2014-06-06

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Speaker will return to this, if necessary. This may be considered closed.
It being 12 a.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 27, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until later today at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)
Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported without amendment from the committee. 
The Speaker: There are 13 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-24. Motions Nos. 1 to 13 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 13 to the House. 
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP):  moved:
 Motion No. 1 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 1. 
 Motion No. 2 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 3. 
 Motion No. 3 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 7. 
 Motion No. 4 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 8. 
 Motion No. 5 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 9. 
 Motion No. 6 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 11. 
 Motion No. 7 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 12. 
 Motion No. 8 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 14. 
 Motion No. 9 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 15. 
 Motion No. 10 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 16. 
 Motion No. 11 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 19. 
 Motion No. 12 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 20. 
 Motion No. 13 
 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 38. 
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-24 at report stage. This bill was introduced at first reading on February 6 and was debated for the first hour on February 27.
According to the minister, the bill is very important, but it sort of got forgotten after February 27. We read about it in newspapers, but it was not debated again until May 29. The government did not put Bill C-24 back on the House's agenda for many months, and we have no idea why.
Another irregularity is the fact that the committee began studying the bill before the end of second reading. This is a citizenship reform bill that has been needed for nearly 30 years. This 50-page bill, which was touted and heralded, did not even go through normal House procedures. We debated it for one hour, then it was shelved and then, all of a sudden, we were forced to study it at committee before second reading had even finished.
For those who are not familiar with parliamentary process, this means that experts and civil society are unable to react to or contribute to the bill by appearing before committee. Many people have asked me what is happening with Bill C-24 and how they can contribute by sharing their expertise in committee. I had to tell them that it was too late because the usual procedures were not followed. Experts and civil society did not hear much about the bill because committee rushed to study it and because it was not debated in the House as it should have been. Moreover, the committee stage was too short. The NDP asked to hear from more witnesses, but that idea was rejected.
After all that, it came back to the House for debate, and here we are less than a week later at report stage. The committee rushed its clause by clause study of Bill C-24. It did not do a thorough study following the usual procedures, and as a result, we have before us a bill that was not amended at all by the committee.
The NDP wants several clauses removed from the bill because both experts and lay people have raised a number of concerns and because the government rejected all of the amendments proposed not only by the experts who appeared before the committee, but also by the opposition.
Bill C-24 was much anticipated, and the NDP supports many aspects of it. We are not against the bill overall. Many parts of it are good and are actually things the NDP has been urging the government to do for a long time. One of these is addressing the issue of the lost Canadians, Canadians who lost their citizenship. Many people are affected by a range of unjust situations related to that issue. This bill does not solve all of those problems, but it is a step in the right direction.
In addition, the NDP is happy to support a number of measures, including harsher penalties in cases of citizenship fraud, clarification of the rules governing the number of days needed to get citizenship and acceleration of the citizenship process for permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Forces.
Unfortunately this 50-page bill with 46 clauses has not been amended in any way despite the fact that experts unanimously agreed that it needed major changes. Therefore, the NDP has no choice but to ask that certain clauses be removed from this bill. For example, clause 3 of Bill C-24 deals with a large number of things. The NDP agrees with many of them, but we still must ask that this clause be removed because it contains some basic elements that are very worrisome.
For example, the declaration of intent to reside in Canada is a problem that I will talk about briefly.
A large number of experts are concerned about this declaration of intent to reside in Canada, which consists of asking people to declare that they intend to live here after obtaining their citizenship. They have to make this declaration as part of the citizenship process.
We know that someone who is convicted of making false declarations or committing fraud to obtain citizenship can have that citizenship revoked in the future. That worries the experts who are saying that this is a dangerous door that is being opened. 
A person might have to leave Canada after obtaining their citizenship because they cannot find a job here, for example. They may have to accept a job abroad or a job that will require them to live outside Canada for a year or two. They may also have to leave the country to take care of a sick parent. They could not foresee these circumstances when they made the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. In short, that creates a lot of concerns for new citizens.
Could the government take away the citizenship of people who leave the country after they have declared their intent to reside here? Legal experts say that it can, but the minister is saying that, no, he does not intend to do that and that he does not want to use the intent to reside to take away people's right to citizenship. Good for him. The minister has good intentions. However, we cannot rely solely on his intentions. We also have to rely on the wording of the bill. Legal experts are saying that the way the bill is worded poses a risk for new Canadians who want to temporarily leave the country as a result of unforeseen circumstances.
Speaking of experts, I would like to list a few who believe that this aspect of the bill, as it now stands, is extremely problematic. The Canadian Council for Refugees submitted a written brief to the committee. There is also the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants; Ms. Macklin from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers; the Inter Clinic Immigration Working Group; and Parkdale Community Legal Services. I could go on for quite a while; I have a whole page full of names. It seems experts have a lot to say on this topic.
Another aspect of clause 3 that is really problematic is the time of residence. There has been a lot of backlash from foreign students over the fact that their time of residence in Canada will, unfortunately, no longer count toward their application for citizenship and permanent residence. 
When they arrived, they were told that they would contribute to society as students, workers and taxpayers and that the time they spent in the country as foreign students could count toward their application for citizenship.
Today, this bill changes the rules right under their noses and throws a wrench into their life plans in a number of ways. They will have to wait one or two more years before they can apply for citizenship. That is not fair, and I want to point out the work of this group in particular, whose time in the country before they become permanent residents counts. They are smart, engaged, involved and well aware of the value of Canadian citizenship. This provision of the bill is basically a slap in the face to foreign students.
We also want to remove clause 8 of the bill on the revocation of citizenship, which did not exist before. Bill C-24 gives the minister the discretionary power to revoke people's citizenship without giving them the right to appeal. That is extremely worrisome.
Again, experts are unanimous on this. There are major problems with this aspect of the bill. Ms. Macklin, the representative of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and a professor at the University of Toronto, had this to say: 
 I would remove citizenship revocation. It's unconstitutional. 
 I think our criminal justice system is perfectly adequate to handle crimes, criminal offences, and it does so just fine. 
I will close by saying that when the minister says that the Canadian Bar Association should be ashamed of itself for opposing Bill C-24, he is showing his true partisan colours and illustrating how completely out of touch he is. A great many people are concerned. This cannot go on.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the ironies with this piece of legislation is the fact that the government is trying to give the impression, by passing this proposed legislation, that it would be speeding up the process for citizenship once a person qualifies. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration himself is saying that he hopes, through this legislation, to be able to get the processing of citizenship in just under a year. Well, it is very interesting to find out that prior to the Conservatives taking office, that was what the processing time was; it was right around that one-year mark. 
It is interesting that the Conservatives created a crisis so that today the processing time is well in excess of one year, at about 28 months. In certain situations, I would guesstimate that about 20% could go as long as four or five years in order to process citizenship.
My question to the member is: if the government was sincere in wanting to speed up the processing of citizenship, was legislative change actually necessary or would it have needed more of a political goodwill on behalf of the government? 
Even though it is nice to see that it is in the legislation, political goodwill is what was really necessary.
[Interjection]
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of what my colleague just said. The Conservatives have allowed citizenship application processing times to increase substantially. Processing times have more than doubled in the past few years. If the Conservatives truly wanted to resolve this problem, they would have put measures in place much sooner instead of giving us Bill C-24, which will supposedly resolve the problems with the application processing times, and with a time allocation motion to boot.
This is one of the major problems with our citizenship system right now, and Bill C-24 contains no solutions. The Conservatives would have us believe that this bill will address the problem with the times. In fact, they are actually preventing many people who were prepared to apply for citizenship from doing so. The Conservatives are asking them to apply in a year or two because the rules have just changed.
The only thing that will do is temporarily reduce citizenship applications for a year. This will help the Conservatives get good statistics in time for the election, but there is nothing in Bill C-24 that will truly fix the problem in the long term. This shows a complete lack of respect for people who would have and should have the right to citizenship.
Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the work of my colleague, the NDP critic on citizenship and immigration. I know how seriously she studied this bill and proposed amendments during what little work could be done in committee.
I wonder if she could elaborate on the Conservatives' lack of respect for the work that would have resulted in an in-depth study of the bill before us. Perhaps she could also tell us how, as a member of Parliament, she was deprived of her right to such a study.
[Interjection]
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
As I mentioned earlier, we did a pre-study. It was not a real study of the bill. This is a lack of respect for standard procedures. In fact, they put a time limit on debate. We were denied the opportunity to hear more witnesses, very credible witnesses such as Amnesty International or UNICEF, for example.These organizations could not appear before the committee because, again, of the insufficient time provided by the Conservatives.
What is even more frustrating is that the government did not even listen to the witnesses that we were able to hear during the very limited time allowed by the government. It is one thing to invite witnesses and ask them to speak, but it is too easy to then wash one's hands of whole thing and say there was consultation. Was that consultation serious? We heard witnesses, but did we really listen to them? Did we take them seriously?
They all had important recommendations to make to improve the bill. They were concerned about human rights and the constitutionality of the bill. However, the Conservatives did not even listen to them, and that is very frustrating. 
Mr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to highlight our government's commitments to protecting the integrity of Canada's citizenship system and add my voice in support of Bill C-24. This important piece of legislation would deliver on our Conservative government's promise in the recent Speech from the Throne to strengthen and protect the value of Canadian citizenship.
On this side of the House we recognize the important role immigration has played in building our country. Since 2006, our Conservative government has welcomed the highest sustained level of immigration in Canada's history. Each year we have welcomed an average of almost 260,000 newcomers who contribute to the economic, political, and social fabric of our country as permanent residents. Moreover, Canada remains a world leader in naturalization, with more than 85% of eligible permanent residents going on to become Canadian citizens.
We are proud of this enviable high rate of uptake in citizenship. Our important bill, the strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act, would not only reduce citizenship backlogs and improve processing times for applicants, but it would strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship.
Canadians have no tolerance for the cheats and fraudsters who do not play by the rules and who de-value the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Most of us have heard anecdotal stories or read newspaper reports about police investigations into individuals who lie to become citizens of our great country. They concoct schemes to make it appear as if they are living in Canada when in fact they are not and nor do they have any intentions of planting roots here. Rather, they consider Canadian citizenship as nothing more than a passport of convenience, a revolving door or gateway to generous taxpayer-funded economic and social benefits available at their disposal as needed.
Canadians rightfully expect our Conservative government to put a stop to this selfish niche to protect Canadian citizenship, which truly is a privilege. It is shameful that the opposition does not understand why it is so important to protect the value of Canadian citizenship and why it should support this important legislation. Our Conservative government has listened to Canadians across the country and has committed to put an end to this abuse most recently in our last throne speech. Our government not only listened but acted to deliver on this key promise by introducing Bill C-24. We are committed to protecting the value of our citizenship and taking action against those who seek to cheapen it.
Our proposed reforms would strengthen the value of citizenship by helping to prevent citizenship fraud and by increasing the penalties for those who gain citizenship fraudulently. First, our reforms would bring the penalty of committing citizenship fraud in line with that of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by increasing the penalty to a maximum fine of $100,000 or up to five years in prison, or both. The proposed legislation would also add a provision to refuse an applicant of material facts and bar applicants who misrepresent such facts from reapplying for citizenship for five years. That is a serious way to deter citizenship fraud.
In contrast, existing penalties in the Citizenship Act have not increased since 1977 and are ineffective in deterring fraudsters. Our proposed increase in fines and significant jail terms would deter both applicants and crooked citizenship consultants from trying to undermine Canadian citizenship.
With respect to crooked consultants, our government successfully passed the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act in an effort to protect those in need of assistance from an immigration representative. That bill created a regulatory body to oversee immigration consultants and ensure compliance with the law. Bill C-24 would give the government similar legal authority to designate a body to regulate citizenship consultants. Proposed amendments would increase penalties for citizenship fraud to a maximum fine of $100,000 or up to two years in prison, or both.
I am proud to stand before the House today to address these important reforms that our government has introduced as a means to crack down on fraud and to preserve the integrity of Canadian citizenship and citizenship programs. 
This leads to my last point, which focuses on our government's promised amendment to streamline the process to revoke citizenship from those who have lied or cheated on their citizenship application. As members are likely aware, our Conservative government has taken action to revoke citizenship from those who obtained it through fraudulent means. More than 11,000 cases of fraud have been discovered and we are investigating each and every one. However, the current revocation process is extremely lengthy and cumbersome. Shamefully, it has taken Canada years, often decades, to revoke the citizenship of fraudsters, including despicable war criminals who never should have obtained it in the first place.
One this side of the House, we are serious about cracking down on those who undermine the value of our citizenship. It is important, to achieve such an important objective, that we put our government in a position to be able to revoke the citizenship in a timely manner. 
Under proposed changes to the new revocation process, it should facilitate the government's ability to revoke citizenships in a timely manner for those convicted of residency fraud. In these cases, the minister of citizenship and immigration, or his or her delegate, would oversee the revocation, but the decision would still be subject to review by court, as is the case for all immigration decisions. This streamlined revocation process would result in faster decision-making and faster removal, while still ensuring fairness.
 Individuals who have had their citizenship revoked would also be barred from reapplying for 10 years, up from the current bar of 5 years. Our government believes that this is entirely reasonable.
Canadian citizenship is a unique privilege and is highly coveted around the globe. However, citizenship is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. It means that we share the commitment to uphold our common values that our brave men and women in uniform have fought to preserve and champion. These are values that include freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. 
Those of us who are fortunate enough to have Canadian citizenship share in all of the great advantages it confers. However, it is important to remember that citizenship is far more than just the right to carry a passport or to vote. It defines us as a people. As such, it is essential that we work to maintain the value of Canadian citizenship. 
I have heard from many of my constituents on this issue. All of them agree that we must crack down on criminals and fraudsters who cheapen the value of one of our most precious commodities. It is shameful, however, that opposition members do not listen to Canadians and do not support this important bill. 
Indeed, the measures in Bill C-24 represent the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in more than a generation. They are necessary to strengthen the value and protect the integrity of Canadian citizenship for today and for the future. With this bill, our Conservative government is sending a crystal clear message: we will not turn a blind eye from those who commit fraud or help others to obtain Canadian citizenship by fraud. 
If opposition members prefer to continue with their shameful tactics to oppose and delay passage of the bill, they will have to answer to the Canadian public, a public who is, thankfully, recognizing the necessary and common sense changes we are making.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many lawyers, such as members of the Canadian Bar Association and others working in this field, have been concerned about the concentration of power, in this bill, in the hands of the minister. In particular, when a minister, or delegated staffer, concludes on a balance of probabilities that a person has obtained citizenship by fraud, currently he or she has the ability to move that person on their own. The United Sates has a court process that could attend such an event, where naturalization is to be forfeited. That has been the practice in Canada in the past.
Does the hon. member share the concerns of so many lawyers and constitutional experts about the constitutionality of that and the propriety in a democracy of concentrating so much power in one individual?
[Interjection]
Joe Daniel: Mr. Speaker, before these decisions are made by the minister or any of his staff, they do have to go through a court process, so there is a process in place ahead of time for that to happen.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, most of the member's speech emphasized how happy he is that the minister is going to have the power to get rid of a person's citizenship.
One of the concerns that I have, and I have had the opportunity to express this on several occasions, is the significant increase in processing times for citizenship, to the degree that it is almost three years long. It is about 28 months, or two and a half years. That is up, well over 100%, in terms of time for processing citizenship applications since the government took office.
For the people who happen to be part of that percentage of, some would estimate, about 20% of applicants, it will take up to four or five years in order to be processed.
The government is bringing forward this legislation in the hope that it will reduce the time. No doubt the government will want to claim that it reduced the times of processing for citizenship, and will try to take credit for a reduction of times for processing in this crisis that it created.
Why is having decent processing times for people applying for citizenship been such a low priority?
[Interjection]
Joe Daniel: Mr. Speaker, clearly the number of citizenship applications and the volume we have taken on since we have come into power has significantly increased from what it was prior to that.
There are some 260,000 people who are immigrating, and 85% of them are applying for citizenship. This has created a backlog that was much bigger than was expected.
Hopefully this bill will have some reforms that will reduce that time to approximately a year.
Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals had 13 long and comfortable years to reform the Citizenship Act, but it did not.
That is why our government has set out to make the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in 35 years. In economic action plan 2013, investments were made to reduce processing times.
Could my hon. colleague tell this House how Bill C-24 will complement the investments that the government has already made to strengthening citizenship, so that those who deserve it get it fast, and those who lie and hide their heinous crimes do not?
[Interjection]
Joe Daniel: Mr. Speaker, the way it is going to change is by the following: increasing the efficiency of the citizenship program to improve application processing; reinforcing the value of citizenship by strengthening the requirements and deterring citizenships of convenience; improving the tools we have to maintain program integrity and combat fraud; and protecting and promoting Canada's interests and values by honouring those who serve Canada, by revoking citizenships of dual citizens who are members of armed forces or recognized armed groups engaged in conflict with Canada.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. While I support the objective of clarifying the test for residency and also the approach with regard to the retroactive restoration of citizenship for additional lost Canadians, I have serious concerns with respect to the bill's principles and policies as a whole. I submit it will not strengthen, but in fact prejudice, Canadian citizenship, and in particular undermine the fundamental principles of Canadian law and policy that have long underpinned our citizenship regime.
There are too many problematic and constitutionally suspect aspects of this bill to address all of them in my allotted time. Accordingly, I would invite members who are considering voting in support of this legislation to consult, among other resources, the comprehensive and persuasive briefs of the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, submissions of constitutional experts, and others, who have identified the serious flaws in this bill while making the case for its rejection.
I will focus primarily on those proposed yet seriously problematic reforms to the Citizenship Act that would fundamentally alter the concept of Canadian citizenship, ultimately resulting in the creation of two unequal classes of Canadians. Indeed, Bill C-24 marks the unprecedented introduction of citizenship tiers for the first time in Canadian history. Not only would this bill make it more difficult to obtain citizenship, it would make it easier for the government to revoke it. 
Specifically, Bill C-24 provides that an applicant seeking citizenship must intend to reside in Canada upon obtaining citizenship. This provision would ultimately empower the minister to revoke citizenship from naturalized Canadians based on a finding that they initially misrepresented their intent to reside in Canada. As a result, naturalized Canadians who, for example, engage in extensive international travel for legitimate reasons, such as to visit family or engage in work abroad, would be left in a state of standing uncertainty as to whether their international travel would provide the government with the basis for citizenship revocation on the grounds that they misrepresented their intent when making their initial citizenship applications. 
Simply put, it is both wrong and unconstitutional to place this heightened and unequal burden on naturalized Canadians. Indeed, whether this threat is acted upon, the result would be a chilling effect on the mobility rights of naturalized Canadians, thereby creating two unequal classes of citizens under the law: naturalized Canadians for whom international travel may provide a basis for citizenship revocation, and Canadian-born citizens who may travel freely.
New immigrants to Canada are active members of our society. They pay taxes and contribute positively to our nation's economy. Indeed, I am extremely proud to be able to represent one of the most ethnically diverse ridings in the country, the rainbow riding, or comté arc-en-ciel de Mont-Royal. I myself have been witness to how a reasonable and respectful immigration system treats new Canadians as full and equal Canadians, and contributes positively to the community and the perception of Canadian society as constituting a multicultural mosaic. Indeed, section 27 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to multiculturalism as a constitutional norm.
Simply put, there is no societal or governmental interest achieved in creating an arbitrary distinction and disparate impact and burden on mobility rights between birthright Canadians and new immigrants who have come here lawfully to better their own lives, and who in turn strengthen the fabric of our nation. Indeed, approaching immigration and integration in such a derisive and discriminatory matter is at odds with Canada's long history of being a welcoming and inclusive nation.
Critics such as the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers have argued that the “intent to reside” requirement will provide “broad discretion to a citizenship officer to speculate on the future intentions of a citizenship applicant and deny citizenship based on an alleged lack” of future intent to reside. While the government certainly has the right to restrict immigration, it should do so directly and with clear and express justification, and not based on fear, stigma, speculation, or prejudice.
Apart from the discriminatory effect of this bill that I have described, the legislation is also objectionable on the grounds that it would make Canadian citizenship impractical, if not entirely inaccessible, for many who would otherwise contribute positively to our country, and in particular to our economy.
Moreover, not only would this bill negatively impact permanent residents and naturalized Canadians, it would also establish new grounds for revoking citizenship for all Canadians, including those born here, subject only to a vaguely worded requirement that revocation not conflict “with any international human rights instrument regarding statelessness to which Canada is signatory”. 
As the Canadian Bar Association explains:
 Citizens who may be subject to citizenship revocation include those born in Canada who are presumed to be able to claim citizenship in another state through one of their parents.... 
Not only would this approach raise a whole set of interpretative challenges for the courts, it would enable the government to change the substance of this restriction by unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty without consulting Parliament. All of this, of course, ignores the glaring constitutional questions posed by this bill in general, and this specific flawed provision in particular. 
 I will remind the House of the wording of one of the foundational sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 6(1). It says:
 Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. 
There is no exception in the charter. Section 6(1) does not distinguish between naturalized, dual, or Canadian-born citizens, as would Bill C-24. 
While I regret the seeming presumptiveness of reading from the charter to hon. members in this place when we all have obligation to uphold, protect, and defend it, given the bill we are debating and the interventions in debate thus far, it does seem possible that some members in this place may not be as familiar as they should be with this and other charter provisions.
Indeed, one must wonder how it is possible that this bill is before us at all with no report of its charter non-compliance, given the requirements of section 4(1) of the Department of Justice Act that the minister review government bills for consistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and table a report of inconsistency, if such is found. Entrenched charter rights, in particular mobility rights under section 6, due process rights under section 7, and equality rights under section 15, are engaged by this bill and would likely be infringed.
Similarly, cases could be made that provisions of Bill C-24 would also infringe on sections 11 and 12 charter rights as well, let alone section 27, to which I have otherwise referred.
This is but a brief snapshot of why these charter rights are engaged and infringed. Whereas principles of fundamental justice include the basic entitlement to procedural fairness, the punishment of exile as it would be applied to Canadian citizens in this legislation could also infringe section 7 of the charter.
In another example, the new grounds for revocation, which would apply only to a class of Canadians deemed to be dual citizens under this bill, would violate the principle of equal citizenship and draw an impermissible distinction based on the enumerated ground of national origin, under section 15 of the charter. Time will prohibit me from elaborating further in this regard. 
It is clear that this legislation should have been rejected, even by the government's own alleged standards of review as set forth in its court documents to the effect that the government considers a bill as being charter compliant unless its likelihood of withstanding a charter-based challenge is only 5% or less.
It does not take a constitutional expert to see that this bill is seriously constitutionally suspect, even allowing for the government's particularly low threshold. Therefore, I must take this opportunity to ask why, in light of the government's recent legislative record of constitutionally suspect provisions, it would today seek to pass yet another bill that would trigger expensive, time-consuming, and foreseeable litigation, which would ultimately be struck down in part, if not full. Even more troubling perhaps, it would put the Canadian citizenship regime in a state of flux and uncertainty.
I have only touched on the particulars of this fundamentally flawed and constitutionally suspect legislation. 
I wish to emphasize that tiered citizenship as contemplated by this bill is both unethical and unconstitutional. I see no reason why the government should be seeking to restrict immigration to Canada. I would therefore put the question directly to the members to this place. Is there any reason, let alone a compelling one, to make it more difficult for law-abiding applicants to achieve citizenship? Is it the case that we have decided that diversity no longer represents a societal virtue and Canadian value? Is it the case that multiculturalism is no longer a constitutional norm?
The government has yet to justify the primary legislative changes accomplished through the bill in any compelling, let alone constitutional, manner, and its advancement will only continue to create stigma and prejudicial fallout for new immigrants.
For these reasons, I would urge all members to join me in affirming respect for Canadians, respect for the charter, respect for the foundational principle of equality, and respect for multiculturalism and to therefore oppose Bill C-24 and uphold the rule of law.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I know he has been campaigning for years for human rights and for the rights of refugees and newcomers to Canada. I am also aware of his deep respect for all these Canadians, for these newcomers who continue to build today's Canada.
I wonder whether the hon. member could elaborate on very contentious issues such as the revocation of Canadian citizenship, which would be put in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the clauses that could lead to an abuse of discretionary power. It is one of the many abuses mentioned in my presentation.
What concerns me—and it must be pointed out—is the problem of constitutional issues. In this bill, many clauses are basically unconstitutional and make it possible to abuse the rule of law, the fundamental principle of equality before the law, and the principles of right of mobility and multiculturalism, which are enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are fundamental and constitutional principles.
For this reason, and for all the other reasons, we must reject the bill.
Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for a wonderful few minutes of explanation about the bill so that all Canadians can get a better understanding of just how these kinds of changes in bill C-24 would impact future Canadians.
I would like to hear more from my colleague. Every new Canadian I speak to is very anxious to get citizenship. Would Bill C-24 make that more difficult for newcomers to Canada?
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, not only would it make it more difficult to access citizenship, it would make it more difficult to keep citizenship.
I am unable to understand how such a piece of legislation that is so seriously constitutionally flawed could have been introduced to this chamber to begin with. I cannot understand how the legislative advice the minister received with regard to the requirements of constitutional compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding any proposed legislation could have passed constitutional muster.
Perhaps I should not be surprised. There is a record of introducing legislation that has been not only constitutionally suspect but constitutionally challenged. Again and again the courts in this country have pronounced the legislation unconstitutional. Effectively, it should not have been introduced to begin with.
The government should not be introducing yet another constitutionally flawed bill, imposing litigation, in effect, at taxpayers' expense, which at the end of the day will result, yet again, in another court pronouncement that this legislation is unconstitutional, putting our whole citizenship legislation in flux and uncertainty.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
I would first like to speak about LaSalle—Émard, the riding that I have the privilege and honour of representing. My riding is located in the southwest region of the Island of Montreal and it is quite diverse. Each year it becomes home to approximately 1,000 new citizens. Once a year for the past three years, I have organized an evening event to welcome new citizens. The event this year was held on May 22, and slightly more than 350 people attended. They attended along with their friends and family and they happily thanked me for welcoming them to Canada. They told me they chose to come to Canada because it was a democratic country with a good standard of living where people can freely express their views and work. These were the sentiments conveyed to me by these new citizens on this occasion held in their honour.
I would like to thank them from the bottom of my heart for helping me to appreciate once again how fortunate and privileged we are to live in Canada, a country that throughout its history has welcomed newcomers with open arms.
 In 2017 we will be marking 150 years of Confederation. But well before then, Canada welcomed French explorers and Anglo-Saxon settlers to its shores. Later on, Ukrainians settled in Saskatchewan. I had an opportunity to visit the Ukrainian Museum of Canada during a stop in Saskatoon.
Year after year, my riding welcomes newcomers and refugees who come to Canada because of its highly democratic values and its tradition of welcoming people from every country in the world.
 However, the bill now before us would slam the door in their faces. Since the Conservatives came to power, it has become increasingly difficult for people to come to this country. While I did welcome some new citizens to my riding, I have to mention the over 350 cases of people who sought the assistance of my riding office. These people are upset with the lengthy delays they have encountered. They are waiting to be reunited with their spouses and families. There is good reason to be seriously concerned about this state of affairs. 
Since March 2008, over 25 major changes have been made to immigration practices, rules, laws and regulations, adding even more confusion to the situation and making things even more difficult for refugees and applicants. The government wants to make waiting times even longer.
Since the Conservatives have had a majority government, there has been a moratorium on sponsorship of parents and grandparents. The number of family reunifications has declined. Vulnerable refugees are being penalized, while the number of temporary foreign workers, who have no rights and no chance of settling permanently in Canada, has increased. They are brought here to work and then sent home.
 One would have thought that a bill to amend the Citizenship Act and make consequential amendments to other acts might have addressed all of these issues and all of the system’s inherent problems. Alas, the bill is silent on this score. 
As my colleague, the official opposition critic for immigration and citizenship, so aptly said, some provisions of the bill do address important issues and will bring about certain improvements. 
On the one hand, some effort has been made to resolve long-standing problems. However, as has been noted in the speeches made in this House, some of the bill’s provisions do raise extremely important questions and very legitimate concerns. Specifically, there is the fact that Bill C-24 gives the minister many new powers, including the power to grant or revoke citizenship in the case of persons with dual citizenship. Some witnesses said that they are very concerned about this new provision because people will not have access to the proper recourse. This provision is indeed cause for some concern.
Furthermore, as I said, the bill offers no real solution when it comes to reducing wait times, which continue to grow, and citizenship application processing times.
 Another provision mentioned earlier is the requirement to state one’s intention of residing in the country. Under Bill C-24, a person who is granted citizenship by the minister must intend to reside in Canada after being granted citizenship. This begs the question as to whether— 
The Speaker: Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard because we must proceed to statements by members. However, the good news is that she will have two minutes to continue her speech after oral question period.
We will now proceed with statements by members.
The hon. member for York Centre.

Statements by Members
Filipino CanadiansMark Adler: Mr. Speaker, Mabuhay.
 On June 12, Canadians of Filipino origin will be celebrating 116 years of independence. Marked by Filipinos around the world as the country's national day, it is the time to commemorate the sacrifices made by such heroes of the Philippines as José Rizal and Andres Bonifacio.
The first Filipinos came to Canada in 1930 and since then, Filipino Canadians have made tremendous contributions to our country's social and cultural fabric, to our economy and to our nation's history.
This year's national day is particularly poignant as we also pause to remember those lives lost and uprooted due to Hurricane Yolanda. Canada's response to this tragedy was swift, decisive and substantive. This showed Filipino Canadians that, as members of the Canadian family, we stand together.
I am proud to say that York Centre has one of the largest number of Filipino Canadians of any riding in Canada, and I look forward to celebrating national day with them.
For all Filipino Canadians, I take great pride in saying, Araw ng Kalayaan.
Optimist ClubsMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, optimist clubs are an approach to life. Members do volunteer work to help improve the lives of their fellow citizens, youth, adults and seniors. It is about breaking isolation by organizing social and community activities.
In my riding, that includes parent-teen meetings like the ones at Beauharnois-Maple Grove; celebrating Earth Day and keeping kids safe on Halloween, like they do in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield; organizing a corn festival like the one in Saint-Anicet; or hosting running events to get back in shape, like they do in Saint-Michel.
Optimist clubs across the country are helping improve and revitalize our communities.
All these activities express a fundamental value: solidarity and helping others.
To honour the wonderful work being done by optimist clubs, perhaps we should make the first Thursday in February “Canadian Optimist Day”. That is my proposal to the House, and I committed to working on this issue so that Parliament passes legislation that will raise awareness about the values being promoted by members of optimist clubs.
I am sure that every member will vote in favour of this bill. Let us be optimistic.
IranMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs has said:
 Despite the electoral promises made by President Hassan Rouhani to improve people’s lives, Iranians continue to live in fear of arbitrary imprisonment, torture and execution by the clerical regime. 
Even more recently, the minister said: 
 All of us, who have long despaired about the Iranian regime, want to believe that Iran is genuinely committed to positive change. But we do not have the luxury of being naive, nor do the Iranian people, who have suffered for far too long under the regime’s nuclear ambitions. Human rights, particularly executions, are actually getting worse under his watch and at the hands of Iran’s so-called “Minister of Murder”. 
I am equally concerned about the safety and security of approximately 3,000 Iranian dissidents in Camp Liberty in Iraq who are under constant threats of annihilation, missile attacks and inhumane medical siege.
Our Minister of Foreign Affairs has said:
 Canada deplores Iran’s continued disregard for due process and human rights violations against its people. The Iranian people deserve the dignity, respect and freedom that they have been denied for too long. 

Birthday CongratulationsMs. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Frances Peddle from Stephenville Crossing who turned 108 years old on May 29 and is the oldest resident in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mrs. Peddle left her home in Green's Harbour, Trinity Bay when she was age 15 to go to work, including travelling to Montreal. She returned to the province where she married and raised six children.
When her first husband passed away, she later remarried and was stepmother to eight other children. Mrs. Peddle has also been blessed with 60 grandchildren, 92 great-grandchildren, 57 great-great grandchildren and 4 great-great-great grandchildren.
Mrs. Peddle always made time to volunteer, which she continued doing until the age of 90. She was an active legionnaire, a member of the Fishermen's Lodge, the Ladies Orange Benevolent Association and the Anglican Church Women's Group.
For the past 26 years, she has lived with her daughter Margaret and son-in-law Ivan Bennett who welcomed me to their home when I visited Mrs. Peddle.
I ask all members to join with me in recognizing this remarkable woman who, at 108 years old, is healthy, alert and credits her ripe old age to hard work.
Battle of NormandyMr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week our Prime Minister and a contingent of Canadian veterans have travelled a great distance to Normandy. There they will reflect and honour the loss of so many lives and the many brave Canadian soldiers who did not return.
One of those veterans is Mr. Denis Hubber from my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. Mr. Hubber will turn 91 this year and served with the Royal Navy, from 1941 to 1946, and later with the Royal Canadian Air Force.
This journey has great meaning for Mr. Hubber, and I ask that all members of the House join with me in recognition for the many brave Canadians who served at Normandy.
Lest we Forget.
Normandy LandingMr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago on the morning of June 6, 14,000 brave and fearless Canadian soldiers landed on Juno Beach in Normandy.
The Royal Canadian Navy supplied the ships for the landing, and our planes flew over the ancient dunes, preparing the terrain for shelling. Of the 14,000 who chose to crowd into those boats, over 1,000 were killed or wounded freeing Europe from the Nazi scourge.
Every member here is proud to pay tribute today to those who were willing to sacrifice their lives for our freedom. I speak for us all when I say, “Lest we forget”.
Canada-Africa Leadership Intern ProgramJoe Daniel: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East, I rise to congratulate the trainees of the first Canada-Africa leadership intern program that was recently completed in Ottawa. 
The participants represented the Kingdom of Lesotho, the United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda and the Republic of Zambia. This leadership program was a resounding success and the participants enjoyed their experience, including the snow that they had never seen before. 
I thank all those who helped make this program a success, including the Library of Parliament; ITTS, Parliament clerks, table officers and committee clerks, Senate and Senate staff, Office of the Black Rod, human resources; commissioners, Sergeant-at-Arms, and all the staff and assistants. I thank them all for their help on this program.
I also thank High Commissioner Tsepa from Lesotho, First Secretary Joseph Sokoine from Tanzania, former High Commissioner Margaret Kyogire from Uganda and High Commissioner Bobby Samakai from Zambia for their support and help in facilitating this program.
I look forward to initiating further programs and the inclusion of more African countries.
70th Anniversary of D-DayMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago, dawn broke over Normandy with the silhouette of war painted across the horizon. D-Day had arrived to tranquil shores, bearing witness to history's largest invasion, 1,000 ships of allied might prepared to strike the heart of Nazi tyranny, to free Europe from its grasp. 
More than 100,000 stormed ashore, earning their place in history under horrific enemy fire. Many did not reach the beach, slipping beneath the channel's cold water. Fathers and sons were driven from peaceful pasts to take up arms for their God, King and country, testing the mettle of their fortitude and soul. Canada's soldiers truly triumphed on D-Day, a crucial day on the road to victory and to a free world.
The price of peace in Canada today has been the high cost of lives lost in the wars of the past.
Lest we forget.
Normandy LandingMr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago today, more than 14,000 Canadian soldiers were getting ready for the largest allied offensive in Normandy.
The Royal Canadian Navy would send 109 ships and 10,000 sailors to join the massive armada of 7,000 allied ships that took to the sea on D-Day. Those soldiers came from across Canada. Most of them were young and had never taken part in a combat mission before. Thanks to their courage and tenacity, they were able to push back the German troops and pave the way for the liberation of Europe.
More than 5,000 of our soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice and are buried far from their loved ones and their homeland. Those who returned home suffered physical and psychological injuries, which they are still dealing with today.
The cost of freedom and democracy can be a steep price to pay. Let us remember those who sacrificed their lives for the protection of these ideals. Let us remember those who sacrificed their present for the sake of our future.
We will remember them. Lest we forget.
Battle of NormandyMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago today, Canada and our allies dared to attempt the seemingly impossible. They bravely landed on the heavily defended shores of Normandy and, with great vision and perseverance, forever changed the course of history. Canada's courageous troops were among the first into action and, against terrible odds, they fought their way onto Juno Beach.
The success achieved in Normandy was a turning point in the Second World War, paving the way to victory in Europe.
As a nation, we remember those who sacrificed for democracy, justice and peace, and we pay tribute to the fallen.
Lest we forget.
Laval—Les ÎlesMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as this will be the last time I rise before the end of the session, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for their support and their significant involvement in political life.
In the past few months alone, thousands of people have shared their disgust with the decision to end home mail delivery. They also support the NDP position to reduce ATM transaction fees and the NDP's environmental policies.
I would like to thank all the people of Laval for their support, and I want to reassure them that I will continue to fight to protect their rights and defend their interests here in Ottawa. 
In closing, I would like to invite my constituents to meet with me at my office or at one of the events that will take place this summer in our lovely city, especially our national holiday, Canada day, and some of the festivities in western Laval or the Greek and Armenian festivals. 
I look forward to seeing you there.
The EconomyMr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government's determined direction, Canada's economy is a model among developed nations. The World Economic Forum has rated our banking system as the most sound in the world for the past six years. Forbes has rated Canada the best country in the G20 in which to do business.
Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, we continue to open new markets for Canadian businesses, supporting them as they compete in the global marketplace. The anti-trade NDP, au contraire, wants to implement risky schemes to raise taxes, while the Liberal leader thinks that budgets balance themselves.
 Every middle-class family knows that it takes discipline to balance the chequebook, but only our Conservative government is focused on the priorities of Canadians: jobs, growth and economic prosperity. We are keeping taxes low, we are on track to balance the budget and we are getting the job done for hard-working Canadians.
70th Anniversary of D-DayHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this the 70th anniversary of D-Day, all Canadians remember the enormous sacrifice of those who fought and died to defeat the embodiment of evil. We honour the profound courage of those Canadians who landed on Juno Beach under heavy fire to establish a crucial foothold for the liberation of Europe.
My Dad landed through Juno Beach five days after the initial wave, and went on to help hold the bridge at Nijmegen in Holland. Dad rarely spoke of the war, but he said that he hoped our sons—that no one's sons—would have to face the horrors of war.
Peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of social justice.
We have much more work to do to honour those who fought for peace and those who in uniform continue to put their lives in harm's way to protect us.
Battle of NormandyMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under overcast skies 70 years ago this very day, thousands of brave Canadians battled on land, at sea and in the skies over occupied Europe, when allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy and began the march to victory in the Second World War.
 However, the Canadian triumph on D-Day and during the Battle of Normandy was purchased with much sacrifice, blood and loss. Of the more than 90,000 Canadians who served in the Battle of Normandy, more than 5,000 would give their lives. 
Today, we remember those who served, and we reflect on the legacy that they have given into our care: the precious gift of freedom.
 Lest we forget.
Shootings in MonctonMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this morning, I would like to acknowledge the courage of three RCMP officers who gave their lives to protect the people of Moncton.
Constable Fabrice Georges Gevaudan, Constable David Joseph Ross and Constable Douglas James Larche are three heroes whom people in Moncton, the Atlantic region and all of Canada will remember.
Our thoughts are with their families, loved ones and colleagues. We are eternally grateful for their service and their sacrifice.
On behalf of all of my colleagues, I offer our sincerest and most profound condolences to the families of the fallen members.
Yesterday, the people of Moncton showed grace under pressure.
Today we shall stand together and mourn the deaths in the line of duty of these brave officers.
These events will remain etched in our memories forever.
We shall not forget them.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning at 12:10 a.m., after a long, arduous, and dangerous manhunt, the RCMP apprehended the suspect in the recent horrific shooting in Moncton.
Monctonians can rest assured that the safety and security of their community has been restored. All Canadians can be proud of the resiliency shown by the community of Moncton and how the people have come together in this very difficult time. Front-line law enforcement officers have shown tremendous bravery in apprehending this deranged individual.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Constable Fabrice Gevaudan, Constable David Ross, and Constable Douglas James Larche, who all gave the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.
We will be forever grateful for their service.

Oral Questions
JusticeMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's Bedford decision was about ensuring the safety of vulnerable women, but the Conservatives' legislation is raising concerns across the country. It has provisions that most likely do not respect the charter and do not appear to respect the Supreme Court's ruling. This will be dragged through the courts for years.
Will the government do the sensible thing and refer this legislation to the Supreme Court before proceeding further?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member insofar as we have made genuine efforts to address the inherent dangers of prostitution. More than just the legislation, we have put in place significant resources to help prostitutes exit this life and find a better, safer, healthier path. That is what is happening in addition to the legislation.
With regard to a Supreme Court reference, it was just six months ago that we received the Bedford decision. It is the role and the responsibility of parliamentarians to examine legislation and bring forward laws we feel are good for Canadians.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, several analysts have concluded that Bill C-36 does not do an adequate job of protecting prostitutes as required by the Supreme Court in Bedford. A number of experts and sex workers believe that Bill  C-36 will force prostitution further underground and expose people to more violence.
Will the government disclose the legal opinions it received and refer its bill to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible to ensure that it is charter compliant and in line with the Bedford ruling?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, once again, our government has no intention of compromising the authority and responsibility of Parliament.
With respect to the concerns around prostitution and the inherent dangers, clearly that was reflected in the bill itself. What we are attempting to do is protect Canadians, protect those who are most vulnerable, protect communities as well, including children, from the exposure to prostitution.
This is a complex issue. To suggest that there is an answer that is going to solve all of these issues overnight is simply not realistic. I would encourage the member to examine the bill.
Public Works and Government ServicesNycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, apparently the government has a report recommending the purchase of 65 F-35s without a bidding process.
Members may recall that in 2012, a damning Auditor General report accused the Conservatives of failing to do due diligence for a $25 billion contract.
Will the minister table that report before the House adjourns? Can she also tell us why she is still refusing to launch a bidding process?
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made about replacing the fleet of CF-18 fighter jets.
When we developed the seven-point plan to replace the CF-18s, we undertook the most independent and transparent review ever in Canadian history. A panel of independent experts ensured that the Royal Canadian Air Force evaluated the options both rigorously and impartially.
We will take a very careful look at a number of reports to make a decision about replacing Canada's existing fleet of CF-18 fighter jets. We will make sure that the Canadian Forces have the equipment they need to do their job.
Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP): Mr. Speaker, reruns are a sure sign that summer is here. We have seen this F-35 show before. The story where we do not need an open competition to get the best price. The story where we can buy 65 jets for $9 billion. There are never credible story lines and it is never credibly performed.
Here we are again with the Conservatives rejecting open competition in favour of sole-sourced procurement for the F-35s.
Could the minister at least tell us if the Canadian companies are guaranteed work?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat for the member opposite because he did not seem to listen to my previous answer. No decision has been made on the replacement for the CF-18 fighter jet fleet. Our government will finish a number of reports related to defence capabilities, industrial benefits, costs, and other factors with a view to replacing our CF-18 fleet.
I can assure the member that we remain committed to ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the equipment they need to perform their duties. 
We will reveal that information to the House in due course.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I did listen to the answer but the thing is, I have heard that answer many times, in fact, years ago. The parliamentary secretary had to blow the dust off his paperwork.
The results of the Canadian government's study have already been reported in Washington. Government and industry officials have been leaking their version of events here in Canada. If Conservative spinners are willing to leak the report to the media and industry, why are Conservative ministers not willing to answer questions here, to stand by their decisions, to stand to account to Canadians here in the House?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, as part of our seven-point plan, the Royal Canadian Air Force has conducted a rigorous examination of the ability of available fighter aircraft to carry out the missions outlined in the Canada first defence strategy. An independent panel comprised of experts, external to government I should add, ensured that the valuation of options being conducted by the RCAF was both rigorous and impartial.
 Our government will be carefully reviewing a number of reports related to defence capabilities, industrial benefits, and costs to make sure we have an adequate replacement of our CF-18 fleet. Once we have reviewed all of these reports, we will make a decision and we will announce it.
EmploymentMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every day Canadians continue to watch as full-time jobs are replaced by part-time jobs. Canadians' paid hours of work have not changed over the past year. All the new jobs created are part-time jobs that pay less and provide fewer benefits.
Will the Conservatives admit that there is a problem and finally introduce real measures to create jobs?
Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, even though the global economy remains fragile, our economic policies have kept Canada's economy strong. Since coming to office in 2006, Canada has had the strongest job growth of any in the G7 countries, that is, the most industrial countries in the world.
Since coming to power, the Conservative Party and this government have led all other G7 countries in economic growth. Over one million net new jobs have been created since the deepest part of the recession. By far, the overwhelming number of these jobs are full-time jobs in the private sector.
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are watching their full-time jobs be replaced by part-time work. According to the latest jobs report, Canada is actually down 27,000 full-time jobs compared with last year. TD Economics reports that the Canadian job market remains disappointing. All net new jobs have been part-time. These jobs pay less and they have fewer benefits.
Instead of repeating these old, out-of-date, Conservative talking points, will the Conservatives actually admit there is a problem and introduce a real jobs plan to create full-time work across Canada?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, we know that the job numbers can be volatile from month to month, but let me say this. The IMF and the OECD have confidence in Canada's economy. These international bodies believe that Canada has one of the strongest growth records as far as jobs are concerned and also as far as our economies are concerned in years going ahead.
 It is quite rich for the Liberal Party to be criticizing our government's job creation legislation and efforts. The Liberals voted against every job creation measure that this government has brought forward. Whether it is freezing the EI rates or tax cuts for the manufacturing sector, every time the Liberals will vote against it.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, those talking points are out of date and the Conservatives are out of touch with the reality that you cannot support a full-time family with part-time work. Since last year, Canada has lost 27,000 full-time jobs. Wages are stagnant and families are falling behind.
We can change this. Smart investments in infrastructure can create good full-time jobs across Canada, but the Conservatives have actually cut planned infrastructure spending by 90%. Will the Conservatives reverse these cuts, invest in infrastructure, and help create good full-time jobs across Canada?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, across this land Canadians are seeing construction projects unfold in their communities this spring with jobs being created as a result. Across this land municipalities are identifying infrastructure project priorities and submitting them to the new building Canada plan. Across this land the Liberals continue to spread misinformation.
Public SafetyLysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, this government is knowingly violating people's privacy. We learned this week that the Government Operations Centre, which falls under the Department of Public Safety, keeps a registry of protests and spies on the people who participate in them.
Freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How do the Conservatives justify transforming the Government Operations Centre into a super spy agency? 
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I actually answered this question I think four times yesterday, but I will provide a little more information to the NDP. I do not think they get it. Protests and rallies are public events. Protests that create blockades on highways, railroads, international ports of entry, and bridges have a significant impact on Canadian interests and pose potential security threats. 
Every Canadian watching today must recognize and appreciate that it is our government that is making sure that those things are looked after. 
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, they should be a little more specific. In fact, according to the email obtained by the media, the Government Operations Centre keeps a list of all the protests that take place across the country, and it shares the information with its partners. Police forces, Canadian intelligence services and the department involved come to mind immediately.
 Can the minister tell us if any personally identifiable information about the participants is collected and if this information is also shared with foreign intelligence services?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am answering the question for the sixth time. The Government Operations Centre needs to be prepared to respond to any potential event to ensure confidence in government and continuity of federal services. Canadians expect nothing less.
As I mentioned yesterday as well, peaceful protests can suddenly turn violent, just as law-abiding citizens can suddenly create a crime.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the only way the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety could pretend to justify Conservatives spying on Canadians was to bizarrely imply that if a peaceful protest turned unpeaceful, the NDP would call on the government to take action. 
Let us be clear about what we are talking about. This is about the ministry of public safety maintaining a registry of demonstrations to spy on Canadians who protest. How can the minister justify turning the ministry of public safety into a spy agency that keeps tabs on peaceful protesters?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, we of course respect the right of all Canadians to peaceful protest. However, Canadians also expect that local law enforcement will ensure that the laws are respected. In order to do that, the Government Operations Centre monitors any event that may pose a risk to public safety.
PrivacyMurray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are only now starting to see the full extent of government demands for our personal information. Rogers Communications, one of Canada's largest Internet providers, said that just last year they received over 170,000 requests for customer information. This follows previous statistics showing that telecom companies received more than 1.2 million data requests in 2011. We all know that there are not 1.2 million terrorists. What possible reason could the government have for collecting so much of our personal information?
Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Our government takes the privacy of law-abiding Canadians very seriously, and we expect all telecommunications companies to comply with the law and play by the rules when handling Canadians' information.
Let me be clear. An individual's private information is protected under the charter and cannot be released without a warrant. 
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, no wonder the government hand-picked the new Privacy Commissioner, who specialized in defending the government against the previous Privacy Commissioner.
Privacy experts all recognize that the Conservatives' arguments on this file are bizarre and unbelievable. Warrantless searches go far beyond general scrutiny, and while some companies are releasing the number of requests they are getting, Canadians still have no idea how far this collection of their private data is going. 
Will the government finally explain what it is really doing with the private information of more than one million Canadians?
Ed Holder: Mr. Speaker, I can say it twice to make sure it is very, very clear, because I think it is important that the member understand. I was very familiar with PIPEDA, when it first came into play, as an employer. Let me be clear that the rules governing these types of voluntary disclosures have been clearly defined in section 7 of the PIPEDA rules. 
Telecommunications companies have already said as well that they will release only 411-style information. More importantly, we expect that telecommunications companies will comply absolutely with the law and play by the rules when handling Canadians' private information.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, how can the Conservatives, who are supposed to be the champions of freedom, justify asking telecoms for personal information about 100,000 Canadians?
If the Conservatives want to scrutinize Canadians' information and actions, they just have to watch the French program Occupation double. In the meantime, we are talking about ordinary citizens who are sharing their personal information with the government without even knowing it.
Can the Conservative government tell us what kind of information the telecoms are asked for?
Ed Holder: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the chance to say something very important that gives confidence to Canadians. I am talking about the privacy of law-abiding Canadians to be well respected, something this government takes absolutely seriously.
As I said, and I will say it again, a person's private information is protected under the charter and cannot be released without a warrant.
Public Works and Government ServicesMs. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 2012 the government was forced to cancel the F-35 program because it was poorly managed and lacked transparency. Reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General were devastating and categorical. In addition, Parliament was not even informed of the details of the project.
Will the Conservatives change their approach, show some transparency and tell us, for example, if the operational requirement has been modified so that every fighter jet manufacturer can be considered?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, a panel of independent experts ensured that the evaluation of options was rigorous and impartial and that the results to be made public are comprehensive and understandable. As we have said repeatedly, in due course we will be sharing unclassified and non-confidential business information from the evaluation of options.
We will not take lectures from the NDP, or the Liberals for that matter, on military procurement. When it comes to providing equipment for the military, we have delivered.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want Parliament to sign over a $9 billion cheque immediately, no questions asked. That is ridiculous.
The Auditor General said that the total cost of the project is $25 billion. It seems to me that with a bill like that, a competitive process is clearly necessary.
What killed the F-35 program in 2012 was the government's lack of transparency and inability to justify the need for this purchase. It seemed like the government was far more interested in defending Lockheed Martin's interests than those of Canadians.
Will the minister disclose the details of the Canadian F-35 procurement program by the time the House adjourns?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat, for the benefit of the opposition, that we are currently conducting an evaluation following the seven-point plan. Many of those reports are actually available on the website. The reports are being scrubbed for commercially sensitive information as well as for making sure that there is no classified information that goes out.
Once the evaluation of those options is complete, we will be announcing a decision to the Canadian public in due course.
Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, it looks like the same comedy of errors is playing itself out again on this F-35 file.
The Minister of National Defence at the time used to claim, “Yes, we have seen the competition. We did a competition for the F-35s”. It turned out that no, actually, the Conservatives did not. The Americans did it for them in 2001, and they just accepted it.
Can the Conservatives tell us if they actually conducted a real competition this time, and that it has taken place, and whether, yet again, Canadians, having no guaranteed contract for Canadian companies, really believe it is a great deal for the Canadian public across this country?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat once again, no decision has been made on the CF-18 replacement. 
In the evaluation of the different options, we are looking at defence capabilities. Of course we are looking at industrial benefits, and we are looking at the best value for Canadian taxpayers. Once that evaluation is complete, we will be making sure that the information is revealed to Canadians in due course.
InfrastructureJudy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, the C.D. Howe Institute estimates that traffic gridlock costs Toronto's economy up to $11 billion each and every year. Commute times in ridings like Trinity--Spadina and Scarborough--Agincourt are getting longer and longer, reducing the valuable time workers can spend with their families. Meanwhile, the Conservatives refuse to commit to a national transit strategy and have virtually turned off the tap to the building Canada fund until, of course, the election cycle starts again.
Why is the government continuing to turn its back on our important cities?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, in fact, our Conservative government is making record investments in infrastructure, the longest and the largest infrastructure plan in Canada's history, of over $53 billion over the next 10 years. Already our government has invested over $7 billion specifically in public transit.
 With respect to a national transit plan, we very much believe in empowering the municipalities to identify their own transit priorities. We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, the money will arrive in 2019.
Over the past 12 months, the government has not created a single net full-time job, and the so-called jobs minister seems proud that middle-class salaries are barely keeping pace with inflation.
Infrastructure investments not only create large amounts of economic activity but actually improve productivity, raise standards of living, and increase quality of life. Instead of making excuses and heckling in the House for their own economic failures, why do the Conservatives not actually do something for a change to help working families?
For starters, why do they not reverse the 90% cut to the infrastructure fund?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, again, that is simply incorrect. We are making record investments in infrastructure.
In addition to those record investments, over the next decade we will spend within our means. Within the year, we will balance the budget.
Our new building Canada plan is open for business. Applications are already being received. One transit project in Edmonton has already been approved. I will take that to the bank any day.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is reducing its investments in new infrastructure by roughly 90% just to give itself bragging rights during the next election for having balanced the budget. However, it is aggravating the infrastructure deficit. 
According to the Conservatives, we do not need new public transit systems, nor do we need to adapt our infrastructure to the devastating effects of climate change.
Why does the government keep putting its partisan interests ahead of the country's interests?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, the new building Canada plan is open for business. What I would recommend to our colleagues from the Liberal Party over in the far corner is that instead of playing politics with respect to infrastructure and with respect to not spreading misinformation about the plan, they should work with their municipalities to identify infrastructure project priorities so we can get down to work. I know that it is what we are doing on this side of the House.
VeteransSylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces have come back from the mission in Afghanistan, and many of them are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Again this morning, Jenifer Migneault and Marie-Andrée Mallette, two spouses of soldiers who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, are criticizing the lack of support available for caregivers.
Will the Conservatives finally recognize the essential work these spouses do and give them all the support they are calling for and deserve?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly because of the tremendous sacrifices made by members of the Canadian Forces and their families that we have made record investments across the board, not only in giving equipment and support for serving members but also by investing an additional $4.7 billion over the course of eight budgets.
It is interesting to hear the member opposite, who continually, as part of the NDP plan, tries to politicize this issue, particularly on a day like today. I would note that all of that investment was opposed by members of the NDP.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Jenifer Migneault, the wife of a veteran Canadian soldier, spoke to the NDP caucus this week. What she told us was that caregivers can make the difference between life and death, but many spouses of veterans caring for their loved ones are struggling themselves. They need more training. They need more support.
As we mark today's historic day, the historic D-Day landings, will the government commit to improving support for families and their caregivers and not just recite numbers? Give Jennifer Migneault some hope at least.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, indeed we do. These are not statistics. We offer the operational stress injury social support program for families. We, in fact, give assessment and treatment for mental health conditions if veterans need it, as well as counselling, within the operational stress clinics.
We have case management, rehabilitation services, financial benefits, group health insurance, the veterans independence program, education assistance, pastoral outreach, an emergency fund, and a hotline. We have introduced a new program to give veterans access to operational support through dogs, as a comfort. We have ongoing program support.
The members opposite, the NDP, opposed these programs.
International TradePaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, Jenifer does not need a dog. She needs actual support for her to carry on.
This week, the Prime Minister met with the president of the European Commission to discuss trade negotiations in Europe. These are the same negotiations that supposedly were done eight months ago. A good European trade deal is crucial for Canada, but good trade deals are built on trust. How can Canadians trust Conservatives when all we get is posturing, rhetoric, and stunts? 
Will the minister inform the House about the outstanding issues that are holding up this deal?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have managed to come to an agreement with the European Union on a very ambitious trade agreement, in fact, the most ambitious that Canada has entered into. It will more than double the amount of countries with which Canada enjoys free trade, and will put Canada in a position where we are the only developed economy in the world with trade agreements in place with both the United States and the European Union, the two biggest economies in the world. If we want to make Canada the place to invest, the place to create jobs, the place to create prosperity, we will not be like the NDP; we will support that trade agreement.
Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a fact is a fact.
When the Conservatives arrived in 2006, we had a $26 billion trade surplus. Today we have a $62 billion trade deficit. That is a difference of $80 billion. They talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk. 
Last October, they said that the agreement with Europe had been finalized, but five months later they cannot provide us with a single shred of paper.
Can the minister just be honest in the House and admit that they celebrated too late? Will they admit that there are a number of details to work out and tell us—
The Speaker: Order.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, as for the CETA that we have signed with the European Union, that has been tabled in the House, and the member is well aware of that. There is a copy available for him if he wants it.
When he wants to talk about the trade deficit, the reality is that the member failed to mention that March's revised trade surplus was almost $800 million, 10 times more than the trade surplus originally reported.
What is more, over the first four months of this year, exports are up 8% over the same period last year. Canada's job creation record is the best in the G7, with over one million net new jobs created.
Veterans AffairsMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago, brave Canadian troops valiantly fought in the Battle of Normandy, on D-Day. This was a defining moment in our nation's history. Today, we and our allies pause to remember the sacrifice and legacy of these heroic Canadians. 
Could the Minister of Justice please inform the House how our government is commemorating this important and historic day?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for New Brunswick Southwest, whose spouse, I note, is a serving member.
Today, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and a number of parliamentarians, are on the shores of Normandy, joining leaders from around the world, Canadian Forces members, cadets, 1,000 Canadian youth, but, most importantly, 100 Canadian veterans of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy, who have triumphantly returned 70 years later.
As Canadians, it is our responsibility and a sacred duty to honour and remember those who served so courageously for our very freedom and democracy that we enjoy today, and that we remember those who continue to defend and protect our great country at home and abroad.
Lest we forget. N'oublions jamais.
Consumer ProtectionMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, banks are imposing unfair penalties of up to $30,000 on consumers who pay back their mortgages in advance because of a change in workplace, a separation or a death.
Will the Conservative government finally put a stop to this practice and support my bill to put a cap on these unfair and excessive penalties?
Kevin Sorenson: Again, Mr. Speaker, we want all Canadians to keep more money in their pockets. Through our National Consumer Agency, we have made it easier than ever for Canadians to shop around for low to no-cost banking solutions. In fact, only two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance moved forward with the banks on low to no-cost banking options. Recently we announced an agreement for more than seven million Canadians that improves low-cost options for them. We also continue to work with the provinces to ensure that these services are appropriately regulated.
Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promise to help Canadians by regulating the penalties that banks charge for prepaying mortgages, but Canadians are still being gouged.
These penalties are the number one complaint to the banking ombudsman. The Conservatives are standing by while the banks rip off hard-working Canadians who are just trying to pay down their mortgage.
Why will the Conservatives not regulate prepayment penalties?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, we are bringing forward consumer measures that would help Canadians keep more money in their pockets, unlike the NDP who only talk about protecting consumers.
It is our Conservative government that has actually taken action. We have banned unsolicited credit card cheques, limited anti-consumer business practices, and ensured that prepaid credit cards never expire. We have also introduced rules requiring clear disclosure of terms on credit card contracts and applications. 
Sadly, the NDP have opposed all of our efforts to protect those Canadian consumers.
The EnvironmentAnne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, it is better not to respond at all then to spout such nonsense.
The fight against climate change is a global issue, and Canada must do its part. President Obama was very clear: the United States must take real action to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the sector that is its largest polluter. Canada must follow that example and do the same. We must impose regulations on the oil and gas industry that are in keeping with our Copenhagen commitments.
Why are the Conservatives stubbornly refusing to regulate the oil and gas industry and, at the same time, weakening our trade relationship with the United States?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the movement in the United States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions related to the electricity sector.
Again, building on our record, we want to work with the United States on reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector. Our countries should be taking action together, not alone.
This is consistent with what we are already doing, aligning with the United States on greenhouse gas emissions regulations in the transportation sector. For example, 2025 passenger vehicles and light trucks will emit about half as many greenhouse gas emissions in Canada compared to 2008.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, we need to do more than just sit back and see what happens.
The Conservatives' reports show that we are not going to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets they themselves set for 2020. What is more, we learned this week that there has been a significant increase in the mercury levels around some oil sands development sites. 
Why are the Conservatives choosing to allow living environments and ecosystems to deteriorate like this?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government has made responsible resource development a priority.
We have worked with the Province of Alberta to launch a world-class scientific monitoring system for the oil sands. This is a transparent public process, which has some of Canada's top scientists involved. 
These reports show that our plan is working, and we will continue to be transparent and promote independent scientific assessment and evaluation.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the previous budget, the government made changes to the seed potato tuber quality management program administered by the CFIA.
These changes will impact the ability of Canadian seed potato growers to export to the United States. There are some 17 state seed certification agencies that are resisting these changes and maintain that without CFIA shipping point inspections on all seed exports, they will not recognize our product as seed potatoes.
What assurance can the minister give us that our seed potato market will not be jeopardized?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this good question, but I also thank my colleagues, the members for Egmont and Tobique—Mactaquac, for working so hard to represent the concerns of the potato farmers on this important matter.
Canada's seed potato certification system is effective in maintaining Canada's reputation as a supplier of quality seed potatoes. That is why, working with the Canadian Horticultural Council, we have instructed the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to continue export-related inspections to maintain market access to the United States.
Although I am answering this question today in the House, I do want farmers to know that the CFIA wrote to the Canadian Horticultural Council on this earlier in the week.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, let us turn to seed grain and where the government is also crippling farmers' ability to compete, with the withdrawal of CFIA inspection on seed grain.
Farmer Charles Murphy said, “last year, CFIA inspected...at a cost of $498.63. The new cost to inspect these same fields by the new company is $6393.35”.
 That is not three times the cost; it is over thirteen times the cost. When will the government roll back that reckless cost increase and that cost burden on grain producers?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about farmers and how well they are doing in Canada with our government's policies.
Crop receipts have increased to over $30.5 billion because of our initiatives. Wheat receipts grew by 26%, which is a record. Livestock receipts have totalled $21.6 billion.
If he wants to talk about seed, I would encourage this member to support our Bill C-18, which would bring in agricultural technology to the benefit of our farmers.
HousingHélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians are at risk of losing their homes because of this government's indifference. As we say, “a roof, a right”, but the government seems to think that is a joke.
The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the NDP are calling on the government to restore funding for social and co-operative housing.
Why is the government ignoring this issue?
Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are listening, and we are providing common-sense solutions that actually produce results.
The director of CHF, Nicholas Gazzard, said about the changes that we have made to help housing co-ops, “We are very encouraged that housing co-ops will be able to use these funds to continue to provide support for vulnerable households”.
While the agreements have ended because the mortgages are paid off, we have renewed our investment in affordable housing. The money goes to the provinces. We have also made common-sense changes for co-ops. All around, we are getting the job done.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 200,000 co-operative housing units will be lost even as thousands of Canadians are adding their names to the waiting lists. The need is growing, but this government does not care. If the government does not do something before 2020, co-operative housing will no longer be affordable for low-income residents.
Why is the government not helping to make access to affordable housing a priority for Canada?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the real question is this. Why do the New Democrats and the Liberals vote against every one of our initiatives that set out to help Canadians with housing? For example, they voted against our providing $300 million to British Columbia for housing. In P.E.I., we signed an agreement of $15 million; in New Brunswick, $78 million; in Alberta, $202 million. Across the country, we are signing these agreements, and the New Democrats have voted against it every time.
While they want to talk about helping those people who need housing, they do nothing to actually create that.
Natural ResourcesMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know the importance of natural resource development. This is why they trust our government's responsible resource development plan to create jobs and grow the economy while strengthening environmental protection. The natural resources sector supports 1.8 million jobs and contributes nearly 20% to our GDP.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources update this House on action our government is taking to build upon this success?
Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I appreciate his work for northern Ontario. Our government is taking action to ensure that our resources are developed responsibly. That is why we have introduced the energy safety and security act to strengthen protection for taxpayers in the event of an incident in the offshore and nuclear sectors. Bill C-22 is being studied by the natural resources committee, and I look forward to further debate when it returns to this place.
Foreign AffairsMs. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Petro Poroshenko will be inaugurated as president of Ukraine, after earning a powerful democratic mandate in last month's election. However, Ukraine continues to face extreme pressure from Russia. Crimea has been annexed, and Russian nationals, armed by Russia, are terrorizing the people and undermining the government in Donbass.
When will Canada finally join our ally, the United States, in adding Igor Sechin, president of Rosneft and a member of the Kremlin inner circle, to our sanctions list?
Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister attended the swearing-in ceremony of President-elect Petro Poroshenko in Ukraine. Canada has been a leader in the global response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine. Canada has put in place sanctions against over 100 individuals and entities responsible for the crises, contributed hundreds of Canadian observers to help facilitate free, fair, and democratic elections in the Ukraine, and is providing funds this year to help Ukraine implement needed economic reforms and promote democratic and social development. 
Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea and Ukraine and provocations in eastern and southern Ukraine remain a serious—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.
The BudgetMr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, NDP): Mr. Speaker, massive cuts and Conservative inaction have had a devastating impact on my riding.
Because of their botched, half-baked approach to fighting homelessness, La Hutte, a homeless shelter in my riding, lost 25% of its funding. The Conservatives also cut the federal contribution to the Christmas fair, which represents millions in economic spinoffs. As well, they did absolutely nothing about the closure of Electrolux, which resulted in the loss of 2,000 jobs.
Why are the Conservatives shirking their responsibility to support economic development and social protection in Repentigny?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, there have been no cuts to our homelessness partnering strategy. In fact, we have renewed our funding over five years. We have refocused on an evidence-based model to fight homelessness called Housing First. The NDP does not like evidence-based, results-orientated policy because it is politically driven and wants to spread misinformation.
 We are proud of what we have done. Louise Bradley, president and CEO of the Mental Health Commission, said that bold solutions like Housing First are the hallmark of our mandate and that the Government of Canada is right to feel incredibly proud of its investment. 
We do.
International TradeMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on the real priorities of Canadians: creating new jobs and new opportunities. That is why we continue to open new markets for our Canadian exporters around the world. With the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, Canadian exporters, our service providers, and our investors will all benefit from enhanced market access, which will create new sources of prosperity for Canadian businesses of all sizes and also, of course, for their workers.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue please update the House on this important trade agreement?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the reality in this place is that the NDP would prefer to isolate Honduras. We believe that engagement is the best way to promote Canadian values around the world. Through engagement, we are able to share with Honduras our best practices in areas such as human rights, labour rights, democracy, and the environment. Trade is absolutely a solution, not a problem.
Champlain BridgeMr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the election in Quebec, senior Conservatives said that they were eager to work with the new government on major files.
I would like to draw their attention to a new development in a major file. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion confirming the strong regional consensus against a toll on the new Champlain Bridge and specifically calling on the federal government to refrain from imposing a toll. This just happened. Quebec's position could not be more clear.
Was the message about working together heard? Will the Conservatives support the amendments that the Bloc Québécois is going to propose on Monday and remove the clause in the mammoth bill that seeks to impose a toll on the new Champlain Bridge?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our position has always been clear: there will be a toll on the new Champlain Bridge. Unlike the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc, we believe in the user-pay principle.
We will not make Canadians across the country pay for local infrastructure. This is a clear choice for Canadians. The other parties want to add to our debt, whereas we are making responsible choices. If the NDP and the Bloc are concerned about the bridges in Montreal, they should vote for the significant investments contained in the budget bill.
JusticeMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' proposed prostitution laws will criminalize sex work for both the people who sell it and the people who buy it. It will never pass muster with the courts and it will put the lives of vulnerable women and girls in danger. In New Zealand, prostitution is legal, regulated, and taxed. The safety of sex workers and women is protected. 
Why has the minister introduced a bill he knows will pick yet another fight with the courts?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. In fact, this bill is responsive to the Supreme Court decision in Bedford, but more importantly, it is responsive to Canadians' wishes, which were to ensure that Canadians were safe and protected in their communities. Those most vulnerable and those at risk because of the inherent dangers of prostitution are also very much at the front of this bill. 
We have also put in place compassionate measures to help prostitutes to exit the bill, exist the dangers of prostitution.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Peter MacKay:  I know they are laughing, but it is not a very funny issue at all. It is very much about vulnerable Canadians. That is why we brought this legislation forward. 
I would encourage all members to actually read the bill before they get up and make uninformed statements.
Public SafetyMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with its statutory authority, the RCMP ruled that semi-automatic weapons, including various models of the CZ858, are prohibited because they can quickly be transformed into automatic weapons.
However, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness not only gave a two-year amnesty to the owners of these weapons, but also assured them that the RCMP's decision would be urgently reviewed.
How does the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness expect to protect Canadians if he is going to undermine the RCMP and fail to maintain effective gun control?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, Canada in fact does have a strong gun control system in place to protect Canadian families and our communities. In fact, it is this government that has taken real action despite the opposition from the parties opposite to strengthen our laws to stop violent crimes and illegal firearms. 
In fact, we introduced and passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which actually set mandatory sentences for serious gun crime.
Points of OrderBruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, it is literally a point of order here in this House. The hon. member for Kenora quite often heckles and catcalls. He was doing it today during my question. I would like that hon. member to consider his behaviour and apologize.
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I will never apologize for standing up for the priorities of northern Ontarians, particularly northwestern Ontarians, which this member consistently and persistently never does in this place.
The Speaker: I would suggest to the minister that if he does wish to do that, he would do it when he is given the floor and not while the other member is trying to ask a question. I think that would suit the House much better.

Routine Proceedings
Transitional RegulationsGreg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I have another opportunity. Thank you.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two copies of the transitional regulations referenced in clauses 53 and 92 of Bill C-5, our offshore safety and health legislation, namely the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Marine Installations and Structures Occupational Health and Safety Transitional Regulations; the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Marine Installations and Structures Transitional Regulations; the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Diving Operations Safety Transitional Regulations; the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Marine Installations and Structures Occupational Health and Safety Transitional Regulations; the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Marine Installations and Structures Transitional Regulations; and, the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Area Diving Operations Safety Transitional Regulations. 
Riding Name Change Act, 2014Peter Van Loan:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts and to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the fifth report, on Chapter 9, Offshore Banking — Canada Revenue Agency, of the Fall 2013 Report of the Auditor General of Canada; and the sixth report, on the Main Estimates 2014-15: Report on Plans and Priorities for 2014-15 and Performance Report for 2012-13 of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the fifth report only.
Criminal CodeIrwin Cotler:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-610, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and introduce this legislation, which amends the Criminal Code's provisions on animal cruelty. In particular, it creates a new offence of inadequate and negligent care of animals. The bill establishes an offence for anyone who negligently causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury to an animal or bird, or, being the owner, wilfully or recklessly abandons it or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter, and care for it. It also punishes those who negligently injure an animal or bird while it is being conveyed. 
As hon. members know, Canada's animal cruelty laws are woefully out of date. They have not been updated since the 1890s. In my view, this bill represents an important step toward modernizing the law, although I realize more will be done.
Given the order of precedence, I realize this bill may not see debate before I leave Parliament. I would thus invite the government to consider adopting this legislation as its own and to introduce long-overdue animal cruelty reforms so that Canada's laws respect and protect animals against actions that show disregard or contempt for their security and well-being.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Riding Name Change Act, 2014[Stage Direction]
(On the Order: Introduction of Bills)
 June 6, 2014--bill intituled: Bill C-37, An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts and to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act--Mr. Peter Van Loan. 

Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion regarding Bill C-37 introduced earlier today. There have been extensive discussions among the parties and I anticipate you will receive unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
Motion
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-37, An Act to Change the Names of Certain Electoral Districts and to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)
PetitionsJames Lunney: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present but they are bundled into three issues.
The first petition is from about 680 persons from Nanaimo, across Vancouver Island and across British Columbia.
These citizens would like to draw the attention of Parliament to the murder of Kimberly Proctor. The petitioners are calling for changes to the Criminal Code dealing with young persons 16 years or older regarding trial, sentencing, and custody amendments to be known as “Kimberly's law”.
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions bundled together from about 300 citizens from across my riding, Nanoose, Coombs, Errington, Parksville, and other places.
The petitioners are concerned about the right to save, exchange, and sell seeds.
I have another petition from citizens concerned about fair electoral representation--
The Speaker: Order. We will have to move on to the next one because the member has had the floor for over one minute now.
The hon. member for Beaches--East York.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in the House today that arises out of the collapse of Rana Plaza, a garment factory in Bangladesh. When it collapsed it killed 1,135 workers and injured another 2,500.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fundamental right of all workers all over the world to work without fear for their safety and their lives.
Because the accord on fire and safety in Bangladesh is a critical mechanism for the safety of garment workers in Bangladesh, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to endorse the accord--
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for York West.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to present a petition from several citizens of Canada.
The petitioners want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners from British Columbia also indicate that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They want to see that changed and toughened up so we have some new mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. 
The petitioners want the Criminal Code to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter. They have some other good suggestions in their proposal as well.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition signed by more than 1,000 people, most of whom signed it at my constituency office. These people are asking for a passport point of service in the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu Service Canada centre.
 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is a city of more than 100,000 people that does not have a passport point of service, while some Canadian cities with 9,000, 10,000, or 12,000 people have a passport point of service in their Service Canada offices. That is what the petitioners are asking for today.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from residents of my riding calling for the removal of any public monument in the name of a person who has advocated or promoted genocide as defined by the Criminal Code. 
In particular, the petitioners draw the attention of the House to the statue in my riding of Queen Isabella of Spain, who oversaw the iniquitous Spanish Inquisition, which included the expulsion of all Jews from Spain on pain of death and the forced conversion of those who remained also on pain of death.
The petitioners urge the House to consider legislation preventing the memorialization of persons who have committed deplorable acts such as these and to ensure we do not glorify those responsible for dark chapters in our--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from across Canada regarding tougher penalties for sexual predators. The petitioners are concerned that current penalties for sexual abuse do not reflect the severity of the crime and the subsequent life-altering consequences suffered by the abused. They are calling for amendments to the Criminal Code so that sexual predators receive a minimum imprisonment term of 10 years for rape. 
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. In the first one, petitioners call on the Government of Canada not to release GM salmon, GM fish, or GM fish eggs. 
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the government to enact a national food strategy for all Canadians across the country, and to bring it before the House and have a debate.
Just as a sidebar, Mr. Speaker, I initiated this particular petition and I would be more than happy to share it with the government. If it wants to bring it forward as legislation to enact a national food strategy, it would please the petitioners who signed this. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the residents of Guelph, which was provided by my colleague from Guelph. Petitioners across Canada there are calling for the government to require all producers and manufacturers to include potassium on the nutritional facts table on all food labels. They are seriously concerned that many prepackaged foods are not required to list potassium additives. In the best interest of those who must keep an eye on intake, like people suffering from heart and kidney diseases, hypertension, and many other conditions, they are calling on the government for assistance. 
Questions on the Order PaperDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Victims Bill of Rights Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 3 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.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-32 this afternoon. It is really interesting to be able to stand and recognize that the government has actually done a fairly good job on this piece of legislation. It is one of those things for which time allocation should not be required. It is one of things that, I believe, is not controversial. 
I would look to the minister, who has done a fairly decent job in bringing the legislation forward. From what I understand through our critic, the minister reached out to different regions of our country to get a better sense of what this bill should look like and, ultimately, brought in the legislation.
I cannot help but think that there are, no doubt, many other pieces of legislation that would have benefited from the same sort of attitude in terms of reaching out to Canadians for input. In particular, there are the changes to the Elections Act that we had.
It is important to recognize that this legislation would build upon previous work from the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien governments. Victims' rights have always been important. In fact, our critic provided me with one document that makes reference to a revised version of the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, which was done in 2003. That provided great detail on the principles to guide legislators and service providers in the promotion of access to justice, fair treatment, and the provision of assistance for victims of crime.
Just given the number of points that are listed here, there might be some value in me reading the list. The document, referenced in the preamble to the victims bill of rights now before the House, identified the following principles as intended to promote the fair treatment of victims.
They are as follows:
 1. Victims of crime should be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect. 
 2. The privacy of victims should be considered and respected to the greatest extent possible. 
 3. All reasonable measures should be taken to minimize inconvenience to victims. 
 4. The safety and security of victims should be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process and appropriate measures should be taken when necessary to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation. 
 5. Information should be provided to victims about the criminal justice system and the victim’s role and opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes. 
 6. Victims should be given information, in accordance with prevailing law, policies, and procedures, about the status of the investigation; the scheduling, progress and final outcome of the proceedings; and the status of the offender in the correctional system. 
 7. Information should be provided to victims about available victim assistance services, other programs and assistance available to them, and means of obtaining financial reparation. 
 8. The views, concerns and representations of victims are an important consideration in criminal justice processes and should be considered in accordance with prevailing law, policies and procedures. 
 9. The needs, concerns and diversity of victims should be considered in the development and delivery of programs and services, and in related education and training. 
 10. Information should be provided to victims about available options to raise their concerns when they believe that these principles have not been followed. 
In 2005, the Liberal government announced new initiatives to support victims of crime, including allowing victims to apply for financial assistance to attend the national parole board hearings of the offenders who had harmed them.
I think it is fair to say that members of the House, as a whole, though I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus, have long been concerned about victims and understand and appreciate the importance of ensuring that as much as possible is done to take into consideration the rights of victims. Therefore, it should be no surprise that Liberals find ourselves supporting Bill C-32. As I have indicated, the bill would continue to build upon other government initiatives in a very positive fashion.
The Liberal Party critic pointed out at second reading that the bill was broken into two major areas. The first is the Canadian victims bill of rights, which would specify that victims of a crime would have a right to information about the criminal justice system. He used the example that the bill would provide access to some elements regarding the status of a particular investigation. It would include measures to protect the security and privacy of victims. As well, it would ensure that victims would be shielded from any form of intimidation. The bill would also provide victims, as has been pointed out by my colleague, the right to convey their views and have them considered, as well as to make victim impact statements and seek restitution orders.
I will pause here to say that I had an opportunity, in a much smaller capacity, to serve in a very rewarding way on a youth justice committee. We were moving in the direction on how we could get victims more involved in dispositions and we felt that in certain situations, it would be appropriate, if at all possible, to invite the participation of victims. An example might be where a young person vandalized or stolen from an individual or company and the circumstances around the meeting with the youth in question would allow the victim to be brought before the justice committee, along with the youth, to work together in coming up with a disposition. 
We found a great sense of accomplishment when both the victims and the perpetrators felt, through that process, that the disposition was appropriate, particularly from the victims' perspective. They saw justice being applied first hand. I was not directly involved because I was the chair of the committee, but on a couple of occasions when I was directly involved, the victims felt wonderful about the opportunity to be engaged in the process and to be a part of it.
The bill specifies, when these types of rights apply, who can exercise them, how complaints are to be treated, and the interpretation of this act relative to other acts. It is important to note, even though those are the two major aspects of the legislation, that some other amendments are being proposed. When I had the opportunity to go through them, I thought allowing victims the right to seek publication bans was interesting and quite important for us to recognize. That change would ensure that harm of victims would be considered also in sentencing.
There is a number of reasons why we should be satisfied with the legislation as proposed. This is not to say that the government could not have done a better job in the drafting of the legislation prior to going to committee.
Some concerns were expressed, and I will point out the three that have been provided to me.
 One is that the bill provides for enhanced information sharing, but does not outline the responsibility for this in specific terms. This is an area we thought had fallen short during second reading debate.
I also note, through presentations that were made and feedback received, that it does not address the fact that most victims do not know they need to register with the Parole Board or Correctional Services Canada to receive information about the offenders who have harmed them.
The third point is that the bill would allow for certain victims to be informed of a plea bargain, but would not allow victims to have a say before a plea would be accepted. 
These are some of the views that were expressed by the Victims Rights Ombudsman and others, both formally and informally, and raised with the Liberal Party, committee members and so forth.
We need to recognize that the victims' rights are of the utmost importance, but I want to conclude my remarks by making a general observation with regard to victims as a whole.
 I believe that there is so much more the government could do to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. The government needs to start investing more time and energy into this. 
Yesterday was wonderful. We were able to debate fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the chamber. If this disorder were identified at any earlier stage, it would go a long way in assisting some in avoiding the justice system.
There are some simple things that could be done. I get frustrated very quickly when I hear many different stories and concerns from Winnipeg North. I get frustrated in the sense that we have been unable to better provide for Canadians as a whole. However, for me specifically at this moment and for residents of Winnipeg North, we should try to come up with alternatives for our young people, in particular, that would take them away from gangs. I do not think the government does enough in that regard. What other alternatives through programming might we be able to provide?
 I recognize there are different roles and responsibilities, depending on the level of government, but the national government has a strong role to play in the coordination, ensuring that the different stakeholders are brought together, that dialogue occurs, that there is a sense of best practices that occur in the many different jurisdictions and communities.
The current government has fallen short on this. The Prime Minister believes that the least involvement of government, the better it is for society as a whole. That approach can be best seen in a wide variety of actions, or lack of actions, by the Government of Canada, but in certain areas, it can even more so. A couple that come to mind right away are health care and justice. 
When I was first elected in a by-election, one of the primary, if not most important, messages I wanted to convey to members of this privileged chamber was that people in our communities needed to feel safe. However, there are certain areas or pockets across the country where that sense of security in one's home is challenged at times. 
If the government really wanted to make a difference, it could do so in a more tangible way. I will give a couple of examples of that. It is all about how we might be able to prevent future victims.
 One of the things that really frustrated me was issues related to community policing. It was quite upsetting when we had community police offices in Winnipeg's north end being closed down. It did not matter whether it was the provincial or national government, and to a certain extent the municipal government, but no one seemed to stand and say that it was not the direction in which to should go.
We have had former chiefs of police in Winnipeg indicate very clearly that community policing works and can be effective. I know first hand just how effective it can be. When we collectively allowed community policing to be closed down, we really allowed for more victims in the future. 
Through community policing, as an example, we will find that it is better able to work with young people and get a sense of where the problem areas are. In doing so, it is able to prevent crimes from taking place. I believe this would have made a difference.
I can recall when the current Prime Minister came up with a pot of money to be used to increase the number of police officers. I understand that money was given to the different provinces. However, in Manitoba, that money was just put aside. I do not know if it was ever used, but it was a commitment that came from Ottawa saying that it wanted to see more police out on the streets in our communities.
 Well, that did not happen, even though Ottawa wanted allocated money for it. It was because there was no sense of co-operation from Ottawa and the province to ensure that in fact would happen. Instead, we saw a pot of money put to the side, and the province did not act on the initiative with the city of Winnipeg. 
That was unfortunate. Whatever the arguments might have been, the bottom line was, who paid the cost? 
The Prime Minister, on the one hand, said that the government would put more police on the streets, but, on the other hand, he was not successful at that because he did not work with the different stakeholders. At the time, it meant that the police officers he promised never materialized, at least not in a timely fashion. As a result, we might have lost the opportunity to have prevented some crimes from taking place. This is what it really boils down to. There needs to be more co-operation with the federal government and the different stakeholders to prevent crimes from happening in the first place.
If I could send a message to the Prime Minister today, it would be that we need to take a more holistic approach in dealing with crime in our communities and provide the type of programming that will make a difference to prevent victims in the first place and to prevent crimes. 
That is what I think we need to start getting tough on, the causes of crime.
 I look forward to future budgets in which we will see this as more of a priority and in which there will be an allocation to prevent crime from taking place in the first place.
Strengthening Canadian Citizenship ActPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I rise not in relation to questions and comments but rather to provide the following notice to the House.
I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-24, an act to amend the Citizenship 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 of the House a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.
Victims Bill of Rights[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague.
This is another bill coming forward from the government. They talk about getting tough on crime. 
What I have seen a lot of, especially in terms of the private members' bills coming forward, is that the government comes in with a bill that looks like it will do A, B, C, and D. Witnesses are brought forward on the bill as is. Then the bill gets to being nearly done at the committee stage. The witnesses are sent home. Then the government itself amends its own bill, because it is often poorly done, and virtually brings the bill back to pretty near what the original law was.
I see that as almost a revictimization of victims. The government lets on that it is doing A, B, C, and D but really does not get it done through the bill, because at the end of the day, it amends the bill to being nearly the way it was.
I wonder if my colleague has anything to say about that.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it has been an issue with the government on virtually all the legislation related to crime. The government likes to come across as if it is really tough on crime. That is the message it is trying to communicate.
If we read through some of the legislation, we will find that there is not really that much to a lot of it. There are some initiatives the government has taken, but it seems to me that it is more about political spin than it is about improving the law itself. That is what can get very frustrating. As my colleague points out, amendments to legislation can be brought forward, and the government does not act on them. The government has its own agenda, and that is something it wants to push through. It does not necessarily respond to amendments.
That is what we see with the vast majority of the legislation the government actually brings in. If it were to open its attitude toward receiving amendments, I think that on the whole we would have much better legislation passing through the House.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North indicated an indirect expression of concern that there may be more form than substance and that we may be just scratching the surface and not going into real depth on victims' legislation.
I wonder if I could have some clarification from the member about his position. Is the Liberal Party supporting the bill despite these concerns?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, what I indicated at the outset was that we in the Liberal Party look at this as a continuation, in good part, of actions that were taken back in 2003 when there was a great deal of effort put into revising the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles for Justice for Victims of Crime. That was there for all legislatures to go over. I went over a number of points, I believe it was 10 points at the time. As opposed to going through all of those points, suffice it to say that we will in fact be supporting the legislation.
Another comment I made was that we feel that there could have been a few amendments to the legislation that would have enhanced victims' rights or the bill. We will have to wait for another more opportune time when the government is maybe more open to receiving amendments. Suffice it to say that we are prepared to vote in favour of the legislation, because for the most part, it is quite supportive.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have, in particular, and my speech will address it, is that there appears to be no attached funding envelope for the victims bill of rights, Bill C-32. That could be the way the bill has been drafted, to not actually involve the need for material resources, but I rather suspect that, in order to adequately implement a bill of this sort, extra money would be needed to make it effective.
I would like to ask my colleague whether or not he sees the lack of a bringing together, a convergence, of funding in the bill as a problem and whether or not that should be taken into account in any way at committee stage.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, that is why I said I look forward in anticipation of future budgets, because it is more than just the legislation. It is important that we recognize resources, and by resources I am referring to finances, obviously, among other things. Finances is a very important aspect of resources for supporting this particular bill.
It is a concern we have consistently expressed in terms of how the government likes to come up with legislative ideas and thoughts and bring them in with a lot of fanfare, press releases, and photo ops and go for those three-inch headlines. It is the follow-through we are concerned about.
When the member makes reference to the financial shortcomings or resource shortcomings of this legislation, we share the concern. I am not too sure if this could have been amended in the legislation. I am not the critic for the legislation. I would have to look to the Liberal Party critic and follow his lead.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, not to abuse the floor, but I have a feeling that in my own speech, I might not actually get to this point.
 I just wonder if my colleague would care to comment on one of the conclusions that comes from chapter 9, which was written by Dr. Annette Bailey of Ryerson University, in a book called Gun Violence, Disability and Recovery.
She talks about one kind of service that is needed that really does not exist provincially, and certainly not nationally, which she refers to as “trauma-informed grief counselling”:
 Several service providers interviewed feel there are insufficient grief support services for survivors of violent crime in general. Those that do exist often do not address the specific needs of gun violence survivors, whose trauma may be compounded by stigma, guilt, and self-blame.... Making trauma-informed counselling available to survivors, however, “requires a shift at the national level in recognising grief as a mental health issue”. 
I would like to ask whether my hon. colleague would agree with me that, apart from the preventative initiatives he spoke about correctly, we are probably missing serious downstream questions about the impact on victims, including family members, and that recognizing grief as a mental health issue could take us some way to a more holistic, fuller view of the impact of crime on victims.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I had an unfortunate and sad experience. I was with a mother when it was first announced that her son had been brutally murdered. The police officer walked in and said, “We have found your son's body, and he has been murdered.” The profound impact that had on this individual was truly amazing. One cannot help but feel a great deal of sympathy for her because of what she had to go through in the years that followed. There is no doubt that we can do a lot more on the whole front of trauma for victims of crime. 
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill. I should note that I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.
I do want to start on what I recognize is a negative note. Most of what is in the bill is indeed positive. However, the bill is extremely limited in its understanding, both of the needs of victims, and the responsibilities of society through government to help victims. If we are all going to be supporting it going to committee and possibly voting for it at third reading, I think we have to make sure that the hype does not outdistance the reality. Much work will need to be done on deeper issues around victimhood than the bill addresses.
I may not go as far as leading lawyer Clayton Ruby has gone in calling this “shallow symbolism”. However, I would agree with the first victims ombudsman, Steve Sullivan, when he commented, on April 3, to CBC, that the government has over-promised and under-delivered in this bill. Not to get into the crazy game of grading bills, but I guess I will. He said that he would give this a C-plus or a D-minus, without even looking at what the government had been promising in advance. The hype in advance means that he would probably give it an even worse grade.
By way of introduction, I would also note that a victim's mother, who spoke on Global News, said something that I think is extremely eloquent. She said, “Beyond the sentencing stage of the process, the victims basically fall off the face of the earth”. 
That is not to say that is entirely true about the bill, but that is generally the situation when it comes to how victims, including the family members of immediate victims, friends, and even the community, the neighbours of victims, are treated in our society. This does not have to be the case. There are societies where a much more coordinated, holistic, and robust response to the pain, the grief, and the trauma caused by crime is dealt with more effectively than in Canada. 
One of the reasons that it is not dealt with that effectively here has to do with one of the virtues of our country, which is federalism. That means that by and large this has been left as a kind of social service in the philosophy of the federal government. The federal government gets involved in sporadic funding for post-crime victim support, but it is just that; it is funding, and it is not an attempt to truly create a national framework.
I first became aware of a limitation in the government's approach to victims of crime when early after being elected, I was on the justice committee, considering a bill that would increase offender surcharges. A number of members of the committee clearly stated that between surcharges—that is, ensuring that the perpetrators of crime pay—and provincial programs, the federal government's responsibility for assistance, which includes the need for programs and funding, basically ends.
I felt then and I feel now that this is a highly inadequate view. It does not understand our jurisdiction, federally, over crime and criminal law. It basically leaves victims after the court process, in terms of jurisdiction to create programs, and completely buries that responsibility, as I said before, within ad hoc spending power involvement.
I do not want to say there is nothing in the bill. There is an addition to this philosophy of perpetrators paying, in sections 16 and 17 of Bill C-32. These are new restitution provisions that bring our criminal law closer to some civil law models, where every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender. If that order is made by the judge, the order is entered as a civil court judgment that can be enforced against the offender. This is a welcomed provision. 
However, everyone will recognize that it has limits. It would require offenders to be capable of paying. It would be the same problem that we have with surcharges, in that it would be a very inadequate way to ensure we are focusing on the victim and that there is compensation.
The restitution feature would only add another element to that, which would be far outdistanced by situations in which offenders and perpetrators who are convicted would not have the resources. Therefore, the idea of a restitution order would have no meaningful impact on the kinds of compensation that could help victims to deal with trauma and grief and pick up the pieces after their own victimization following a crime, or that of a loved one.
At around that time, I began to interact with a very inspiring woman in my constituency. Joan Howard lost a son over ten years ago, in 2003, to gun violence. He was shot dead with a handgun in the hallway of a building in Toronto-Danforth.
Kempton Howard, after whom a park is named in our riding, was a role model to countless teens, through his volunteer work in Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre's Boys and Girls Club. He was a moderator of a junior leadership program, an after-school children's program leader, a summer day camp counsellor, and a youth basketball coach. He was also a recipient of the Youth Ontario Volunteer Services Award.
Joan spent many years dealing with the trauma and the long-lasting grief, and then she began to ask herself what she could do. She has done many things. She has become part of a peer support system, which I will talk about briefly, if I have time. 
More recently, we have joined together for a petition campaign that has been tabled on many occasions in the House. That petition asks the House of Commons to better understand that victims of crime, especially crimes of violence and crimes involving guns, include the loved ones of the direct victims. As a consequence, we need to create a meaningful countrywide system of public support for the loved ones of murder victims, as well as for victims of crime who survive the crimes against them, and ensure adequate funding for such a system.
Reverend Sky Starr runs an amazing program called Out of Bounds, with the thematic subtitle of “grief support from the inside out”, which involves the mutual peer support model. Between Joan and Reverend Starr, I have become inspired, or at least better informed, about the need to take trauma and ongoing grief seriously, as something that destroys lives and whole communities.
To that end, we had a teach-in here on the Hill, on December 10, 2013, which happened to be international Human Rights Day. It was a seminar on the Hill, to which a number of MPs from all parties came. Actually, the Conservative Party did not come, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice did send a staff member. The staff member seemed to have been extremely moved by what he heard and learned. We hoped that this session would go back to the parliamentary secretary and then to the Minister of Justice to factor into the coming victims bill of rights. Unfortunately, I do not believe that was the case. 
That said, I do not think that anything in the victims bill of rights precludes us from moving forward in the future on a better understanding of the basic points that Reverend Starr made during that seminar. She outlined three crucial needs. First, there is a need for sustainable funding for grassroots organizations and resources to help organizations find funding opportunities to actually help victims. Second, trauma-specific policies are needed to deal with the lack of trauma support that currently exists in communities. Third, the recognition of grief as a mental health issue has to be first and foremost a starting point. The grief and trauma that flows from gun violence, in many ways, is very particular and very long-lasting.
I will end my comments by paying tribute to another member of my community, Jonathan Khan, who was shot dead on the Danforth with a gun. I attended his funeral in a synagogue in North Toronto only a few months ago, and again had occasion to realize how easily lives are destroyed, not simply the lives of those killed, but those who survive them.
The only thing that propels people forward are support networks. We, as a society, need to help create those support networks and not rely only on families.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. Because of his professional background, he is able to provide far greater insight into certain provisions included in this bill.
I would like to hear his thoughts about some of those provisions in the bill. At some point in time, will there not be a certain amount of overlap or some issues concerning the decision-making process within the legal system? Does he think that the government is meddling in decisions that should be made by judges, lawyers, and crown attorneys?
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, to be completely honest, that is not something I have looked at in this bill yet. However, I can see where the member is coming from.
After having spoken with the justice critic, I think it is very important that the committee hear from witnesses who can tell us a bit more about that issue. I am sorry, but that is the best I can do. However, it is a very important question.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was saying, this bill is a step in the right direction. At the same time, there are many flaws in the bill and many resources missing. What is more, the government talks about giving victims more rights, but Bill C-32 establishes no legal obligation for those working in the criminal justice system to implement these rights.
I would like my colleague to comment on an excerpt from a quote by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes: 
 Enhancing victims rights in criminal proceedings is certainly necessary, but doing so must not overshadow their social rights, those that give them access to assistance, compensation and programs that help them deal with the multiple consequences of the crime. 
What is the point of having this bill if at the end of the day the rights cannot be implemented and there are no resources to help the victims?
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, the question more or less speaks to the theme of my speech, which is that the bill does not put the federal government on the hook for any costs related to victim support and that there is no real vision for support in this bill, in the Canadian victims bill of rights. Victims need support after the process itself.
I think this was done deliberately. The government made this choice. I do not understand why, exactly, with all the fanfare around the Canadian victims bill of rights.
I do not think that this is something that can be fixed in committee. This is something that will have to come from the party, the government, and I hope it will come within a year. There is truly a gap in the vision for victims in this bill.
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to say a few words about the repercussions this bill will have on the process. The courts are currently quite backlogged and trials take a long time. Does my colleague think that this bill will slow down the legal process even more?
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.
Yes, I imagine that this bill will make the process longer and complicate procedures, which will affect victims. I do not know exactly how the federal government can fix that without giving the provinces more resources.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I soberly rise this afternoon to debate Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. This bill is quite large and just the summary takes up several pages. Thus, I will not be able to discuss the entire bill at length.
As legislators in the House, we are often called on to strike a balance. When we draft laws, we are always looking for balance, sometimes between complicated things that at first glance seem contradictory, and we have to be able to harmonize them.
In Canada, we are fortunate to have solid democratic institutions and law and order. There is a separation between the legislative branch, whose power we exercise in the House of Commons, and the judicial branch. It is very important to remember that when we draft and debate bills.
All members, no matter their politics, have the same objective: to improve this country, serve Canadians and defend the interests of all Canadians, not just those of specific groups. Sometimes when we launch our political career, we have different and deep personal convictions or motivations. However, we must not let these personal convictions get the upper hand of certain fundamental principles that govern our country.
With respect to the victims bill of rights, the NDP is listening to the victims and to their demands. We want their voices to be heard because they often suffer in silence and receive no support. They go through very trying times.
With this bill, the government seems to want to give victims a voice. However, will the bill give them the means to make this happen?
According to the analyses we have looked at, there is no evidence that this bill would provide the means to implement this bill of rights.
The summary states the following:
 (h) the right to have the courts consider making, in all cases, a restitution order against the offender; and 
 (i) the right to have a restitution order entered as a civil court judgment that is enforceable against the offender if the amount owing under the restitution order is not paid. 
I cannot discuss this in detail, but we have to ask ourselves whether these measures can really be implemented. What the government is trying to do here is make sure that individuals accused of crimes compensate the victims. That can be problematic because sometimes those accused of a crime do not have the means to compensate the victim at all.
The government actually had a commission in place that could compensate victims of violent crimes. I looked into this recently, and some provinces have created commissions to ensure that victims of violent crimes are compensated, but that is not the case across Canada. Maybe the government could find a way to include in the victims bill of rights a mechanism to help victims through a commission that could compensate them. I encourage the government to do that. 
It will also be worth our while to carefully examine other issues in committee, because some of them may surface later on. Therefore, it will be critical to conduct an in-depth study of this bill in committee. 
For example, as I mentioned, what steps will be taken regarding damages incurred by victims? Also, as I pointed out during the debates, the bill presents the theory, the plan, the intentions. However, how will this be implemented in our justice system? As we know, there are long delays right now. There are lineups, so to say. Will this bill make the process more cumbersome or not? I am not saying the government's intentions regarding the victims bill of rights are not good. However, we must determine whether this will bog down the process. 
I also noticed that victims of domestic violence would be required to testify. I am not sure if I understood correctly, but we should really take a close look at this provision. We must understand that domestic violence is a very particular issue, and we really need to be careful. 
This huge bill means well. It is a matter of knowing whether the government is prepared to take the necessary steps to implement it and to ensure victims are truly protected.
I also hope that at committee stage the government will listen to those who will propose necessary amendments to this legislation.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was most interesting, as always.
I was very pleased that she talked about the resources that victims need but cannot always get, such as services, help or support. Conservative bills often talk about helping people and tackling crime and abuse, but we never see any resources to back up this laudable goal and nice rhetoric. 
With regard to victims and crimes, a number of studies and case histories in other countries show that the one thing that deters criminals from committing a crime is the likelihood that they will get caught. 
Fighting crime is not merely about imposing minimum sentences. It is primarily to ensure we have the police and border resources, for example, to ensure that those who commit offences are caught and face the consequences of their actions.
It always comes down to resources, and I thank my colleague for pointing out the need for resources if we really want to help victims.
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for also reminding us of this aspect of the issue.
Some of the comments made after this bill was introduced indicate that the federal government is backing away from compensation for victims of crime. It is doing so by trying to make offenders, those who commit the crime, pay.
However, how can that happen when some people accused of violent crimes live in extreme poverty? They will not be able to compensate the victims. It will be impossible. Nor will they be able to pay if they are in prison.
If the government really wants to help victims, it should provide more funding for programs that already exist and partner with the provinces that have victim compensation programs. This was one comment in an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail. It should also establish these programs across Canada and properly fund them.
The federal government, which says it stands up for victims, should be the first to rise and applaud this recommendation.
Jean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, I was a correctional officer and I saw many victims and met many people who victimized others. I am not sure that people want to constantly revisit and relive this situation. However, they do need a lot of support. 
Does my hon. colleague have any further comments about the victim assistance program?
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for making that point.
It is not just about money. All the parties have deep wounds. Human nature is very fragile. When someone is a victim or witnesses a violent act, they need psychological help to cope with the ordeal. They also need more technical help in navigating all the steps in the process.
Furthermore, it is important to ensure that there is some possibility of redemption. That is part of our human nature and part of a long process and a long road.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by assessing the merit of what is new about Bill C-32, which creates the Canadian victims bill of rights.
As I have done in the past, I will assess this bill's merits, meaning that I will focus on specific components of the legislation we are looking at today. Given that Bill C-32 is quite broad and I do not want stray off topic, my comments will address specific elements.
Some provisions in this legislation introduce changes to administrative rules and rules about the admissibility of evidence. During my speech, I will try to define the potential impact that this will have on the practice of criminal law, for both the prosecution and the defence.
I often try to relate bills to my former profession. That is why I will try to take the principles of the bill and apply them to the practice and reality of someone who practises law. That is my goal for the next few minutes.
I will also talk about the possibility of a victim's spouse testifying if the victim is deceased or incapable of acting on their own behalf, as long as the couple has been in a conjugal relationship for more than a year. That is one of the components of Bill C-32; however, the Canada Evidence Act already addresses that issue.
It seems to me, based on my evaluation, that the government is simply trying to take credit for that measure, since most Canadians are not necessarily aware of the subtleties of the Canada Evidence Act and the rules governing the presentation of evidence. It is quite possible that the government is introducing concepts in its bill that already exist and are automatically applied by lawyers, legal practitioners and those involved in the justice system. This would give the government a certain amount of media coverage.
This aspect of Bill C-32 merely codifies a pre-existing override to the best evidence rule. This rule is set out in the Canada Evidence Act and applies to all criminal and civil proceedings and any other matters under federal jurisdiction.
The best evidence rule is one of the first notions students learn in criminal law courses. According to this rule, jurists and judges must always try to find the best evidence. If a witness has evidence to present or wants to be heard, then technically, he or she must be allowed to testify.
The same is true under the Canada Evidence Act. Under Bill C-32, if victims are physically or emotionally unable to appear in court and testify as a result of the incident that occurred, their spouse could testify on their behalf. There are terms, conditions and technicalities that go along with that, and the victim and his or her spouse also must have cohabited for a period of at least one year, but the fact remains that the spouse could come and testify on behalf of a victim who is unable to do so.
The Canada Evidence Act already provides for that eventuality. Subsection 6(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, entitled “Evidence of person with a physical disability”, reads as follows:
 If a witness has difficulty communicating by reason of a physical disability, the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by any means that enables the evidence to be intelligible. 
This provision covers any physical disability that would technically prevent an individual from testifying in court.
I would also like to quote subsection 6(2), entitled “Evidence of a person with a mental disability”, which reads as follows:
 If a witness with a mental disability is determined under section 16 to have the capacity to give evidence and has difficulty communicating by reason of a disability, the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by any means that enables the evidence to be intelligible. 
What the government is trying to codify today with this victims bill of rights is, to a certain extent, already covered. My colleagues opposite will likely object and say that minor details have been changed and updates have been made, including the length of time that the couple must have been cohabiting before the spouse can testify on the victim's behalf. However, this eventuality is already covered. I will come back to the idea of updates later.
By way of information, I am going to read subsection 6(3), which says the following:
 The court may conduct an inquiry to determine if the means by which a witness may be permitted to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) is necessary and reliable. 
The rules are flexible and apply case by case. The court has to determine whether, under the Canada Evidence Act, the witness who should technically give evidence as an individual is in full possession of his faculties and competent to do so. There is significant latitude and discretion here.
That is more or less how criminal law works on the ground. Judges enjoy significant latitude, and legal interveners in general enjoy significant latitude in applying the rules of evidence. I have seen situations in which witnesses were called to testify even if they were in a separate room or a special booth set up for that purpose. There is equipment set up in the courts to handle any situation, such as when it is a child or a victim who does not want to face the attacker. All kinds of situations are taken into account, and the justice system being what it is, it has to adapt to the realities and vagaries that come up from time to time in a jurist's life.
The main objective of the NDP legal experts assigned to study this bill in committee is to ensure that the Canadian victims bill of rights is a good fit with the Canadian justice system and responds to the victims' expectations and recommendations. That is the problem because aside from all the window dressing and highly publicized media events, we must first and foremost focus on the essentials. I keep saying, like a broken record, that we must focus on the position expressed not by just a few individuals or groups whose message provides a good sound bite, but also by all Canadians. In this case here, we know that there are many victims all across the country. Rather than using victims for purely utilitarian purposes, we must truly listen, take note and adjust our own legislative tools accordingly.
The bill before us has all the hallmarks of a utilitarian initiative geared toward gaining—
The Speaker: Order, please. Unfortunately, it is now 1:30 p.m. The hon. member will have two minutes and 30 seconds to finish his speech the next time this bill is before the House.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Instruction to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (violence against women)Bryan Hayes:  moved:
 That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be instructed to undertake a study on the subject of best practices in education and social programs in Canada that prevent violence against women, and report its findings to the House within one year of the study's initiation. 
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise today to introduce Motion No. 504. I highlight that the key word in the motion is “prevention”. I am really pleased, Mr. Speaker, that you are here today to hear this speech because I know you share my value system. I am very pleased also that I have family members, friends, and staff here to hear this very important motion.
The motion was initiated in part because I became aware of the annual domestic violence statistics in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. The results were astounding, considering our population of 75,000. These types of statistics are consistent Canada wide. 
In 2010, Sault Ste. Marie Police Services recorded 1,178 domestic incidents, of which 258 had criminal charges laid. The Ontario Provincial Police investigated an additional 402 domestic incidents in Algoma, which resulted in 119 criminal charges being laid. Combined, that results in over one criminal charge per day. These are reported cases. I can only imagine the number of incidents that go unreported. 
The majority of domestic violence incidents are violence against women. On top of that, the victim witness assistance program opened 371 case files specific to partner assault, which represents 72% of its case load. Women in Crisis provided emergency shelter to 456 women and children. Let me reiterate that this is all in a one-year period. These trends repeat year after year.
Additional research presented more statistics that are unacceptable to me as a male. I have been fortunate to be married for 32 years and to raise two sons, both of whom are in healthy relationships with their girlfriends. When I read about these statistics I am deeply disturbed as I do not believe domestic violence by men against women and girls should be tolerated, nor do my sons. They have never experienced domestic violence in my household.
These statistics come from a report completed by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, released February 2013. They are based upon an internationally accepted definition of violence against women by the UN in 1993 as being:
 ...any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life. 
It should also be noted these statistics are based primarily on those acts that constitute crimes under the Criminal Code. 
In 2011, the five most common violent offences committed against women were common assault, uttering threats, serious assault, sexual assault, and criminal harassment. Women were eleven times more likely than men to be a victim of sexual offences and three times more likely to be a victim of criminal harassment or stalking.
Overall, men were responsible for 83% of police reported violence committed against women. Most commonly, the accused was the woman's intimate partner, at 45%; followed by acquaintances or friends, at 27%; strangers, 16%; and non-spousal family members, at 12%. This contrasts with violent crimes against men, where intimate partners are among the least common perpetrators at 12%.
Intimate partner violence, which was nearly four times higher for women, was characterized by physical assault and the use of physical force, rather than weapons. About half of female victims of intimate partner violence suffered some type of injury.
As mentioned in the UN definition, there are many forms of violence including physical, sexual, emotional, and financial abuse and neglect. 
Physical abuse is obvious and includes such things as pushing, hitting, slapping, pinching, or punching, to name but a few. Sexual abuse can include sexual touching, or sexual activity without consent, or forcing someone to commit unsafe or humiliating sex acts. 
Emotional abuse happens when a person uses words or actions to control, frighten, or isolate someone, or to take away their self-respect. It can include such things as constant yelling or criticism or keeping someone from seeing family or friends.
Financial abuse happens when someone uses money or property to control or exploit someone else, and can include such things as withholding or limiting money in order to control someone.
Neglect occurs when a family member who has a duty to care for someone fails to provide them with basic needs.
Many men and women alike do not even recognize that some of these are even forms of violence. I believe that if best practices and prevention are implemented at appropriate stages in an individual's life, domestic violence can be dramatically reduced. I believe this because I am familiar with some of the rehabilitation programs delivered to incarcerated individuals, and they actually change these individuals' lives to the point that they do not reoffend once released.
Certainly, if we can rehabilitate those who have already offended, then we can also reduce the possibility of offending in the first place by providing preventative tools.
Treatment programs provided in prisons include such things as life without violence, criminal thinking distortions, and substance abuse. These programs are intensive in nature and generally involve 12 hours per week over a 20-week period in a classroom-type setting. Significant one-on-one counselling also occurs. The rate of recidivism is reduced significantly in comparison to those who have no rehabilitation services provided.
 However, the issue is one of why individuals end up in the correctional system in the first place. A majority of the inmates feel that had this programming occurred much earlier in life, they would not have ended up in prison. Quotes such as “Where was this when I was 10 years old?” are common.
As a government and as a society, we are dealing retroactively with violence. We are told how to behave in society; however, we are not provided with the skills to do so. The skills I am referring to are such things as assertiveness training, conflict resolution, anger management, communication, healthy relations, and the ability to weigh and balance consequences, to name a few. Ultimately, this knowledge would assist in steering our children away from high-risk behaviour. Providing these programs would also help identify those individuals who need additional supports that are not currently in place. 
There is so much more proactive intervention that can be done to minimize the chance of our children becoming violent offenders. We need to break the cycle.
I am not suggesting for one moment that we have done nothing as a government. We have made great strides to address this important issue, and this motion, if accepted, will build upon those initiatives. As a matter of fact, since 2007 more than $69 million has been invested in projects designed specifically to end violence against women and girls, and I expect my colleagues will expand on these initiatives later on. 
All members of society are affected by family violence. There can be long-term impacts of violence on victims' physical and emotional health that can result in their inability to work, loss of wages, lack of participation in regular activities, and limited ability to care for themselves or their children. Children may suffer long-term emotional, behavioural, and developmental problems that can even lead them to be violent later in life.
 The financial consequences and the effects stretch far beyond the victims' family, friends, and communities. There are social costs. A considerable amount of Canadian resources are directed to address this issue, including health care costs and the cost to the justice system, to employers, to businesses, and to social and community services. 
A study by the Department of Justice, “An Estimation of the Economic Impact of Spousal Violence in Canada, 2009”, estimates the impact of spousal violence to be about $7.4 billion per year. This includes $6 billion in costs to victims. Those costs are associated with victims seeking medical attention, lost wages, damaged and destroyed property and the intangibles of pain and suffering. It also includes $890 million in costs to third parties, including social service operating costs and losses to employers. This also includes about $545 million in costs borne by the justice system.
It is so unfortunate that social programs have to exist for groups of children that have witnessed forms of abuse or violence against their mothers or female caregivers, or programs that teach safety planning for women who are abused, or programs that educate on how people can identify and help women at risk of abuse, or programs that are specialized for individuals who have been physically violent and/or emotionally abusive or controlling toward a spouse or intimate partner. These are all designed for violence that has already occurred.
Let us find the best programs that prevent violence in the first place.
 I realize that if everyone had these programs, domestic violence would not be eliminated, as there are many root causes of domestic violence. Addressing causes is certainly one way of reducing domestic violence. Applying best preventative practices is absolutely another way.
Through this motion, I am simply asking the status of women committee to explore best practices that prevent violence against women. Decisions will then be required to determine what next steps might be to implement those programs. I look forward to the unanimous support of my motion and, more important, the recommendations that will come forward from the status of women committee. 
I wish every person had this very rare opportunity to initiate legislation that could be profoundly meaningful to so many. I am deeply honoured to be standing here today and so grateful to my constituents for placing their faith in me. I would like to dedicate this motion to my wife, who inspired it and who works so hard on the rehabilitation side of corrections.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was insightful. I thank him for the initiative he has taken on an issue that means a lot to me and my colleagues. As a member of the status of women committee, I look forward to embarking on this work. We will also propose a friendly amendment a bit later.
I also particularly appreciate the focus that the member brought at the beginning of his speech about women living in the north. As a woman from the north and who represents the north, I have a very clear understanding of the particular challenges in terms of violence that women in northern Canada face and the needs that are not met, including by the federal government.
In terms of this motion, could my colleague speak, perhaps more specifically, to the kinds of recommendations he hopes to see in this study? I know he has mentioned a bit about the range of focus, but I would certainly appreciate hearing more about what he hopes to see in the study.
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, what I do not want to do is tie the hands of the status of women committee. I really want the members of the committee to have a free reign to look at those best programs. Ultimately, when all is said and done, it could be something that says we need an advertising campaign to speak to this and that we need to be dealing with our young men and young boys. It could be a recommendation that we need to develop a framework that includes the provinces, that brings into place the education systems and perhaps a curriculum which the committee might consider adopting that speaks to these programs.
I do not want to tie the hands of the status of women committee. I really want the committee to have free reign. I am very confident that the members of the committee will do an unbelievable job in bringing forward really great recommendations that I know I will support.
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, for his contribution in this debate. This motion is not only worthy of support, but also I want to give him kudos. I have found in working with him at the public accounts committee that the member is very inclusive, very thoughtful and powerfully clear when he speaks. I can see why his constituents have sent him here.
On motion, I would like to know the member's experiences. He did mention his riding, and I know he is an excellent listener. Does he have any experiences or feedback that he heard directly from his constituents so he could come to this place and share with this astute chamber the reasons why this best practices study needs to be done?
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, this has been well promoted in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. I did not go outside of the riding. This is a Sault Ste. Marie-based initiative, simply because of the statistics I saw.
I took the liberty of issuing a press release when the motion was tabled, and then I visited all of the social service agencies in Sault Ste. Marie to get their feedback. I have overwhelming support from the agencies in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie for this initiative. I cannot wait for the committee to get started.
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for bringing the motion forward to the status of women committee. We have listened to many witnesses at the status of women committee with the aim of preventing violence against women and girls. 
Could my colleague tell me why best practices are so important to him and to the organizations in his riding?
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, in every facet of life, best practices are necessary. They speak to efficiencies in taxpayer-funded programs. Social service agencies are, in general, funded by the taxpayer. We want to make sure that the very best programs are in place. We do not want programs that do not work. I want the status of women committee to really have a close look at those programs that work efficiently, and hopefully we will adopt those Canada-wide.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, women have the right to full equality and women have the right to live their lives free of violence. These two principles are inseparable because with the threat of violence there can be no substantive equality. The government can and must do more to support women's equality, especially when it comes to addressing violence against women. It is everyone's responsibility to reduce violence, but it is the particular responsibility of parliamentarians to take substantive action in this direction.
Motion No. 504 is well intentioned, however, when one realizes how widespread violence against women is in Canada, we feel it does not go far enough. Half of all women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16 and this number has remained stagnant over the past 40 years.
In first nations, the statistics are worse. Women are much more vulnerable with homicide rates seven times higher than that of non-aboriginal Canadian women. In the recent reports by the RCMP, there are nearly 1,200 cases of missing or murdered indigenous women in Canada.
Both Amnesty International and the United Nations have called upon the Canadian government to take action on this issue without success. Women in countless organizations across Canada have called upon the government to take action.
The Conservative government has claimed to have taken real action to combat violence against women, yet it has refused to develop a national action plan. In fact, in 2006, the government changed the Status of Women Canada women's program, making it impossible for Status of Women Canada to fund the work of organizations when it relates to advocacy, lobbying, or general research on women's rights issues. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has expressed concern on the impact of changes to the Status of Women agency, in particular on access to services by aboriginal and rural women.
The minister who changed the women's program mandate at the time, Bev Oda, said, “"We don't need to separate the men from the women in this country. This government as a whole is responsible to develop policies and programs that address the needs of both men and women."
First and foremost, the government must recognize that gender inequality is the root cause of violence against women. We know that women are 11 times more likely than men to be a target of sexual offences and three times more likely to experience criminal harassment. With these facts in mind and with the prevalence of violence against women stagnant in Canada while all other violent crime rates drop, does the government still believe that we do not need to work toward meeting the needs of women in this country?
As parliamentarians, we have the ability to enact a national action plan that would address the severity of violence against women, yet the government has taken no action in this direction despite the recommendations numerous organizations have made. In the absence of a national action plan, responses to violence against women, including education and prevention programs, are fragmented and inconsistent.
In order to fully address the root causes of violence against women, I urge the government to immediately pick up Motion No. 444 and consult with civil society in order to create a multi-sector national action plan. With Canada in the international spotlight, we must respond. We call upon the government to immediately commit to funding legal aid, shelters, transitions houses, social housing, health services, advocacy, and research in order to prevent and treat violence against women for all women in Canada. 
In regard to Motion No. 504, I urge the government to make the necessary provisions that would allow for the issues associated with violence against all women to be addressed. First, we ask the study to include the examination of programs as well as policy. Second, we ask that the study look at best practices in Canada and abroad. Other countries like Canada, such as Australia, have taken strident steps toward a national action plan and their methods are working. We should take this opportunity to learn from them.
There is near consensus among Canadian civil society and violence against women service providers that a national action plan is urgently needed. Indeed, the Canadian Network of Women's Shelters and Transition Houses is spearheading meetings to discuss the creation of such an action plan. However, civil society, women's advocates, and service providers cannot accomplish this task alone. The federal government must be a leader at the table. It is incumbent upon the House to listen to what experts and front-line workers are telling us. Right now they are saying the same thing: we need a national action plan.
The Canadian Network of Women’s Shelters and Transition Houses wrote in its report:
 It is clear that in the absence of a National Action Plan, responses to VAW in Canada are largely fragmented, often inaccessible, and can work to impede rather than improve women’s safety....A strategic and sustainable step toward meaningfully addressing VAW in Canada is to establish a multi-sectoral NAP that adheres to the guidelines and principles set out by the UN Handbook for Legislation on Violence Against Women...and the UN Handbook for National Action Plans on Violence Against Women... 
The fact is we can study component pieces of the solution to violence against women and it will only be a drop in the bucket of the work that must be done, right now, to end violence in women's lives. Education and prevention are critical, but we must move beyond that.
 A national action plan would be coordinated with governments across the country. It would set out a framework to be followed over the course of many years. It would uphold Canada's commitments to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as well as the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. It would be based in evidence, new research and extensive consultation with experts and communities. The plan would include evaluation and accountability measures for government and civil society alike. 
 With all of this working together, it will have a real effect on women’s lives and the lives of all of those who depend on the well-being of women in our society. 
We have international examples of national action plans. Belize, Liberia, Peru, France, Australia, Spain and many more have comprehensive and coherent programs of activity.
I have spent the past year travelling to different parts of the country in order to hold consultation sessions with the people in Canada who are at the front lines of fighting violence against women. I sat down with the directors of emergency shelters, transition houses and drop-in centres. I listened to lawyers, advocates and social workers. I heard the concerns of sexual assault service providers and rape crisis line workers. I met with women who were survivors of violence themselves. Across the board we heard the same thing: the government does not provide enough funding or support to even come close to ending violence against women. 
I cannot name or quote these individuals, for fear that the government may slash what little funding their organizations are receiving, but I will paraphrase some of the messages we heard.
Service providers are subsidizing the government with unpaid hours of labour. Two people work for one person's salary in order to provide desperate women with the bare minimum of what they need to exit violence. One of the organizations said, “We tell women that it is possible to leave a violent relationship and start her life again, but the reality is that without sufficient housing, legal aid and welfare that simply is not true”.
 I heard from others that, “Repeated cuts to this sector have devastated our capacity to work together as a community to provide the best services”, and “We cannot advocate for women to the government when we are barely able to keep our doors open”.
 We heard again and again about how frustrating and insufficient the Status of Women Agency was since the Prime Minister made those substantive changes to its granting system. Short term, two year grants ensure that best practices will necessarily end with no hope of renewal. It means that service providers are in constant grant-writing mode instead of working to help women. The fact that organizations are explicitly forbidden from applying for advocacy and research means that all their work is short-sighted and never allowed to address the major systemic barriers.
 Perhaps most telling is that for a time, the government took the word “equality” out of the Status of Women's mandate. The absence of that one word speaks volumes about the regressive attitude the government has taken toward women.
I also want to point to the most recent bill, Bill C-36, which aims to save prostitutes. We in the NDP have expressed our high concern that this new legislation places sex workers in danger and we believe it does not uphold women's charter rights.
 For a government that constantly claims to be standing up for victims, it refuses to give vulnerable people what they need to achieve equality. Therein lies the fundamental difference between the NDP and the Conservative approach to women. The government paints women as victims who are in need of protection, but we know women must be empowered to claim their full rights. Women in Canada deserve better. We deserve commitment and leadership from the government to end violence against women.
In conclusion, I move, seconded by the member for LaSalle—Émard: 
 That the motion be amended by replacing the words “education and social programs” with the words “education programs, social programs, and policies”. 

The Speaker: It is my duty to inform hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to a motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent. 
Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie if he consents to this amendment being moved.
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, yes, I consent to that change.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, as a society, we have made appreciable progress over decades, and going back even centuries, in developing greater awareness, understanding, and acceptance of the inherent value and dignity of the individual human being, and of the individual's right to be free in mind and spirit, and to enjoy physical security and independence. However, despite this slow yet nonetheless remarkable progress, and notwithstanding our progress to an extent in addressing the age-old and stubborn imbalance of power and economic status between men and women, violence against women remains a scourge that we must work relentlessly to eliminate through an intelligent and effective combination of criminal sanction, law enforcement, and education.
In regards to this still yet to be fully addressed and resolved gender economic imbalance in Canadian society, I must lament the actions that the Conservative government has taken in the recent past to slow this progress within federal institutions, within its constitutional jurisdiction.
As we know, in 2009, the Conservatives tabled Bill C-10, an omnibus budget implementation bill. The bill contained an act entitled, “Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act”. The act altered the federal pay equity regime so that it would no longer exist under the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as removing the Canadian Human Rights Commission as the forum for adjudicating equal pay complaints.
The motion we are debating today, if adopted, would instruct the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women to undertake a study on a limited but nonetheless valuable number of aspects of the problem of violence against women. Specifically, the motion calls on the committee to study best practices in education and social programs, and we just added the word “policy”, in Canada aimed at preventing violence against women. 
However, before I move into the substance of my speech, I would like to draw attention to the excellent work being done in my region, namely in the western part of the Island of Montreal, by the West Island Women's Shelter. The shelter is a beacon of hope, a veritable life raft for women who sometimes urgently need a place of protection to escape violence in the home or in another context. The shelter is well supported by the community, including financially through an umbrella charitable organization known as West Island Community Shares.
By way of information, each year in Canada violence and abuse drive over 100,000 women and children out of their homes and into shelters. Furthermore, according to a study by the Department of Justice, violence against women costs Canadian society $7.4 billion each year. The study further states that, based on 2009 figures, the cost to victims directly of violence against women is $6 billion annually, including $21 million in hospitalization, visits to doctors, and emergency rooms, as well as $180 million in related mental health costs. 
While the economic costs of violence against women are great and unacceptable, the very real incalculable cost is to victims' health, physical and mental, and to their human dignity. I have not even mentioned the impacts on the outlook of the children who must witness abusive behaviour against their mother.
The inherent value and benefit of federalism is that it allows different parts of the system, namely different jurisdictions, in this case our provinces, to develop unique approaches to solving common problems, social, economic, or other, that reflect different and unique regional perspectives, historical experiences, and accumulated collective wisdom. We know that situations of physical violence, in this case against women, are addressed day-to-day on the ground by local police forces, courts, social workers, and shelters. 
All of these in many ways are far removed from federal jurisdiction. However, criminal law, a federal responsibility, is directly relevant when it comes to combatting violence against women. Criminal law, in turn, needs to continually evolve to take account of and adapt to the new realities and challenges that develop over time in daily life in communities across this country. There is great relevance in having education, social programs and policies aimed at ending violence against women studied at the federal level by a committee of the House of Commons. 
Also, violence against women is obviously a national concern. It offends the national sensibility and its incidence is national, sparing no region or locality.
It cuts across boundaries, culture, religious membership, and socio-economic status, and it impacts aboriginal communities, for which the federal government has a special constitutional responsibility, including for the women who live in these communities or who, living outside of these communities, are nonetheless profoundly tied to them.
Nowhere is the intersection of local policing, federal jurisdiction over criminal law, and the national nature of the issue of violence against women cast into higher relief than through the troubling question of our aboriginal missing and murdered women, an issue I will discuss in more detail in a moment. 
However, allow me to say that while this motion is welcome, it falls short by the mere fact of limiting the scope of the study the committee would undertake should the motion pass in this House. I understand that the motion has been amended. I am not certain what the actual implications will be of adding the word “policy”, but I hope to learn more about that as time goes on.
Liberals have consistently asked for a more comprehensive approach to studying this urgent problem of violence against women and acting to eliminate it. We have consistently demanded a national action plan to combat violence against women, not to mention a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.
In the fall of 2013, the Liberal status of women critic and member for Etobicoke North tabled a motion at the status of women committee calling on the committee to study violence against women. The committee has yet to accept this motion, and I am left to wonder if the motion we are debating today, which is more limited in scope but nonetheless desirable, will be used as an attempt to pre-empt a larger study, as requested by my Liberal colleague. I hope not, and I know that the sponsor's intentions are sincere in this regard and that he is approaching this not as a way of pre-empting the Liberal motion but because of his obvious interest and concern about this issue.
In addition, our Liberal critic tabled Motion No. M-470 in the house itself, asking that the government create and implement a national action plan to end violence against women.
For her part, the Liberal member for St. Paul's, the Liberal aboriginal affairs critic, has been working diligently and tirelessly in an attempt to have the government establish a national public inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.
As we know, and I believe it has been mentioned, aboriginal women are three-and-a-half times more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of violence.
In 2010, the Native Women's Association of Canada estimated the number of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls over the last 30 years at 582. The report acknowledges the limitations of record-keeping, as there is no national missing persons database, and police records do not always indicate aboriginal status.
The initiative led by the group Sisters in Spirit, which was de-funded by the government in 2010, found that many victims are targeted simply because they are aboriginal and their attackers assume they will not fight back.
A 2014 report from the RCMP put the number of missing and murdered aboriginal women at 1,181.
Finally, half of all murder cases involving first nations, Métis, or Inuit women and girls remain unsolved, and more than half of the murdered and missing women and girls were under the age of 31.
Despite the motion we are debating today, which is welcome, the government must act more broadly and more effectively to eliminate violence against women in Canada.
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this important debate on Motion No. 504 that is before the House today. My colleague's motion reads as follows:
 That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be instructed to undertake a study on the subject of best practices in education and social programs in Canada that prevent violence against women, and report its findings to the House within one year of the study's initiation. 
I intend to support this motion because it would provide the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with a valuable opportunity to review and share with all Canadians some of the best practices in education and social programming to help prevent gender-based violence in Canada.
Ending violence against women and girls continues to be a priority for our government as part of our ongoing efforts to make communities safer for all Canadians. For example, we have invested more than $69 million through the Status of Women Canada, since 2007, in projects specifically designed to end violence against women and girls. These projects are helping to address violence in rural and remote communities, in post-secondary campus communities, and in high-risk neighbourhoods. They are responding to violence against women and girls in the name of so-called honour, engaging men and boys to help reduce violence, and working to prevent the trafficking of women and girls through community planning.
Last fall, we had a call for proposals, through Status of Women Canada, for projects that are helping communities engage youth in preventing or eliminating cyberviolence and sexual violence against young women and girls. One of the projects supported by this call is in my riding of London North Centre. This two-year project is helping the London Abused Women's Centre to engage partners in identifying effective strategies for responding to cyberbullying, Internet luring, and cyberstalking against young women and girls. All of these projects, supported by Status of Women Canada, recognize the benefits of working with skilled partners, organizations with the capacity to identify needs at the community level, and develop the tools and resources to meet those needs.
In addition to supporting the women's program at Status of Women Canada with record levels of funding, our government has also taken a number of further important actions to help end gender-based violence. In terms of legislative actions, we passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act to improve the safety of all Canadians. We launched the national action plan to combat human trafficking, and we increased penalties for violent crimes. Just a few weeks ago, our government announced the victims bill of rights, a significant piece of legislation that will create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canadian history. I was proud that members of the London community were at these announcements.
Through economic action plan 2014, the Government of Canada will invest an additional $25 million over five years to reduce violence against aboriginal women and girls, putting money into concrete resources. This plan builds on the results, best practices, and lessons learned from the earlier $25-million investment announced in budget 2010, which will improve the law enforcement and justice responses.
Earlier this year, our government launched the national anti-cyberbullying campaign known as “Stop Hating Online”. It is focused on both parents and youth and is designed to raise awareness of the harmful impact that cyberbullying has, especially when behaviour amounts to criminal activity. We also introduced legislation to give police and prosecutors new tools to address cyberbullying.
All of these actions demonstrate that our government is maintaining a clear focus on eliminating violence against women and girls. We do so, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it will help remove another obstacle to equality in Canada. We also believe in addressing the issue of violence against women and girls globally. For example, Canada is working very hard with our international partners to end child, early, and forced marriage, wherever it occurs. I am also proud of our government's decision to bestow honorary citizenship upon Malala, who courageously risked her life to promote education for girls and young women everywhere.
All of these measures are very important. They demonstrate that by working together, we can reduce and prevent violence against women and girls. However, at the end of the day, it is not up to any one government or person or community organization alone to achieve this goal. It is up to all of us, those of us in public life, and all Canadians. We all must be a part of the solution because we know the terrible toll that gender-based violence has on individuals, families, and communities.
As we debate this motion here today, let us keep in mind how often women and girls are tragically denied the peace, safety, and comfort of a day without violence or just the threat of violence, which can be just as damaging.
They are the reason we are here to participate in this debate today, and they are the reason I will be supporting this motion.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 504, concerning violence against women.
The motion asks:
 That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be instructed to undertake a study on the subject of best practices in education and social programs in Canada that prevent violence against women, and report its findings to the House within one year of the study's initiation. 
I appreciate the work of my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie in bringing this important matter before the House. I would also like to take a moment to commend my brilliant colleague from Churchill, who has also been the official opposition critic on the status of women, for her passionate speech today and for her tireless and excellent work on promoting women's equality and rights and putting an end to violence against women.
Although the rates of violent crime in general have been dropping for 40 years, the rates of sexual assault and domestic violence have not changed. Canada can and must do more to address the serious crime of violence against women and the need for the security that women deserve in our communities.
We continue to see high prevalence rates of violence against women, along with low police reporting rates. We believe that to obtain real results for victims, we should instead be addressing the underlying reasons that prevent victims from reporting assault and abuse in the first place. 
Motion No. 504 is well-intentioned, but, in our view, it does not go far enough. Violence against women, as I will discuss in a moment, is a huge problem in Canada. That was acknowledged very powerfully by the member for Sault Ste. Marie from the perspective of his constituents, and I would like to do the same for mine.
We need a comprehensive and co-operative solution, so while this motion is well-intentioned, we believe it is too narrow. Gender inequality is the root cause of violence against women, so I was concerned to learn that Conservatives have taken the word out of the very mandate of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
Here are some sobering statistics. Half of all women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. Women are 11 times more likely than men to be the target of sexual offences, and three times more likely to be experiencing criminal harassment. 
A full two-thirds of all Canadians, 67%, say that they personally know at least one woman who has been sexually or physically assaulted. That is the statistic that I found to be the most shocking.
Indigenous women are seven times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women. As of 2010, there are 1,200 known cases of missing or murdered indigenous women in Canada. That is absolutely staggering.
Both Amnesty International and the United Nations itself have called upon the Canadian government to take action on this issue, without success. According to the Native Women's Association of Canada:
 ...if this figure were applied proportionately to the rest of the female population there would be over 18,000 missing Canadian women and girls. 
On any given day in our country, more than 3,300 women, along with about 3,000 of their children, are forced to sleep in an emergency shelter to escape domestic violence. Every night, about 200 of those women are turned away because the shelters are full. Each year, over 40,000 arrests result from domestic violence. That is about 12% of all violent crime in Canada, but since only about 22% of all incidents are reported to the police, that figure is obviously much higher.
Canada has clear domestic and international obligations to address violence against women, including the UN call for a national action plan to end violence against women to be in place in all countries by 2015. I was shocked to learn from the speech given by my colleague from Churchill that Canada does not have such a plan, in contrast to many of our partners around the world that do. That is really disturbing.
We must look at best practices from around the world, not just within Canada. Not doing so prevents us from learning the best practices employed elsewhere. Other countries have had success addressing violence against women. Why should we not take advantage of that expertise? In the absence of a national action plan responsive to violence against women, our education and programs are fragmented and inconsistent. We must do better. 
It has to be noted that multi-sectoral cuts by the Conservative government have been devastating to the Status of Women agency. Not only that, the whole violence against women sector has been left crippled by financial insecurity and lack of capacity to effectively respond to women's needs.
The Conservative minister who changed the women's program mandate said, rather unbelievably:
 We don't need to separate the men from the women in this country. This government as a whole is responsible to develop policies and programs that address the needs of both men and women. 
It is unbelievable.
The cuts that the Conservatives have made affect organizations advocating for women's issues, such as antidote, the non-profit organization in my community of Victoria that works for the social and psychological well-being of racialized girls and women. The organization's executive director called the changes shocking and asked, “How do you create change when you can't advocate for change?”
Other women's groups, such as the Victoria Status of Women Action Group, SWAG, were forced to close completely, thanks to the government's cuts.
Obviously a national action plan to address violence against women is being called for by the vast majority of service providers and advocacy groups across the country.
 Recently, I had the opportunity to hold consultations with great organizations doing excellent work in my community of Victoria. They also called upon us to get a national action plan in place.
In April, I had the great honour of hosting a public forum in Victoria on equality and ending violence against women. I was joined by the official opposition critic for the Status of Women, the member for Churchill. We also had representatives from the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre, the Bridges for Women Society, the BC Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, and many others. An engaged crowd of more than 150 people also enjoyed incredibly powerful performances by two local poets, Jeremy Loveday and Morgan Purvis. The evening was emotional, inspiring, but more than anything else, it was a siren call for action.
We should seize the opportunity to study the possibility of creating a comprehensive national action plan that would make a tangible difference in women's lives.
We do not need to reinvent the wheel. The Canadian Network of Women's Shelters and Transition Houses recently reported that a high-level review of policies, legislation, research, reports, action plans, and statistical data from across Canada, relevant to the development of national violence against women legislation, is available.
The network is currently working with 30 partners to create a template for a comprehensive national action plan. We should listen to civil society on this issue and build upon the work they have done. They are two steps ahead of us. Let us get on with it. Canada is doing poorly compared with other OECD countries in preventing and treating sexual assault and intimate partner violence.
In conclusion, New Democrats will support the motion, but if the member is serious about addressing violence against women, we would hope that he would accept going further.
We are calling for stronger and immediate action to deal with the serious issue of violence against women, and particularly violence against aboriginal women in our country.
We are calling upon the government to immediately pick up the motion tabled by the member for Churchill, that is, Motion No. 444, and consult with civil society in order to create a multi-sectoral, comprehensive national action plan to address violence against women, which would include prevention and education strategies. I am pleased to see today that policies would be included.
We want the government to immediately commit to funding legal aid, shelters, transition houses, social housing, health services, and advocacy and research, in order to prevent and treat violence against all women in Canada, including, in particular, indigenous women, recent immigrants, and refugees.
The important work of violence against women service providers and advocacy organizations in Canada must be fully supported, so the incredible organizations like the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre, antidote, Bridges for Women Society, and the aboriginal friendship centres can continue their important work.
In order to obtain real results, we must address the underlying systemic reasons women face violence in the first place. We must address women's equality from a holistic perspective to end this violence and take action now.
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this important debate on Motion No. 504, which is before this House today. I intend to support this motion, because it presents a valuable opportunity to explore ways we all can help reduce and prevent violence against women and girls by engaging Canadians, listening to stakeholders, and finding out what works in practice at the national level or at the community level.
In 2011, in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, a 22-year-old mother and her infant son were abducted while out shopping. Over a 12-hour period, this young mother was brutally assaulted, both physically and sexually, before ultimately escaping. Words cannot even begin to do justice to such a shocking act. In the weeks following this event, I was able to attend a community vigil in response to this horrible act of brutal and senseless violence. At the vigil, the outpouring of emotion was as intense as it was heartfelt: outrage, shock, sympathy, compassion for the victim, and anger. Yet this wide range of emotion also served as a bond to bring the community together in support of the victim and as a call to action.
The reality is that violence against women and girls affects us all. Although in this case it occurred on Ellis Street in Penticton, we know that violence against women takes place in private and public spaces, in homes and in workplaces. 
We often see the cruel hand of violence against women, but there are also those disturbing acts that occur that remain hidden from all but the victim and her abuser. What a horrible secret to share. Wherever and whenever it occurs, let us recognize that these actions take a terrible toll on the individuals, families, and communities.
 How do we stop this brutal and senseless violence? One way we know we can make a real difference is by engaging men and boys. We know from experience that the more men and boys understand the serious impact of male violence on women and girls, the more involved they become. That is why our government issued a call for proposals through Status of Women Canada that included the specific theme of engaging men and boys on this important issue. It is also why we are supporting projects such as the huddle up and make the call program by the White Ribbon Campaign and the Toronto Argonauts. 
On the west coast, another worthy initiative in my home province of British Columbia is the be more than a bystander campaign, a partnership between the B.C. Lions and the Ending Violence Association of B.C.
Projects like these engage men and boys in reducing violence against women and girls through activities such as in-school engagements and youth leadership development. I should also note that a former member of the other chamber, the Hon. David Braley, is the owner of these two athletic organizations. It is no coincidence to see these kinds of programs being advocated by these two teams.
These projects are a good example of how we can all work together to help end violence against women and girls in Canada. However, there are other things to note. We have also increased funding to the women's program at Status of Women Canada to give more communities the tools they need to reduce and prevent gender-based violence. Since 2007, more than $69 million has been invested specifically in projects to help end violence against women and girls. These projects are helping communities address violence in rural and remote communities, in post-secondary campus communities, and in high-risk neighbourhoods. 
Recently there was a call for proposals for projects that helped communities engage youth in preventing or eliminating cyberviolence and sexual violence against young women and girls. We must not forget that abuse of a sexual nature increasingly occurs online against younger and more vulnerable girls, sadly with very devastating results.
Each of these projects recognizes the need to work with skilled partners, organizations that have the capacity at the community level to develop programs and the resources to meet those needs.
In addition to supporting the women's program at Status of Women Canada, our government has also taken a number of additional actions to address gender-based violence.
I mention these actions as I believe it is important for Canadians to know what initiatives the government has taken, focusing on eliminating violence against women and girls. That is why I am proud to be here supporting the member and the motion. I know our government members share these values and see this is as a motion that this august chamber can agree on and move forward in empowering the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Maurice Vellacott): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. The hon. member will have four minutes left in debate when this item is next taken up in the House. 
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)