point out that, since the start of this debate, not a single Conservative has participated by asking us questions or talking about victims' rights. That is proof of their double standard. They do photo ops and they pretend to care about victims, but since debate on this bill began, I have not seen a single Conservative stand up to speak for the rights of victims, aboriginal women and victims of bullying. They are not the ones standing up in the House. 
I see my colleague rising to ask me a question. I am looking forward to this.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the record, you will see that you already gave the floor to the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All hon. members know that there is a standard rotation in the chamber. I did not see the hon. parliamentary secretary on his feet for a question. There is no rule that once something has been said the Speaker does not have the right to retract it.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, that may be so, but you had already given the floor to the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I would ask you to look at the record to see whether he already had the floor. I do not see anywhere in the bylaws that there is any reason to take the floor away from him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): During the request for questions and comments, it would have been a government member's turn. I had not seen this hon. member. I had started to call the name of another hon. member when the other hon. member brought to my attention that it was in fact his turn.
The Chair will review the tape to see if there is a need to come back to clarify this. At this point, the floor goes to the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.
She was lamenting the fact that the government has not sent this bill to committee in order to hear from experts. It is very important to hear the opinions and comments of experts from across the country. That is why we do not want to add to her filibuster on this bill. It is very important for this bill to get to committee.
Perhaps the hon. member could explain why the NDP wants to have this filibuster. This is going to delay the arrival of witnesses and experts who will add their views to this important debate to improve things for victims in Canada.
[Interjection]
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, honestly, I have not had the time to look up the definition of filibuster. This is the first time I have spoken to this bill in the House of Commons. I do have the right to speak freely and democratically to a bill.
I quite like my colleague and I am sure that he does very good work as a member of Parliament, but I am entitled to speak to a bill for the first time in the House of Commons.
I look forward to studying this bill in committee. However, before it is sent there, a number of members in the House have to be given the chance to debate and talk about the bill of rights on behalf of their constituents. It would be nice if a Conservative could do the same on behalf of their constituents as well.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the member for Scarborough Centre, one of the greatest fans of demagoguery in the House, will ask a question at some point in this debate.
As usual, we see that this bill is a symbolic gesture by the government. It is not a substantive bill. This is obvious from the evidence given by the mother of a young girl who was murdered. The mother told us that the changes proposed by the government would only fuel the desire for revenge. From a psychological point of view, it does not help victims go through the healing process.
Could my colleague comment on and tell us more about why this bill will not help victims and about the fact that this is instead a symbolic gesture?
[Interjection]
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I think I was really clear in my speech. 
The biggest problems in the current justice system are access to justice and wait times. The longer victims wait in the justice system, the more they are victimized each time, and the longer they are victimized, the more difficult it will be to start the healing process.
I would like to repeat for my colleague what Manitoba's attorney general said: 
 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. [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. 
His remarks were echoed by the president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association. We have to give resources to the people on the ground and help them implement the rights. It is well and good to talk about rights. However, we have to do what it takes to ensure that these rights are enforced.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before we resume debate, I would like to clarify the point of order raised by the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
In fact, I have confirmed that when the House goes to questions and comments, it is at the discretion of the Chair as to who has the floor. As all hon. members will know, there is a standard rotation in this place that is followed as much as possible by the Chair. There are times when the Chair does not see a member rise, often in the corners or at the far end of the chamber, but the Chair is entirely within the right, after he has started to say a name or in fact has completed saying a name, to realize that it should have been another member. The Chair can at that point redirect the floor to the member in the rotation. In this case, particularly given that the hon. member who had the floor had stated in her speech that she wanted to receive a question from a government member, that was also part of my justification at that point.
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech. She clearly pointed out that an abstract right does not do much to help people in their lives. The government needs to put its money where its mouth is.
Before he leaves, I would like to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for giving one of the best speeches I have heard in the House in the past three years. His speech was enlightening and clearly pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' approach. The Conservatives are always very good about claiming to stand up for rights and victims, but they are taking a completely unbalanced approach and applying a double standard when it comes to the victims of residential schools and the young aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered.
I would like to reiterate, on behalf of the NDP, that this is a priority for us. Something terrible has been happening here in Canada for years. Dozens of people have gone missing, and the government is doing nothing when it should be launching an inquiry. I repeat, we want a public inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. We do not understand why the Conservative government is ignoring this request.
To come back to Bill C-32, even though I have not done it very often in recent years, I am going to sing a little:
  Just words, always words... Nothing but words Words, words, words  
That is a song that was sung by the artist Dalida about 30 or 35 years ago. I get the feeling that Bill C-32 is a reflection of those lyrics in that it has many good intentions but absolutely no foundation. This bill will not have any effect if we do not flesh it out.
For eight years now, the Conservatives have been going on about the importance of defending victims. They say that the bad guys in the opposition are always siding with criminals, that the justice system is against victims and that they are the only ones who care about victims and are doing something to protect them. They have held so many press conferences and photo ops and put out so much advertising on this theme. They have not stopped playing politics when it comes to this issue. They have dragged this out for eight years and now they are introducing a bill that is nothing but a statement of intent.
Many interested parties warned us that this could simply be a statement of intent, some sort of lip service that would not be carried out. We are very concerned about that. We will support the bill at second reading so that we can study it carefully in committee, because we think there is room for improvement. However, as of right now, there is not much to this bill.
For example, Bill C-32 does not create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to enforce the rights that are set out in the bill. That is a huge problem. The Conservatives seem to have their heads in the clouds. If no one is required to enforce the legislation and follow the rules, what good will this legislation do in real life? How will it truly help people?
The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. We want to conduct a clause-by-clause study of this bill in order to find ways to improve it, so that it can be truly effective and so that we can be sure we are doing good legislative work.
Today, the Supreme Court gave the Conservative Party a good slap in the face. It told the Conservatives that they put several bills on the agenda without first waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court ruled them admissible. This could have an impact on cyberbullying victims. I am talking about Bill C-13, which could be struck down and dragged before the courts in light of the Supreme Court's ruling this morning.
The NDP asked the Conservatives to wait for the ruling we got this morning from the Supreme Court and to split the bill in two in committee, so that we could move forward with the cyberbullying provisions and be cautious about privacy and the tools being given to police forces. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen once again. They are stubborn and follow their own ideology. They told us that they did not need to listen to us because they do not have to listen to anyone. 
Now, because the Conservatives refuse to listen to anyone, we will not be able to move forward, and it could become a lot more complicated to protect our children and teens from cyberbullying.
At first glance, the bill seems to address certain requests and recommendations that came out of consultations. For example, there was a recommendation to expand the definition of victims or crime, and one to codify the victims' right to information, protection, participation and restitution. However, there are no legal obligations in the justice system.
We think that it could be a major problem that this bill includes possible access to just one rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims rights have been violated. That needs to be clarified, and that is why we want this bill to go to committee so that the necessary adjustments can be made.
Another important element is that no budget has been allocated. There is no budget to implement the measures in Bill C-32 and ensure that they are enforced. The numbers are quite striking and they come from the Department of Justice, no less.
A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims. A total of 83% of the cost of crime, nearly $100 billion, is borne by the victims. We have a victims bill of rights, but there is no envelope associated with it.
I do not know how people will get support, training, psychological support or financial compensation if there is no public funding or moneys that would ensure the real-life enforcement of the rights being proposed.
I would like to use my time to speak about other forgotten victims. I want to talk about this because a motion about workers, firefighters specifically, was passed in the House. No compensation fund has been set up for families when a firefighter dies on the job. This exists for RCMP officers and for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The motion was passed in the House, but the Conservative government has taken no action whatsoever.
We believe that firefighters who die while fighting a fire should be entitled to this kind of fund so they can provide for their families. We know that many of the firefighters who die under these circumstances are very young, so their families deserve this support.
I want to raise this issue again. There are other kinds of victims, such as victims of workplace accidents. Some people die on the job. Unfortunately, the government is doing absolutely nothing for these victims.
The government always talks about being tough on crime. For example, it does not want prisoners to have a cell to themselves. They see that as some kind of luxurious privilege. I would like to express other people's point of view on that subject.
It might sound good during a press conference or look good on a householder to talk about how harshly they treat criminals. I am concerned about another group of people, however: correctional officers.
Correctional officers have to deal with prisoners and that is a problem when there is double-bunking. This work jeopardizes the health and safety of the correctional officers. They are extremely worried about the changes to the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-4. This is going to complicate matters for workers when it comes to refusing to go to work if their health and safety are at risk.
Unfortunately, once again, the government is being insensitive to the consequences of its laws. The government is jeopardizing the lives of workers who deal with these prisoners. The risk of injury is much greater now than it was before. I wanted to point that out.
Mr. Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime had this to say in April:
 I think the biggest problem though is that the Minister of Justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that 
He was the first ombudsman for victims of crime in Canada. He also said:
 The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t. 
 Earlier today, my colleague used an expression that I will echo. Once again, this is all smoke and mirrors. We want more than just words. We want concrete measures. We have to improve this bill for victims.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, according to a 2009 social survey, approximately 7.4 million Canadians—a little more than one quarter of the population—aged 15 and older were victims of crime.
I am going to ask these questions because I am very worried. One quarter of the population has been victimized by crime. In our society, we say that we are open-minded, we have crime prevention measures and we help people. We also put criminals in jail. Then, how is it that one quarter of our population is in this situation? Do we do enough prevention? Does the government's bill provide for a system to ensure that people commit fewer crimes?
[Interjection]
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I would like to thank the hon. member for asking it.
The Conservative government always focuses on punishment, not prevention. Prevention can take many forms, such as education and training or tackling poverty, establishing a national mental health strategy or implementing various measures that would create better socio-economic conditions and allow people to live a dignified, decent life. That will reduce the chances that they will choose a life of crime. We know that living conditions are directly linked to criminality.
The Association québécoise plaidoyer-victimes said that it is necessary to enhance victims' rights in criminal proceedings, but that 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. We also need to be proactive so that they do not find themselves in criminal situations. The government needs to take a much more nuanced and balanced position by recognizing people's social rights.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He worked very hard, as we can see by the quality of his speech. He works extremely hard in his riding and that shows in the good things his constituents have to say about him. I commend him on that.
In his speech he mentioned that there is a lack of resources, money and means to help people exercise the rights proposed in this bill. I would go even further. The Conservatives have been campaigning on this famous bill of rights for eight years. It was a ghost, a mirage, a cloud, but nothing tangible. Finally, things are in black and white.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives have repeatedly proposed measures in public without putting anything down on paper. That is something we see far too often.
I would like my colleague to explain why it took so long for the bill to be introduced. Again, it contains some serious flaws. What seems to be missing from the Conservatives' consultation process?
[Interjection]
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question and also congratulate her on the work she does in her riding, which is appreciated just as much, if not more, than my own.
The government dragged its feet on this bill for the same reason it did so with the firearms registry. It wants to please the Conservative voter base, which likes hearing this type of rhetoric. As long as the problem is not solved, the government can continue to say that it cares about the problem and is going to do something about it.
In this case, the government really drew out the debate for purely electoral and partisan reasons without ever really making victims' rights a priority.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Department of Public Works and Government Services Act[Stage Direction]
(Bill C-574. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)
 February 6, 2014—The member for Jonquière—Alma—Second Reading and Reference to Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates of Bill C-574, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:30 p.m.)