2014-09-19

Government Orders
Combating Counterfeit Products Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-8 this morning. I will start off with an example that I think people would be able to relate to on why it is important that we bring forward legislation of this nature.
As everyone knows, Winnipeg had the opportunity to have the Winnipeg Jets NHL franchise. That was just a couple of years ago now. At the time, there was a great deal of hype built around the Winnipeg Jets, what the new logo was going to look like, and so forth. It was kept secret until a certain release date when the new logo was announced. 
When that business plan was developed, part of the business plan included the sale of merchandise, wanting to capitalize, no doubt, on the fresh, newly minted Winnipeg Jets. The NHL franchise came up with a very unique and, I suggest, wonderful logo. Within months of the release of that logo, NHL material was authorized, copyrighted, and so forth, and was up for sale. Many would argue the price was a little steep for these NHL freshly minted Winnipeg Jet jerseys, at well over $100 each, but it was the authentic jersey, the real thing, if I can put it that way.
Within weeks of the release of the logo, jerseys started appearing that were not authorized. They were infringements on the copyright. What ended up happening was that it caused quite a bit of a commotion, and I can appreciate why. The NHL and the Winnipeg Jets franchise were quite concerned about how this counterfeit product was being produced in such a quick fashion and being sold to the thousands of Manitobans and many others who were quite fascinated and wanted to purchase some of this merchandise. It had a fairly profound impact in terms of sales and the franchise would argue that, ultimately, it lost a great deal of revenue because of it.
I use that as just an example of why it is that, as a Parliament, we need to provide protections for the copyrights of entrepreneurs and others. That is, in essence, what Bill C-8 is really all about.
It would create new civil causes of action with respect to sustaining commercial activities in infringing copies and counterfeit trademarked goods. It would also create new criminal offences for trademark counterfeiting that are similar to existing offences in the Copyright Act. It would create new criminal offences prohibiting the possession or exporting of infringing copies or counterfeit trademarked goods, packaging or labels.
It would also enact new border enforcement measures enabling customs officers to detain goods that they suspect infringe copyright or trademark rights, and allowing them to share information relating to the detained goods with rights owners who have filed a request for assistance, in order to give the rights owners a reasonable opportunity to pursue a remedy in court. It would exempt the importation and exportation of copies and goods by an individual for his or her personal use from the application of the border measures. 
It would also add the offence set out in the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act to the list of offences set out in the Criminal Code for the investigation of which police may seek judicial authorization to use a wiretap.
The enactment also amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, expand the scope of what can be registered as a trademark, allowing the Registrar of Trademarks to correct errors that appear in the trademark register, and streamline and modernize the trademark application and opposition process. 
My colleague, the member for Toronto Centre, the Liberal Party critic, has done a wonderful job ensuring that the Liberal Party was well represented at the committee stage, getting and providing positive feedback. On occasion, she did propose amendments. Unfortunately, the government did not see the merits of the amendments, which were ultimately defeated. It is somewhat sad to see, given the importance of the legislation, that the government did not allow amendments to pass, whether Liberal or New Democratic.
Yesterday, I was talking about the importance of the committee stage and how we can improve legislation by bringing forward amendments. One of the things we have noticed with the majority Conservative government is that its attitude toward amendments in committee is not positive at all. The government seems to be of the opinion that unless an amendment originates from a Conservative member of Parliament, or more particularly, from the ministry or the Prime Minister's office, that amendment should not pass. That seems to be a general rule that applies to all pieces of legislation, which is most unfortunate given the importance of trying to pass good, solid legislation.
The idea and principle behind legislation going to the committee stage is one of allowing members to participate and be engaged in the process. If members feel they have something to contribute they can bring forward amendments, either on their behalf or behalf of their political party, as the Liberal Party critic attempted to do.
There are a number of things that are worthy of noting. In terms of the actual cost, the RCMP has increased, virtually fivefold since 2005 to 2012, the number of seizures that have taken place. As members can appreciate, we are talking about millions of dollars' worth of product. This really emphasizes the degree to which the RCMP, if they are engaged on the file, are finding that much more counterfeit product being recognized.
We know there is a great deal of counterfeit product coming in through the Internet. There are many different ways in which one could sell product over the Internet. At the end of the day, we suspect there is a great deal of counterfeit product being sold through the Internet. We challenge the government to be more proactive in regard to that particular issue. As an example, I made reference to the Winnipeg Jets. Once could also talk about other consumer products. 
The other day someone brought this issue to my attention with regard to purses. If one were to go into some of the more upscale commercial facilities, purses sell in the neighbourhood of $400 to $600. They can be very expensive. Copies provided by someone who is prepared to infringe on copyright and provide a duplicate that is incredibly close to the original are sold for a fraction of the cost. There might be a retail value on a certain type of purse at the upper end, somewhere around $450 to $500, but through unethical organizations or business individuals, they can produce that purse at a substantially lower cost and then undersell the retailer. Instead of $450, they might be able to sell that same look-alike purse for $30 to $40 and still make a substantial profit. These are the types of things we need to be aware of. As more and more consumers look to the Internet to acquire goods, I suspect this is going to be a larger problem going forward. 
Today through our border officers and customs agents, we get a great deal of commercial activity. One of the areas that is really growing is the Internet. This is something the government has fallen short on in terms of providing some sort of assurance or protection for copyrighted material.
It is also important for us to recognize that even though the legislation is a step forward in the right direction, as I have tried to emphasize, it could have done so much more. One of the things I want to emphasize is that even though there is more power going to our Canada border control, we need to put that into perspective in terms of what the government has done in recent budgets in terms of cutbacks to border control and customs offices. 
On the one hand, we recognize there is a problem with copyright and trademark infringements. A major aspect of that problem comes from international borders where product comes in or is leaving, which is growing every day. On the other hand, we have a government that is reducing the resources that are being allocated at our borders.
 I have a difficult time with that. There is a larger problem and it continues to grow. The government responds by saying it has legislation, Bill C-8, which is its attempt to deal with the problem. Conservatives present it and try to appease the different stakeholders by saying they brought in the legislation to deal with this issue, but on the other hand, they did not provide the proper resources for our customs officers and border control people to provide the types of assurances through checks, and so forth, that show we are serious about dealing with it, that we are compensating product and ensuring there is a consequence to those who are trying to illegally bring in material for resale purposes.
Yes, it is great to see that we have legislation before us today and it is a step in the right direction, but we should not try to give false impressions because the legislation is only one aspect of this. The other aspect is to ensure that we provide additional resources to our law enforcement agencies. This is where the government has really fallen short.
As I indicated, the Liberal Party has some concerns with regard to the legislation. We recognize the need to provide new enforcement tools to help strengthen Canada's existing enforcement regime for counterfeit goods. We believe that the Canadian business and industry associations must be protected to ensure the well-being of those domestic businesses and the health and safety of Canadians, as well as the integrity of the Canadian economy as a whole. When we make reference to the issue of health and safety, this is something that quite often gets overlooked.
Whether it is medication or something that might be used for prescriptions, there are many products being brought into Canada, and we do not know if those products are safe for use. 
I have emphasized that the Liberal Party would like to investigate how e-commerce may provide a loophole for counterfeit products. That is why I have suggested that the government has missed an opportunity where there may be great deal of potential abuse. I suggest that the government might want to reconsider.
Border officers are not copyright experts. They do their best, and we must compliment them on the fantastic job they do. Having said that, they would be given new and increased powers that are not overseen by courts, which may lead to some illegitimate seizures and violations of the Charter of Rights. To what degree has that been taken into consideration? 
There are several further concerns that have been raised. If there are more seizures due to increased powers for border officers and the RCMP, how will the government fund these extensive investigative operations? Should genuine non-counterfeit products be seized and destroyed, how will the government compensate companies and individuals that might have been exploited? Moreover, how will the government protect the information of legitimate importers from potential misuse of the request-for-assistance mechanism? How will the government determine whether importers of counterfeit products are aware that products are counterfeit? These are the types of questions that have been raised. We have found that the government has been wanting in terms of providing the answers.
Why are there no provisions for counterfeit goods being shipped through Canada? That is a bit of a surprise. The legislation does not seem to deal with that issue. We know that counterfeit products will come into Canada and ultimately leave Canada. How big the problem is, it is hard to say. To what degree do we have products coming into Canada, being labelled as coming from Canada, and being sent to other regions? These are legitimate concerns.
There is so much one could say about this particular bill. However, at the end of the day, it is about protecting Canada's economy and ensuring that we bring in legislation that enhances our economic activity. This is something that is important to the Liberal Party as we strive to ensure that the middle class is given the opportunity to grow and prosper. Legislation of this nature, if it is done properly, will actually protect jobs. It will ensure that Canadians are healthy and that the products they are acquiring are legitimate products from the original manufacturers.
If I pay a price believing that I have acquired something that is under trademark or copyright, I would like to think that this is what I am receiving. The Government of Canada has a role to play in that.
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on this important piece of legislation. I heard him discuss the inadequacy of the government's actions. During the 12 years of successive majority Liberal governments, what actions did the Liberals take to combat counterfeiting to protect Canadian consumers? Perhaps he could explain that to the House, because I certainly was not here then. What kind of investment did they make in border services to ensure that there was effective enforcement of any goods coming in or going out of the country?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the fact that in the last five or six years, we have seen counterfeit products acquired by legal authorities increase fivefold.
I have noticed that in a recent days the NDP members have, as much as possible and wherever possible, taken shots at the Liberal Party. That is fine. I can appreciate that they are a little sensitive in terms of their potential future and what might lie ahead. 
Having said that, I can assure the member that there was adequate funding of resources, such as border controls, that was maintained, whether through the Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin governments. The greatest deficiency today is that the government has instituted cutbacks in border control and to a certain degree in the RCMP. That will have a negative impact on protecting us from copyright infringement and from those who choose to break the law.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. 
I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-8, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. People watching at home might think this is something that does not really concern them, that it is an arcane piece of legislation that does not affect their daily lives. I want to emphasize to them that, in fact, this is something that affects Canadian jobs, Canadian consumers, and Canadian safety in our homes and in our communities. 
In brief, the purpose of the bill is to strengthen the enforcement of copyright and trademark rights and to basically curtail counterfeit goods coming into Canada. Specifically, it would add two new criminal offences under the copyright act for the possession and export of infringing copies. It would create offences for selling and offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. It would create a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods. 
It would introduce some balance to that prohibition by creating two new exemptions. One is personal use, and this is important. In other words, a person might have something in his or her personal possession, perhaps in personal baggage, that happens to be counterfeit and he or she does not know it. The second is for items that are in transit control.
 It grants new ex officio powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods. That is a significant policy shift, because until now, border officials required private rights holders to get a court order before seizing or infringing any copies or goods. 
There are other measures as well, but let me, in the limited time I have, elaborate a bit on what this means for Canadians. Most of the counterfeit goods that come into Canada today are from China, but some come in from the U.S. and some other countries. How does this affect Canadian jobs? Companies that manufacture here in Canada, that trademark their name on the quality and value of the product people buy, become subject to cheap knock-offs that get sold at discount prices. 
Let me give a very specific example. On a cold winter day, all across Canada, we can see many people wearing Canada Goose jackets and coats. Canada Goose jackets have a distinctive logo that is very clear to see. The coats are fairly expensive, but they are super warm and good quality and when people buy them, they know that they are getting that quality. These coats are made here in Canada. They are designed here. They are manufactured here under tight quality controls. Canadian workers make these coats. They do an excellent job and provide good value. For these cheap knock-offs that come in, we have no idea what the labour conditions are. They could be produced in very hazardous conditions. They could be produced by child labour. We have no idea of the conditions that these, or any counterfeit products, are produced under.
Consumers might think they are getting a heck of deal. These are expensive products, and if they can get them on sale online cheaply, why not do it? 
Let me quote Canada Goose. It talks about counterfeits of its products that have come into Canada. 
 Made illegally in factories in Asia, the fake jackets are found on many rogue websites as well as in the flea markets of Shanghai, Beijing and Bangkok. Counterfeiting is illegal. It often funds organized crime and counterfeit factories in regions where labour standards are lax and often employ child labour. 
 Counterfeiting is not only illegal, but also dangerous. 
 After analyzing the content of counterfeit jackets, we know that instead of the sanitized, Canadian down used by Canada Goose, counterfeiters often use feather mulch or other fillers. These materials are often coated in bacteria, fungus or mildew, posing significant health risks to unsuspecting consumers. As well, raccoon, dog or other unknown animal hair may be used in place of our functional coyote fur ruff. 
 Even more frightening is that for a person in cold climate, an authentic Canada Goose parka could mean the difference between life and death. Without real down and fur, the chance of frostbite or freezing becomes a real possibility. 
 This is one very concrete example of what the proposed legislation is designed to combat. 
We also have examples of counterfeit batteries that have exploded. There are a number of cases of children being burned by products that had counterfeit batteries in them. The bill is designed to combat that, and certainly New Democrats support the notion of dealing with counterfeiting.
For those who are concerned about what this might mean for the Internet, the proposed legislation does not deal with websites. It does not block content or take down websites. As I outlined earlier, infringement goods are limited to personal exemption in one's personal baggage. 
New Democrats support taking on this issue and dealing with counterfeit goods. However, I will say that it is difficult to understand how a bill like this would be implemented when the Conservatives' 2012 budget cut $143 million in funding from border services. That means that the very border guards who would be required to enforce the legislation would have less resources to do that. 
Those budget cuts in 2013-14 meant a loss of 549 full-time equivalent jobs between now and 2015. What is more, under the bill, customs officers would need special training because they would be asked to make highly complicated assessments of whether goods entering or exiting the country infringe on any copyright or trademark rights. This is an assessment that sometimes the courts themselves struggle with, yet we would ask border guards to adequately implement the bill and protect Canadians and our borders without a full complement of staff.
The NDP will be supporting the bill at third reading. We think it is important that we deal with copyright in order to protect Canadian jobs and consumers, and certainly for the health and safety aspects, where we have seen real problems in the past.
The bill speaks to the notion of labour rights and making sure that people have adequate protections in the workplace. However, we do not want to, through shoddy or weak enforcement of the bill, inadvertently be subsidizing counterfeit goods or organized crime that trades in counterfeit goods. 
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. She spoke about many aspects of the bill. Of course, the NDP supports the fight against counterfeiting, but we want to be sure that the measures are balanced for both rights owners and consumers.
She also made a brief allusion to the economic impact that counterfeiting has on the economy in general. Can she explain what this bill does to address that negative impact on the economy?
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that important question.
Clearly, there will be economic consequences if we refuse to allow counterfeit products into the country, and it is difficult to measure the scope of the problem. However, the federal government was wrong not to properly assess the impact that counterfeit products have on the Canadian market.
It is a good idea to try and block counterfeit products because that is how we will defend Canadian jobs and protect our economy.
The fact remains that billions of dollars' worth of counterfeit products are likely entering our country every year, and we do not know the true extent of this problem.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park for her work as our industry critic and for her work on this file. I know that counterfeit products are a big problem.
The member mentioned cases coming from China, but what she highlighted and what was really important for me was that while the government is coming up with new regulations and laws, and we support them because they are a step forward, in practice the government is cutting resources.
We have seen it happening in transport. We saw it with what happened in Lac-Mégantic, where costs were cut with respect to the organization of Transport Canada and less surveillance. We also saw it with XL Foods, because the government has been cutting inspectors.
What are the impacts of government cuts with respect to the borders? The government is saying one thing, but its actions are saying another.
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. He spoke about rail safety and Lac-Mégantic. Tank cars like the ones that exploded in Lac-Mégantic go right across the northern boundary of my riding every single day. I can tell the member that people are very concerned about the impact of cuts to government offices and inspectors, and the move to self-regulation.
We had a community meeting on this exact issue a couple of weeks back. It was a packed community meeting with residents who were very concerned and who had very basic questions that they were hoping to ask Transport Canada. Sadly, the minister refused to allow any officials from Transport Canada to attend that meeting.
It is really parallel to the enforcement of counterfeit goods. Whether we are trying to protect Canadians from runaway tank cars or food poisoning, or whether we are trying to protect consumers from counterfeit goods, we not only need the laws in place, but we need the staff and the public investment to enforce that.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this bill touches on relatively complex issues such as copyright, intellectual property, trademark rights and the ethical and legal challenges related to Internet regulations. There are many types of counterfeit products, and depending on the case, Canadians can suffer very different consequences. As with the Criminal Code, some infractions could endanger peoples' lives or safety, while others have economic consequences. When it comes right down to it, counterfeiting is a form of fraud and, like all fraud, sooner or later it will affect Canadians' quality of life.
The International Chamber of Commerce “puts the cost of lost tax revenue and additional welfare spending due to counterfeit goods up to USD 125 billion in developed countries alone. And 2.5 million jobs have been lost as a result of fake products.”
Globalization makes it easier for countries to engage in trade, thus considerably increasing the opportunities for this type of activity. The counterfeit products intercepted in Canada in 2012 and seized by the RCMP were worth nearly $40 million a year. That number has increased more than fivefold in the past 10 years, from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012.
By 2015, the International Chamber of Commerce expects the value of counterfeit goods globally to exceed $1.7 billion U.S. That is over 2% of the world's total current economic output. 
The government introduced this bill on March 1, 2013, as Bill C-56. Interestingly, that very same day, the U.S. International Trade Administration published a report asking Canada to adopt specific measures in line with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to combat counterfeiting in Canada. Specifically, it recommended that customs officers be given the necessary authority to intercept suspicious goods. 
The problem is that Canada has not yet ratified the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement despite the fact that it signed the agreement on October 1, 2011. For its part, the European Parliament rejected the agreement, which means that neither the European Union nor any of its member states will be able to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, the United States and Europe, Canada seems to want to have its cake and eat it too by taking a vague position on the importance of combating this phenomenon without talking about the agreement specifically.
The American authorities can certainly suggest that the Canadian government improve its customs services and give them the authority they need to seize or at least intercept products that they suspect are counterfeit, but nothing can force the government to allocate the necessary resources. Without adequate training for officers and additional resources for inspection services, especially the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and customs, they can write whatever they want.
Not only do officers have to know all of the laws in addition to the Customs Act and details about trade agreements that have a bearing on these issues, they also have to have the expertise to recognize problematic situations and counterfeit goods. However, the government is cutting jobs and the agency's budget the same way it is cutting other departments and organizations.
We always get the same answer: the cuts are not affecting services. However, we must not kid ourselves. Border officers did not have these responsibilities before this bill was implemented, and with the staff cutbacks, there are fewer people doing the same amount of work. The agency was asked to cut back by at least 10%, as were all departments and agencies, which has resulted in a shortfall of over $140 million since 2012. The border officers' union said that some 1,000 jobs would be lost over the next few years as a result of those budget cuts. 
In fact, that was one of the main criticisms of the members of the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, a not-for-profit group made up of individuals, businesses and associations that have joined forces to combat fraud, counterfeiting and copyright violations. In a letter to the Minister of Industry prior to the parliamentary committee's study of Bill C-8, which we are currently debating, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network outlined five contentious issues in the bill, including the lack of resources. 
The letter states, and I quote:
 While the Bill empowers Canadian customs officers more than before, we are concerned that insufficient resources may be allocated to allow for effective enforcement by CBSA. 
We fully agree that more powers need to be given to border services officers. However, they must know what their rights and responsibilities are, since they will have no legal supervision. The agency must also have the resources needed to train them and properly enforce this legislation. 
The Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network is currently fulfilling its mandate by helping to train customs officers and members of various police forces to recognize fraud and counterfeit products. In committee, the group's representative expressed his frustration with staff turnover and layoffs. He said:
 I'm continually frustrated by the fact that it's like a drop in the bucket. If we go to the Niagara Falls border and train 50 border guards, as we did last year, and then come back in three months, 50% of them have gone on to other jobs, and we start over again. It's very difficult to maintain a level of understanding of what products look like. 
 They need some help on their side, and we're willing to help them, but we don't have funding either. 
Let us be clear: strengthening the rules and legislation on counterfeiting is a good idea, but we have to put words into action.
According to a number of witnesses, the financial burden that comes with penalties and the administrative costs of a seizure falls to the rights owners, who are already stung by the counterfeiting.They therefore become financially responsible for the legislation put in place to protect their rights. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology heard from several witnesses about that, including Michael Geist, Wayne Edwards and Martin Lavoie.
At the very least, I would like to cite part of the testimony by Michael Geist, who is well known in the field of digital law and copyright:
 Further, detention of goods can be used to harm small Canadian businesses that could find the goods they are seeking to import detained, oftentimes by competitors. The absence of a misuse provision in this bill is particularly notable in this regard. 
Those remarks were echoed by Martin Lavoie of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association:
 ...I would like to raise a number of concerns that we and our members have with the bill in its current form. 
 One of them is about the responsibility of the right holder—or in other words, the victim of counterfeiting—to pay the fees associated with the detention and destruction of goods. We do not understand the rationale for this. 
 We believe that the importers should be responsible for these costs, since they are the ones introducing these goods into our country in the first place. They should not be given a free ride. Where is the disincentive [for importers of counterfeit products] in that? Moreover, these costs, which will largely be incurred in court proceedings, are likely to be onerous and difficult to support for smaller companies that are the victims of counterfeiting. I know that you've heard this from other witnesses. We share this concern. 
That is a concern that we on this side of the House also share. We are going to support this bill at third reading, but it is important to recognize that the bill still has shortcomings that were not corrected by the committee.
The NDP proposed nine amendments, which were all rejected. The only amendments that were accepted were technical amendments. This happens regularly in every committee when the Conservatives see certain flaws in their bills.
Like all opposition parties, our role as the official opposition is not only to oppose—which will not be the case with Bill C-8 since we are going to support it—but also to point out any significant flaws in the text and any negative effects that the government did not take into account when drafting and examining the bill. We therefore strongly criticize the government for failing to listen to the arguments made by the opposition.
We are going to support this bill, since it is a step in the right direction on the important issue of counterfeiting. Given that trade with our major trade partner, the United States, is fairly free, this is a way to coordinate our efforts in the fight against counterfeiting, a practice for which there is no justification. As I mentioned earlier, counterfeiting is a type of fraud that must be dealt with.
Will the government now put words into action? Will it provide the resources necessary to implement this bill and ensure that border and other officials responsible for identifying and seizing counterfeit goods can do their work effectively?
With regard to funding for these agencies, whether it be border services, food inspection or customs as a whole, the government still has a long way to go to ensure that Bill C-8 becomes law and that authorities have the strength and power to enforce it. 
Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on one particular part of the bill. I had the privilege of being on the industry committee when this bill was before it and had the opportunity to talk a little with the RCMP and border services officers who were going to be enforcing the bill. One of the questions they were asked is whether there are any numbers on how many Canadian manufacturers have been convicted of importing or exporting counterfeited goods. The superintendent of the RCMP did not have those figures at hand, which is fair enough, so we asked whether he could provide the committee with a written response.
The written response to the committee stated that the RCMP information systems do not capture or track a sufficient level of details in order to provide the number of Canadian manufacturers that are convicted of importing or exporting counterfeit goods. It seemed odd to the committee that we have no way of actually tracking the problem. How do we decide what kinds of resources we need to bring to bear on the problem if we do not know the magnitude of it?
New Democrats moved an amendment asking that Parliament receive annual reports with information on detainments that were made under this scheme. I wonder if the member wants to comment on whether he supports that amendment and why he thinks it is an important one.
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I followed her work on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, a file previously under my responsibility. Industry and trademark issues are very interesting.
My colleague has raised an important question because this is not the only file where the government has not paid attention to elements important to the application of future legislation. The government must give the agencies, in this case the RCMP, the powers and resources they need to do their job.
How can we ensure that the work is done properly if we do not have the ability to monitor progress made in terms of their capacity to detect and seize counterfeit goods or even to improve processes that can help border services officers or the RCMP do a better job?
Data collection is an important aspect, whether in the private sector or, in this case, the public sector. It helps ensure that effective tools are available or that existing tools are improved so people can do a better job. In that sense, it is fine to feel good about a bill that has more teeth, but we must help these officers effectively detect counterfeiting.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.
He mentioned the fact that this work at the border is vital because it stops the counterfeit goods. However, cuts to the CBSA budget will reduce the number of front-line officers and impair our capacity to monitor our borders.
We will support this bill. However, can my colleague tell us whether this bill will attain its objectives with respect to counterfeiting?
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Lambert raised an excellent point.
Indeed, that point was raised in committee by people such as border officers, who are on the front lines when it comes to enforcing this proposed bill. The border officers' union raised two specific problems, contrary to what the Conservative government has claimed.
The first problem is downsizing. In the coming years, we expect that border services will lose 1,000 positions as a result of cuts. The second problem has to do with training. If there is no stability within border services, meaning that border crossings are being shut down and reopened, as was the case in Niagara Falls, we lose people who were already trained and who would simply need to update their skills, especially when it comes to detecting these goods. We are losing them because they have no job security.
These people eventually turn to other fields. Not only are we losing these resources, but we are also losing the training that was invested in them. We are forced to start from scratch. Those are two extremely relevant points raised by the union that represents border officers and that the government and proponents of the bill have not addressed.
This is very unfortunate, and we have some concerns on this side of the House that do not necessarily have to do with the effectiveness of the bill—even if it does have some flaws that could potentially be fixed—but rather with the ability to implement and enforce this bill properly.
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. He raised two issues. If he has the time, I would like him to talk about the enforcement and monitoring of the proposed rules and the proposals that were made. How can it all be improved?
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to respond to that in 30 seconds. I think that is all the time I have.
There are improvements to be made to this bill, which is not perfect. A number of criticisms were not considered by the committee. I think that once the bill passes, we will have to ensure that the resources are there to enforce it. That is the most important thing once the bill passes.

Statements by Members
Franklin DiscoveryMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the amazing Franklin discovery, the discovery of one of our ships lost since 1846 and the Durham connection to this discovery.
The Prime Minister's passion for the Arctic and for this Franklin discovery is well known. While we did not find Franklin slumped over the wheel as the Prime Minister hoped, we found one of the two ships in remarkable condition. This is an important part of our history as Canadians and of our Arctic sovereignty.
 I would like to talk about the Durham connection to this discovery in the Victoria Strait. 
Mr. Joshua Thienpont from Courtice, a graduate of Courtice High School, was on one of the vessels in the Arctic. A Ph.D. student from Queen's studying Arctic ecosystems, he was there as part of the Weston Foundation. This highlights another remarkable part of this discovery: the collaboration of Parks Canada, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, the Weston Foundation and others to bring forth this amazing discovery and our rich Canadian history.
I congratulate Joshua and the entire team on this remarkable discovery.
World Alzheimer's DayMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this Sunday we celebrate World Alzheimer's Day. In Canada we recognize that Alzheimer's and related dementia diseases harm 750,000 Canadians, a figure that will double in a generation. Add to this the three or four caregivers each patient typically has. Some 73% of all Canadians say that they know someone who is suffering from Alzheimer's. These are our partners, parents, grandparents, friends, neighbours and co-workers.
Canada remains one of the few G8 countries without a national plan. The recent commitments to research are good, but not good enough. Canadians want Ottawa to lead. Our party supports a national plan. It would mean money, research, early diagnosis and intervention, strengthen the integration of primary, home and community care, help for caregivers and training for the dementia workforce.
Dementia is a non-partisan disease; we need a non-partisan solution.
 Let us work together on a national dementia strategy.
Suicide PreventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past spring I encouraged hon. members to participate in the Mental Health Commission of Canada's program, 308 conversations about suicide prevention. I have been heartened by feedback from my colleagues saying how much they learned.
In Waterloo Region, all four members of Parliament united in conversation with teachers, coaches, first responders, funeral directors, members of the faith community and those with lived experience. More than 80 people devoted an entire morning to discussion of how we could do a better job preventing deaths by suicide.
That afternoon, I joined 29 others for training in safeTALK, enabling me to better identify vulnerable individuals experiencing thoughts of suicide and to connect them with appropriate resources. We spent the morning discussing the challenges and the afternoon learning solutions.
Thankfully, many Canadians are being trained in first aid techniques. We now need to go that extra mile and become trained in safeTALK. Together, we can deliver hope.
Mirabel TerminalMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, it was announced that the Mirabel terminal would be demolished despite the efforts of the community and local representatives.
The Liberal Party takes issue with the way the decision was made and feels it is premature. Local stakeholders were not adequately consulted. The people of Mirabel deserve to know how the government plans to use the land to create good local jobs, stimulate economic growth and support regional development.
We are asking the Conservative government to be transparent and tell the people of Mirabel what it plans to do with the terminal site.
Rouge ValleyMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, after years of negotiations and after an agreement was reached, the Ontario Liberal government supported by Liberals from across the aisle turned their back on the Rouge Valley.
On the advice of radical environmentalist Jim Robb, the Liberals have endorsed a plan for the Rouge Valley that would evict farmers from class 1 farmland that has been farmed for over 400 years.
Jim Robb has called local farmers “ecologically insensitive industrial farmers”. He has called them millionaires who stand in the way of these lands being reforested. He has been a vocal opponent of our farmers and has been supported by Liberals both here and at Queen's Park every step of the way.
The House will recall that it was the Trudeau government in the 1970s that seized these lands from farmers and evicted them, while only returning some of them to one-year leases on their very same properties.
Our plan would guarantee farming remains in the Rouge Valley and our farmers would be treated with respect and provided the security they need to make investments in their land. At the same time, the entire Rouge Valley would be protected for generations to come. 
We will not turn our back on the Rouge Valley. I call on the Liberals to our support farmers in that area
Royal 22nd RegimentMr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the Royal 22nd Regiment's 100th anniversary, we also celebrate its achievements.
It is the only infantry unit in the Canadian Forces that operates entirely in French. In 1920, the regiment moved into the Citadel in Quebec City, which became its headquarters. The Vandoos are so much more than their marching band and their famous mascot: this is a unit that has never been faint of heart. 
From Courcelette to Passchendaele, with Vimy Ridge along the way, from the Sicily invasion to the Italian campaign, from the Korean War to peacekeeping missions in Cyprus and Yugoslavia, from the earthquake in Haiti to the war in Afghanistan, the Vandoos have proven themselves in many different ways, often paying a heavy price. The decorations they have won are irrefutable proof.
I am proud to commemorate the 100 years of brave, honourable service performed by the largest military unit in Quebec. 
On behalf of all members of this House, I rise here today to remember the Vandoos.
Myeloma Walk and Music FestivalMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Ottawa-Gatineau's third Myeloma Walk and Music Festival was held last Sunday. This event came together because of great volunteers with hearts of gold. Multiple myeloma is the second most prevalent blood cancer, and the purpose of this walk is to raise money to fund research and find a cure.
As you might expect, this cause is very close to my heart, and it is a great pleasure to stand here today to acknowledge all the organizers for the warm welcome and for being engaged citizens ready to give your all.
I thank Maria and Nicolas Iadinardi, Jacqueline Kennedy, Rachael Weir, Blair Goldsmith, Jennifer Comeau, Derek McClintock and Michael Fuchigami 100 times and 800 times for everything.
 Anyone wishing to help us by making a donation to fund research should please visit ottawamyelomawalk.org by September 30. 
The EnvironmentMr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is making a positive difference on the environment in Windsor—Essex. For those who do not know, Essex County has the most species at risk, both plant and animal, of anywhere in Canada, largely due to habitat fragmentation.
 However, thanks to our government's policies, Windsor—Essex has seen the creation of the first binationally-funded fish spawning reef, a first in Canada's priority natural area, and major investments from our natural areas conservation program to restore and preserve key habitats on the Ruscom River, along Cedar Creek and Canard River, and on Pelee Island. 
We have not stopped there. Our government created a national conservation plan this year to conserve land and water, restore ecosystems and connect Canadians with nature. We backed it with over $250 million.
This summer the government House leader and I hosted key local stewardship groups to discuss how Windsor—Essex could continue our environmental success through the national conservation plan.
Our plan is working and Windsor—Essex will have a greener, cleaner future for generations to come.
Quebec Farm Women's OrganizationMs. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and honoured today to draw attention to the official launch of the celebrations marking the centennial of the Cercles de fermières du Québec.
This is the largest and oldest association of Quebec women, which counts me among its 34,000 members.
These women have handed down our artisanal, cultural and culinary traditions from generation to generation and have kept them relevant. Our farm women stand up for the rights of women and families in public forums and adopt all kinds of resolutions that are then forwarded to the different levels of government. Their volunteerism helps their entire community. 
I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work of the presidents of my Cercles de fermières: Nathalie Leblanc in Duberger, Nathalie Lepage in Vanier, Lise de Grâce in Ste-Monique-Les Saules and Nicole Fortin of the Notre-Dame-de-Pitié Cercle de fermières. 
Kudos, ladies. Thank you. Happy 100th anniversary.
Natural ResourcesHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, six years ago TransCanada put its application for the Keystone XL pipeline forward to the United States. This pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border, enhance energy security and emit fewer greenhouse gas emissions than alternative transportation methods.
 The Canada-U.S. energy relationship is the most important in the world, with the value of our energy exports last year being roughly $118 billion. Our government supports this pipeline because it is an important project on both sides of the border. 
Canada is a reliable, environmentally-responsible friend and neighbour. Let us hope that this year we can finally celebrate the construction of Keystone XL. 
IraqMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the tragedy continues to unfold in Iraq. The Bush invasion of 2003 has left a toll of hundreds of thousands dead, millions of people displaced and infrastructure destroyed. According to an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, if Bush and the neo-conservatives had not pushed to topple Saddam, the Islamic State would not have been born.
So here we have it. Bush created this mess and the U.S. is now asking other countries for help. No Arab country has offered boots on the ground, and Turkey has refused to let coalition warplanes fly bombing missions from its territory.
 As Jeffrey Simpson stated in today's Globe and Mail:
 The West, once again, has stepped into these minefields without having properly identified the nature of the struggle, the ends sought by military intervention and the means necessary to bring those ends about. 
Our troops should only be put into harm's way as a very last resort. The terms of the current mission are unclear. Deployment of our military to a war zone requires full debate and a vote in Parliament. Canadians deserve better.
Royal 22nd RegimentMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, established during the early days of the First World War, the Royal 22nd Regiment fought in the battlefields of France, notably in the legendary battles of the Somme and Vimy.
During the Second World War, the Royal 22nd Regiment drove the Nazi forces out of Sicily and northwestern Europe. They captured enemy positions and paved the way for victory.
For 100 years, the Royal 22nd Regiment has struck fear in the hearts of the enemy, from Korea to Afghanistan. It has been the pride of Canada.
We congratulate the Royal 22nd Regiment as it celebrates its 100th anniversary.
Your country salutes you, is proud of you and thanks you.
Lest we forget.
Birthday CongratulationsHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Helen Saipe was born Helen Dworkin in Ottawa, and will celebrate her 100th birthday this Sunday, September 21. Her father, Abraham Dworkin, was the founder of Ottawa's well-known Dworkin Furs, which he started at the family home.
Helen is the mother of Dorothy, Marcia, Geri and Barb. She is a grandmother to 10 grandchildren and proud great-grandmother to 19.
She became involved in charity work, supporting women and children in Israel through Hadassah-WIZO. She presided over a chapter of this organization for decades. Her management and communication skills made her a natural leader.
Helen learned how to play bridge very well, and is still playing at least three times a week in her retirement home. 
Her family is proud of the strength she has shown throughout her life. I am told Helen never talks about yesterday, but always has a plan for today and tomorrow. Her longevity is a work of amazing personal fortitude, positive thinking and a daily cocktail.
My colleagues and I wish Helen a happy birthday, and also our best wishes for all her tomorrows.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are dark and dangerous corners in the world that we live in, and protecting Canadians from barbaric terrorists is a fundamental responsibility of any government.
Rather than take a stand when an important question on national security was posed to him, the leader of the Liberal Party said, “next question”. He turned his tail and ran. We already know he thinks revoking passports from Canadian terrorists is an affront to Canadian values. We know the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands sees the light and beauty inside of ISIL terrorists. We also know the Liberal member for Westmount—Ville-Marie thinks convicted terrorists should remain Canadian.
With radical and out-of-touch positions like these on important issues of national security, it is no wonder the Liberals do not want to come clean on what their position is. On important issue after important issue, the Liberal leader is in over his head.
Resumption of ParliamentMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as this first week back to Parliament draws to a close, we already have a strong record.
The NDP worked for Canadians with proposals on minimum wage, health, pensions and public day care. We cannot say the same about the Liberals. Let us just say that with them, it seemed more like back to school than back to Parliament.
The leader of the Liberal Party was scolded by his colleagues on abortion, an issue that his party does not agree on. Then, he refused to take a clear position on the Champlain Bridge. He was all over the place on that issue. He wants a toll and he does not want a toll. He wants more details, but we have been talking about this for three years. What is more, he tried to have us believe he was standing up for unemployed workers affected by the cuts to employment insurance, but he got his numbers mixed up. What an amateur. 
I do not need to say any more to convince hon. members that this first week back was rather tough for the Liberals and their leader. We in the NDP have an experienced leader and a team that is ready to replace a tired old government.
In 2015, Canada will have its first NDP government.
Government PrioritiesMr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal leader who suggested that income splitting for seniors is an ideological tax cut that he would reverse, forcing seniors and families to pay more in taxes, this Conservative government believes that seniors, and all Canadians, deserve to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. That is why it cut the GST, introduced pension income splitting, created tax-free savings accounts that are now benefiting more than 10 million Canadians by allowing them to save tax free, and removed almost 400,000 seniors from the tax rolls completely.
It will not stop there. We recently announced the small business hiring credit, which will lower EI taxes by 15% and save small businesses over $500 million.
While a Liberal government would introduce a carbon tax and run up deficit budgets, this Conservative government will continue to stand up for seniors and small business owners by building an economy that is envied by the world while keeping taxes low for all Canadians.

Oral Questions
IndustryMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw the Conservative ministers across the way simply wash their hands of the U.S. Steel tragedy. There is no new help for the people whose jobs are on the line. There is no new help for pension funds. And the minister from Nanticoke has been silent.
The government has failed to enforce the Investment Canada Act and failed to protect employees' pensions. Why will the Conservatives not stand up and protect these jobs and pensions?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government's thoughts are with the workers and their families during this restructuring process. 
While this process is ongoing, U.S. Steel has indicated that it will continue to operate, pay employees, service customers, and make pension contributions. We are monitoring the situation closely, but the member knows this is a provincially regulated industry, and so too are the pensions.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, the government's answers continue to be muddy, but what is clear is that this is a deliberate attempt to shut down operations and evade pension obligations.
U.S. Steel's plan could see 15,000 retirees lose up to half of their pension. What is the Conservative government going to do about it? Why is it turning its back on the people of this region?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was a provincial member. He knows that this is a provincially regulated industry. He knows that so too are the pensions.
On the issue of jobs, this government has created over one million net new jobs since 2009. Of those, 90% are full-time and 80% are in the private sector. We will continue with steps to improve that job creation even more, and we hope the member will support some of those steps.
Canada Revenue AgencyDavid Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, in typically twisted Conservative logic, they are going hard on pensioners but easy on tax cheats.
There are new reports today that the Canada Revenue Agency has decided to eliminate 220 auditors, who are responsible for going after tax cheats. Senior auditors, who aggressively root out tax evaders, are being given the boot.
Why is the government focusing on going after the David Suzuki Foundation instead of going after tax dodgers hiding in the Cayman Islands?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me clear: the CRA is not reducing the number of auditors, nor the number of tax evasion and tax avoidance experts. Between April 1, 2006, and April 1, 2014, the overall number of auditors has actually increased by 750. The hon. member is simply wrong.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, G20 leaders are meeting in Australia to come up with a plan to fight tax evasion. Meanwhile, 220 Canada Revenue Agency auditors have received layoff notices because of the Conservative government's blind, ideological cuts. This is ridiculous. Once again, the Conservatives are making life easy for white collar criminals. 
Why is the government dismantling its teams of tax evasion experts? 
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the CRA is not reducing the number of auditors, nor the number of tax evasion and tax avoidance experts.
Again, since 2006, we have substantially increased the amount of auditors at the CRA, and tax cheats are feeling the pressure like never before. In fact, since 2006, the CRA has seen a 400% increase in the use of its voluntary disclosure program, proof that there are fewer places than ever before for tax cheats to hide.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, the problem is the Conservatives' double standard. On the one hand, they are conducting a witch hunt against charitable organizations that do important work for our society, and on the other, they are dismantling teams of experts that combat international tax evasion and cutting auditors' jobs.
This is all happening at a time when every dollar counts and everyone should be doing their part to support our social programs.
Why is the Conservative government protecting white collar criminals?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, that question is just nonsense. I will go back to my first answer.
First of all, let us be clear. One thing that the NDP hates are the facts, so let me be clear. The CRA is not reducing the number of auditors, nor the number of tax evasion and tax avoidance experts. As a matter of fact, our audit team has been increased by 750 individuals.
The NDP may not like numbers, but the numbers do not lie.
TaxationHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the small business hiring credit is flawed. According to Jack Mintz, it will discourage growth. It gives businesses $180 for every new hire and over $2,200 for every layoff.
Why does the minister not recognize the flaw in his plan and switch to the Liberal plan, a plan that works?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are out of touch with small business. We are lowering EI payroll taxes by 15%, saving small businesses over $550 million. CFIB called the move a big deal for small business and good news for people looking for jobs.
The last thing the Liberals are qualified to talk about is EI. They used EI premiums as a political slush fund and raided the account of nearly $60 billion when they were in government.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, economists like Jack Mintz and Mike Moffatt are slamming the Conservatives new EI credit. Moffatt said it has “...structural flaws that...give firms an incentive to fire workers and cut salaries”.
Instead of going ahead with this flawed scheme, the government should adopt the Liberal plan to provide employers with an EI holiday on new jobs. It would fix the problem and help create new jobs.
Will the minister listen to reason and introduce an EI holiday on new jobs?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, during their time in office, the Liberals used EI premiums paid by hard-working employees and businesses as a political slush fund. They raided and completely wiped out the EI account of nearly $60 billion. The Liberals also support a 45-day work year that would drastically increase EI premiums by 35%, at a cost of $4 billion. We will not take lessons from the Liberals. 
What we will do, however, is listen to stakeholders like the CFIB, which said, “This...is fantastic news for Canada’s entrepreneurs and their employees, and as such, can only be a positive for the Canadian economy”. 
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy has stalled. Only 15,000 net new full-time jobs were created last year. Our growth has fallen behind Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. The Conservatives are hurting the economy further by cutting infrastructure and keeping EI taxes high to pad their books. Even with the small business tax credit, the Conservatives will continue to collect over $3 billion in excess EI premiums next year.
Will the Conservatives reverse their anti-growth agenda of high EI taxes and infrastructure—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our government understands that small businesses create jobs and support families and our communities. That is why we froze EI rates for three years, saving job creators and workers $660 million in 2014 alone. We have taken further action with the new small business job credit which will lower EI payroll taxes by 15% and save small businesses over $555 million over the next two years.
Beginning in 2017, premiums will be set according to a seven-year break-even rate, ensuring that premiums are no higher than they need to be.
HealthMr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week, the minister acknowledged that Health Canada was unable to prevent the importation of drugs that could pose a threat to Canadians. The minister has provided no reassurance as to Health Canada's ability to fulfill its responsibilities. They have to take people's health seriously.
Once and for all, can the minister reassure Canadians and explain to us how she will ensure that drugs on the market in Canada are safe?
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government expects that Health Canada will take the health and safety of Canadians very seriously. That is why we introduced Vanessa's law, which is currently making its way through the Senate. It would provide the department with mandatory recall powers. No longer will the department have to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry. It would also give the department wonderful powers to fine companies that put Canadians at risk.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not explained her inaction.
Just think about it. For the past eight years, Canadians and the NDP have been calling for better drug safety measures, including in Bill C-17, yet today Health Canada is still unable to stop the sale of a dangerous drug in Canada.
What steps will the minister take to fix this situation? The health of Canadians is on the line. When is she going to take responsibility?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the opposition would want to raise this issue considering it has stymied every opportunity to pass Vanessa's law before the summer recess. It was our government that went into late night sittings so that we could pass Vanessa's law. It is currently going through the Senate right now. It will provide the department with mandatory recall powers.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, let us be serious. The government held up that bill for eight months. It was the government's agenda. The fact is that a U.S. investigation found that an Apotex facility in India was manufacturing unsafe drugs. The Americans banned it. Health Canada tried to follow suit, but Apotex just said no. This further demonstrates the Conservatives' failed record not only on drug safety but also on home care, wait times, drug coverage and aboriginal health.
How does this minister account for this dismal record on health care?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, regarding Apotex, Health Canada did ask the company to stop importing the suspect products, and Apotex refused. These products have since been subject to additional safety testing. Health Canada has performed additional inspections to ensure all safety issues are addressed.
TaxationGuy Caron: Mr. Speaker, the income splitting policy is not very effective and will benefit only the rich. Three independent research institutions and even the former finance minister, Jim Flaherty, clearly showed that this measure is unfair. What is worse, the Conservative government intends to download part of the cost onto the provinces. The total cost is $1.7 billion as of the first year. For Quebec, that represents about $200 million. As usual, in the end, it will be Canadian families who have to pay for this tax gift to the wealthy.
Why is the Conservative government dragging the provinces into this irrational and ideological plan that will benefit only 15% of the population?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, income splitting was a good policy for Canadian seniors and it will also be a good policy for Canadian families. 
Once the budget is balanced, our government is committed to greater tax relief for Canadian families. As a result of our low-tax plan, the average Canadian family pays nearly $3,400 less in taxes in 2014. Shamefully, the NDP voted against each and every one of our tax reduction measures.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, it is rather dishonest to pay for election promises by sticking the provinces with the bill. 
The spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Finance stated that “If the federal government wants to reduce taxes in its own budget, it should ensure that there is not a fiscal cost as a byproduct to provinces”. Ontario stands to lose over a billion dollars as a result of this measure.
This is not the first time that the provinces have had to deal with the negative impact of Conservative decisions. Take for example the health transfers and the employment insurance reform.
Does the Conservative government intend to provide financial compensation to the provinces if it moves forward with its promise to institute income splitting?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, under this government, over one million low-income Canadians, including 380,000 seniors, have been removed from the tax rolls entirely. We have reduced the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. 
Unlike the high tax-and-spend NDP, our Conservative government believes in lowering taxes and leaving more money in the pockets of Canadians, where it belongs.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' income-splitting plan will give nothing to 86% of Canadians while handing out tax breaks to the richest in our country. It is such a bad idea that even former finance minister Flaherty panned it. To make matters worse, the Conservatives plan to drag the provinces along for the ride and put a $1.7 billion hole in provincial budgets.
Does the minister truly intend to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars and provincial revenues on this hare-brained scheme?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, income splitting was a good policy for Canadian seniors; it will be a good policy for Canadian families as well.
Once the budget is balanced, our government is committed to greater tax relief for Canadian families. As a result of our low-tax plan, the average Canadian family already saves over $3,400 a year in taxes in 2014.
Shamefully, the NDP has voted against each and every one of our tax reduction measures.
The EnvironmentMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while 125 heads of state are going to meet in New York next week for the UN summit on climate change, the Prime Minister will be missing in action. However, Barack Obama and David Cameron will be there. They understand that climate change is going to affect our environment, our health and our economy.
Why is the Conservative government turning its back on the international community and the interests of Canadians?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our priority is to protect the environment while keeping the economy strong. We are taking a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have taken action on the two largest sources of emissions in this country: the transportation sector and the electricity generation sector.
I am very much looking forward to taking part in the UN Climate Summit in New York on Saturday next week to speak to Canada's record on taking action on climate change.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Conservative government is in no position to lecture anyone.
In fact, the International Institute for Sustainable Development published a report on climate change, which shows that although the Conservatives are boasting that they are cracking down harder on the coal industry than the United States, the American plan is working better than the Conservative plan.
Why is the Conservative government refusing to make major greenhouse gas emitters do their part?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, Canada represents less than 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world, with 77% of our electricity supply emitting no greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 33% in the United States.
Our government is very pleased that the United States is following in Canada's footsteps in terms of regulating emissions from power plants. We will continue to build on our record and work with the United States to help reduce greenhouse emissions internationally.
Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we found out the government is no longer working on the oil and gas regulations it has been promising for seven years. 
Also this week, the International Institute for Sustainable Development said that the Conservatives' coal regulations will have a negligible effect. So much for the Conservatives' vaunted sector-by-sector approach to greenhouse gas reductions.
Now the Prime Minister is skipping the UN climate change summit in New York next week. 
Is this incompetence or do the Conservatives not yet believe in climate change?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government is the world leader when it comes to addressing climate change. We continue to work with the provinces and territories on reducing emissions in the oil and gas sector. It is premature to comment further on future regulations.
Thanks to our actions, we have seen a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike the NDP, which thinks it can tax its way out of every problem, we are getting results without imposing a carbon tax. 
InfrastructureMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not seem to be acknowledging the clear consensus throughout the country, namely that investing in infrastructure plays a significant role in economic growth. 
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, David Dodge, the Canada West Foundation, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Canadian Labour Congress, the C.D. Howe Institute and all of the provinces and territories are calling for action from this government. In response, the Conservatives have cut funding to infrastructure by 90%.
Will the Conservatives reverse these irresponsible cuts?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are out of touch on infrastructure as well.
The new building Canada plan is open for business. This is the most significant investment in infrastructure in our nation's history. We are working very closely with our municipal and provincial partners. Applications are being received and projects are being approved. We are getting the job done.
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the City of Hamilton and its steel plants are facing a critical situation as a direct result of the failed economic policies of the Conservative government. Tax cuts do not solve every problem. What Hamilton steel plants need is new business, and they need it now.
Canada has a $400 billion infrastructure deficit, yet the government is cutting infrastructure spending by close to 90% this year. Investments in housing and transit drive demand for steel. 
When will the government make the investments that cities need to build a stronger economy, stronger cities, and more importantly, a stronger Hamilton?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his by-election victory. I welcome him to the House. I regret to inform him, however, that the preamble of his question is incorrect.
We are making record investments in infrastructure. The new building Canada plan is a $53 billion plan over the next decade with stable, predictable funding. It includes the gas tax fund, which our government has doubled, made permanent and is universally praised by municipalities. 
We look forward to working with our partners to renew infrastructure.
EmploymentHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is said to be investigating Alliance Energy Ltd. in Saskatchewan for possible violations of the temporary foreign workers program. During a slowdown, the company apparently laid off 58 Canadian employees while retaining all of its TFWs on the job. The company says the layoffs were based on merit.
Specifically, is this permissible under the rules? Did those rules change this spring? Is a federal investigation actually under way? Is the provincial government involved, and when will the results be made public?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign workers program changes that we put in place were to ensure that Canadians always had the first crack at every available job. It is absolutely illegal and against the rules for any Canadian to be laid off and replaced by a temporary foreign worker and if that is the case, this company will be held fully responsible.
National DefenceMr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada's navy will soon decommission four aging ships, including Canada's two remaining supply ships, but thanks to Conservatives' mismanagement, replacement of the resupply ships is at least a decade behind. We are facing gaps of years in our navy's resupply capacity before replacements will actually be seaworthy.
Conservatives are long on rhetoric, but the legacy for the navy is going to be what? Will it be fewer ships that can actually sail the world's oceans?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Navy is currently undertaking the most comprehensive fleet modernization and renewal in its peacetime history. This includes the modernization of our 12 Halifax-class frigates, seven of which have already been completed with their refits. 
As always, we will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the equipment they need to get the job done.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today's announcement that four ships are going to be decommissioned means that the navy will have only one 50-year-old resupply ship. The minister knows full well that if the government had not cancelled the resupply ship contract in 2008, our resupply capabilities would not be as limited as they are now. What is worse, thanks to the Conservatives' mismanagement, the last of the resupply ships will be decommissioned two years before the new ships become available.
Is the minister going to rely on a foreign country to supply our troops?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, every element of the fleet is undergoing upgrades to make sure that the Royal Canadian Navy has the capability it is going to need for the 21st century. As I have already indicated, the 12 Halifax-class patrol frigates, which are the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy, have been undergoing refit.
I want to remind the hon. member that every time we want to spend money on defence, New Democrats always oppose it. There is an inconsistency there for sure.
Foreign AffairsPeggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, without any explanation, the Conservatives quietly removed two Russian banks from the list of Canadian sanctions, and they did this the day after the visit from the President of Ukraine. Furthermore, the Conservatives still refuse to impose sanctions on Putin's close allies who have financial interests in Canada.
These strangely selective sanctions are counterproductive.Why are the Conservatives being so hypocritical when it comes to Ukraine? 
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, following receipt of the new information and further investigation and analysis, these entities are being removed from the list. They are deemed to be sufficiently divorced from the events and Russian aggression against Ukraine. Because of the concentrated efforts by Canada and our allies, the Russian economy is now in recession and key individuals and entities are feeling the effects of these global sanctions.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, sanctions are sanctions. The minister confirms he has removed these three Russian banks from the list, but he has not given us a coherent reason why.
On top of quietly removing two Russian banks with no explanation, three Russian tycoons who have close ties to President Putin are still mysteriously off the Canadian sanctions list, even though they are on the American sanctions list. 
Supporting Ukraine is serious. It is about more than just photo ops and a lot of hot air. It is about working with our allies to make sure we send Russia a clear message. Why is the minister muddying the waters?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the strongest sanction regimes in the world, which has been coordinated with our allies to target key individuals and entities and isolate Russia, politically and economically. 
As the president of Ukraine said, we are Ukraine's best friend. We have been helping them fight the Russian aggression. We will continue doing so and we will maintain that we are the leading country in the world to put sanctions against Russia. We will continue to act accordingly with our allies. 
TaxationMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government's low-tax plan is saving the average Canadian family nearly $3,400, but the Liberals voted against our tax cuts and against middle-class families. Now the leader of the Liberal Party has threatened to reverse income splitting. Seniors in Sault Ste. Marie will be outraged if they are forced to pay back their pension income-splitting savings. 
Could the Minister for Democratic Reform please tell the House how the government will stand against the Liberal leader to protect seniors' hard-earned dollars?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from that side of the House. 
Before our government took office an elderly couple with a single pension paid much higher taxes than a dual income couple that earned exactly the same amount. That is why we introduced pension income splitting, which saved thousands of dollars and brought tax fairness for our seniors. Now the Liberal leader announced that he plans to raise taxes on these middle-class seniors by cancelling pension income splitting.
Our seniors have worked hard all their lives. They deserve to keep their pensions for themselves to invest in their communities and create jobs. This Prime Minister will let them do that. 
Status of WomenMrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, families of missing indigenous women have taken it upon themselves to organize a dredge of the Red River, looking for the remains of their loved ones. They are tired of waiting for answers and are not getting any support they really need. 
Why are the Conservatives continuing to ignore the overwhelming consensus calling for a national inquiry for missing and murdered indigenous women? We need to end this crisis. We need an inquiry. 
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of our action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women and girls, which will counter violence. We will continue to work with communities to develop safety plans to raise awareness and take measures to empower aboriginal women and girls. 
We are developing more community safety plans on and off reserve, including regions identified specifically by the RCMP. This action plan will raise awareness to break intergenerational cycles of violence. It will engage men and boys and it will address underlying causes of violence through structured initiatives. 
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, we need to do more than just raise awareness.
The Conservatives' action plan for missing aboriginal women offers nothing more than the status quo. Right now, families are searching rivers themselves to try to get answers to their questions. That is unacceptable. We cannot allow even one more woman or girl to go missing without taking action. 
Will the minister immediately launch a national public inquiry on the 1,200 aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered over the past 30 years?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, ending violence against aboriginal women is a priority of the government. We have taken concrete action and have invested $11 million since 2007 through Status of Women Canada toward local projects that work to eliminate violence against aboriginal women. We have made historic investments to improve the quality and ensure accountability of education on reserves for aboriginal students. We passed the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, extending basic rights and protections to aboriginal women living on reserves. 
Maybe the parties opposite should have supported the bill if they wanted to stand up for aboriginal women. 
Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want us to give up and forget that 1,200 aboriginal women have gone missing or been murdered. Today we will set aside the government's agenda and debate the adoption of the special committee's report in order to discuss this tragedy in our society. The report should have recommended a national inquiry. We definitely have no intention of allowing these women to be forgotten.
When will we get a national inquiry?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, we do not need a national inquiry. What we need is action. I would like to read a quote from Chief Ron Evans of the Norway House Cree Nation. He says:
 We have spent years researching the statistics and systemic causes of violence; we have worked with and have involved families of victims, front-line workers, local and national organizations and law enforcement. Their input is the foundation of this Action Plan. This is a significant step forward in addressing family and domestic violence, intergenerational violence, providing supports and resources to front-line workers.... 
The government is listening to aboriginal communities and is taking action. 
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, our actions in this country must be consistent with justice and reconciliation.
Today, we will set aside the government's agenda and move concurrence in the committee's report.
Canadians understand the importance of calling an inquiry. Canadians know violence against indigenous women must be ended. An inquiry is a crucial step along that path. Why will the government not finally agree to call an inquiry?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share another quote with the House, this time from Bernadette Smith. Her sister, Claudette Osborne, has been missing since July 2008. She said:
 This Action Plan is something that our families have been waiting for. I would like to thank...the Government for their commitment to addressing this issue.... We've had numerous studies on this issue and the time for action is now. We can't stand idly by and talk about this without taking significant action. This Action Plan will have a direct impact on families and it will help keep our women and girls safe. 
I am proud of the action our government is taking.
Government SpendingHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this inept government squandered more than $280,000 because it could not pay its cell phone bills on time. Taxpayers are not happy to see their money wasted on late charges. 
Millions of Canadians pay their bills on time every month. Why can the government not do that?
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the late fees incurred by Shared Services Canada last year were completely unacceptable to Canadian taxpayers and to our government. That is why Shared Services Canada took action to consolidate billing down from 75,000 individual phone bills and ensured that nearly 99% of all phone bills are now paid on time.
We have reduced telephone costs by $57 million in this year alone.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's initial response to the global economic crisis was to tell Canadians that it provided some great buying opportunities.
Then the Conservatives sold off the royal silverware from Rideau Hall for $4,000 and had to buy it back for $100,000. Now we learn that they sold a bulldozer for $5,500 and then were forced to buy it back for $65,000.
Their record clearly shows that they should not be in the business of providing market advice. Will the Conservatives apologize to Canadians for their incompetence?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, the decision by public servants to sell these items was clearly made in error.
In 2012, a review was initiated to ensure that there are greater checks in place to help prevent this from happening in the future. 
Following a review of the program, a management action plan was implemented and the minister has been advised that no further incidents such as this have since occurred.
Regional Economic DevelopmentClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, the Ring of Fire in Ontario's north holds vast potential for economic growth and regional development, but this week we learned that the company is preparing to walk.
Northerners are fed up. Instead of a real plan from the Liberals of Ontario, there is real trouble. Start-up is delayed; the smelter is on hold. Thousands of potential jobs are in jeopardy, but we see no leadership from the Conservatives.
What will the Conservatives do now to get the Ring of Fire file moving?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians, creating jobs and economic growth throughout the country, including Ontario's north.
Since its creation, FedDev and FedNor Ontario have helped build a prosperous Ontario region by investing in community and economic development programs. This has helped increase business activity grow new economic opportunities and create new jobs.
Canada has the best job creation record among all G7 countries, and we will continue down that path. We hope the opposition parties will support us in that.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I think this time the parliamentary secretary should listen to the question.
Northern Ontarians are tired of empty talk that is not backed up by any action. Unlocking the vast potential of the Ring of Fire will require a nation-to-nation approach and real engagement from the federal government. Northern communities should not be forced to pay the price for the government's inaction.
We are talking about good, value-added jobs and economic development that would transform our region. How can the Conservatives explain their inaction to northern Ontarians?
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we welcome Ontario's interest in the Ring of Fire. Until recently, it had not been identified as a clear priority by the Ontario government.
We have been clear. If the province identifies the Ring of Fire as a priority, economic action plan 2013 allocates significant infrastructure funding for this kind of legacy resource development. We have made significant investments in the Ring of Fire, and we will continue to demonstrate our commitment to responsible resource development that creates jobs and economic growth for northern Ontario.
Public SafetyMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently authorities in Australia arrested more than a dozen Islamic terrorists who had hatched a plot to conduct random beheadings. It is clear that the Islamic State represents a threat to Canada. It is indeed a dark and dangerous world we live in, yet the Liberal leader said seizing passports from terrorists in an affront to Canadian values.
Can the Minister of Justice tell the House what our government is doing to keep Canadians safe?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain makes a very good point. It is clear that the Liberal leader believes that terrorists with dual citizenship should keep their Canadian passports.
This government works to protect Canadians, both at home and abroad, and believes that we should be tough on terrorists. It seems the Liberal leader is worried about a two-tiered system. We will revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who are convicted of these very grave acts of terrorism against our country. If the Liberal leader does not understand the difference between law-abiding Canadians and terrorists, as the old saying goes, he is clearly not up to the job.
JusticeMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have shut Parliament out of the review process for Supreme Court nominees. The minister is doing this because of the lack of confidentiality in the previous review process.
However, he failed to mention that it was his government that was responsible for leaking information to the media.
Despite the risk of self-incrimination, will the minister impose sanctions for future Conservative leaks?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as always, the member is mistaken.
In fact, this government has been more open, more inclusive, more transparent than any when it comes to the process and inclusion of all of the individuals within the justice system for the selection of judges. Of course we consulted with justice ministers at the provincial level, Supreme Court judges and bar societies. We have even consulted lawyers like the member himself when it comes to these important decisions.
 The member can be sure and Canadians certainly have assurances that this government will proceed, as we always have, with making good appointments based on legal merit, which is, of course, the executive decision of government.
Public SafetyMr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last month RCMP officers from the national security division showed up at the door of 71-year-old Lesslie Askin to question her. Why? The concerned citizen had taken photos of some aging fuel tanks near a Kinder Morgan facility in Burnaby. We know the Conservatives are going after charities that disagree with them—but now grandmothers?
The people who oppose Kinder Morgan are not foreign radicals. Rather, they are law-abiding citizens. What does the government have to say to this grandmother? Will it apologize to her and make sure she has no permanent record on her file of these activities?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question. 
The RCMP, like any policing agency in our country, investigates tips and complaints, which are filed. Obviously, that is its mandate. It investigates things that it receives.
I also understand that this matter has been resolved.
Foreign AffairsMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week President Poroshenko restated the importance of strengthening global energy security. Our government is taking action. Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources and the United States Secretary of Energy continued their work to demonstrate global leadership on this important file.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources update the House on what our government is doing for Ukraine?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River for that question.
We are working closely with the United States in support of G7 efforts to share our collective expertise and technologies with Ukraine to assist it in transitioning to other energy sources. The minister also spoke about the importance of energy infrastructure in North America, and expressed the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline and that we will have those benefits for both of our countries.
Unlike the NDP, who go to Washington to attack Canadian jobs, our government will work with the United States on these important issues.
International TradeMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nearly a year after the announcement of a free trade agreement with the European Union, the federal government's promise to compensate the cheese producers of Quebec is still nothing but hot air, and the producers in my region are worried about potential losses—and rightly so.
When will the government keep its promise and deliver a compensation plan that meets the needs of cheese producers in Quebec?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system and with this agreement, we are continuing to do so. The three pillars of our national supply management system remain intact. We will monitor the potential impact of this historic agreement on dairy producers' income and, if the level of protection is adversely affected, we will help the producers financially. 
We are holding consultations with leaders in the dairy sector.
Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP): Mr. Speaker, if our Prime Minister introduced a bill that would stick Canadian taxpayers with billions of dollars in payouts to China for three decades, give Chinese companies huge advantages over Canadian ones, and let secret tribunals weaken Canadian sovereignty, he knows that even his own MPs would vote against it. So why did the Prime Minister ratify this incredibly secretive, one-sided, and foolish treaty with communist China?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question, but as the member knows well, China is the second-largest economy in the world. Canadian exporters are selling to and dealing with that country on a daily basis, and the jobs created from that account for one in five jobs in Canada.
 Canadian exporters have been asking for protection. The P in FIPA stands for “protection”. This will give these companies certainty in their contractual dealings in China. It is levelling the playing field, because Chinese companies already have such protections and certainty in Canadian courts. This is about securing that certainty for our exporting sector.
Government SpendingMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the government established Shared Services Canada in 2011 to provide centralized technology infrastructure services. Its mandate includes providing better value for money. However, in 2013 alone, Shared Services Canada paid more than $275,000 in late-payment fees for cellular telephone services.
 The government has promised, and I look forward to, a balanced budget in 2015. So the simple question is this: How much has the government budgeted to cover its own inability to pay its bills on time?
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, Shared Services Canada has a mandate to manage telephony costs, and that is why it consolidated accounts from 75,000 separate accounts, and it is ensuring now that over 99% of all accounts are paid on time. We have reduced telephone costs alone by $57 million a year.
Presence in the GalleryThe Speaker: On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Royal 22nd Regiment, I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of a number of soldiers from that regiment. Some are active members, others are retired.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!

Routine Proceedings
Interparliamentary DelegationsMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its bilateral mission to the Republic of Madagascar and the Republic of Mozambique from March 15 to 21, 2014.
Navigable Waters Protection ActMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-624, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Nepisiguit River).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to protect the Nepisiguit River. I have an obligation to do everything I can to protect this waterway for my constituents. It is one of the most beautiful rivers in the northeast and runs alongside Pabineau First Nation land. We need to protect this treasure for future generations who, I hope, will be able to enjoy a clean and healthy river.
Unfortunately, the changes that the Conservatives have made to fish habitat protection, to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are going to compromise the quality of life of our children and grandchildren. That is why my New Democrat colleagues and I are taking measures to build a fairer and greener Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, since I am already standing, I move that the House proceed to first reading of Senate public bills. 
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #226
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Committees of the HouseRomeo Saganash:  moved:
 That the First Report of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, presented on Friday, March 7, 2014, be concurred in. 
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East. 
In the first 100 days of the NDP government, we will launch a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. We have to address the systemic causes of violence against the indigenous women and girls of this country. The structures and attitudes that allow this violence to continue must be examined, exposed and changed. The only way to do this at the national level is to establish a national public commission of inquiry. 
Indigenous women experience more violence because they are indigenous and because they are women. Amnesty International found that indigenous women are most likely to die before non-indigenous women in this country, and are more likely to die violently.
In many indigenous cultures and societies, we are taught to honour women as life-givers, as knowledge-keepers, as storytellers, as medicine women, as word-carriers, as community members, and as human beings, and colonialism has impacted negatively on those values.
The violence that is perpetrated against indigenous women is the same violence against the environment today and the same violence that assaulted parents and grandparents in residential schools. 
Let me quote from the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Ipeelee. The court said:
 To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide.... 
Yet the Prime Minister, incredibly, said not too long ago that we have no history of colonialism in this country. 
Let me tell a story about a little boy named Jonish, who was sent to a residential school in 1954. He was five years old. He never came back. Apparently, he died the first year he arrived at the residential school.
His mom never knew, until after two years, of his death. His mom, my mom, for 40 years never knew where Jonish was buried. It was only by coincidence that one of my sisters happened to be in the area one day, and someone told her, “I know where your little brother is buried”.
After 40 years, my sister filmed the site where he was buried and brought the film back to my mom to show her. Just imagine. It was 40 years until she found out where my little brother lay.
I do not know if any of the members have seen their mother cry. I saw my mother cry many times, but the day she saw that video—I had never seen her cry that way. That was closure. That is what we call closure. That is the closest she could get to final closure for her son.
This is what indigenous families in this country need. That is what they want. That is why they are calling for this national inquiry.
Where is the Canada we used to know, the one that has a history of upholding high standards of human rights and social democratic values in this country? Where is it? Even when faced with fundamental legislative changes and challenges to the social structure, we used to have that Canada. It is no longer here. 
Therefore, I submit very respectfully that an inquiry would fall into the legacy that this country has. That is why the NDP is calling for that inquiry and it is why the NDP, together with other families and Canadians across this country, want that inquiry.
I stand here today on behalf of the families of the missing and murdered indigenous women so that we can heed their calls for a national inquiry. It is their time. Let us give them their time so that they can get close to the closure that they also need. 
That is why our party will call that inquiry no longer than 100 days after our election as a government. We will provide the justice that we all need. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, it is time that we have such a discussion here, and today is the perfect day to have it.
With respect to what has been happening here, I attended a vigil in August for Sonya Cywink, who was murdered 20 years ago. Whitefish River First Nation hosted the vigil. 
Others came to share their stories. It was not just about Sonya. It was about all of the women who have either been murdered or have disappeared. 
One of the women who was there said she could not believe that something like this would happen. She was determined to see her sister's body. It is important for her to have that type of closure in her life, but there are very many other indigenous women who have not been able to see the body of their loved one because it is missing. It is a tragedy that people are now dredging the river on their own to try to find the remains of their loved ones or something that belonged to them. 
Maybe my colleague could speak to the importance of having closure. It means that there needs to be a national inquiry when we consider the vast number of people missing and murdered.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I believe I mentioned in my speech the importance of giving these families closure, and that is why it is important to go ahead with this national inquiry.
One of the reasons why this inquiry is necessary is that many if not most of these families did not have the opportunity to say goodbye to their children, to their daughters.
I am certain that a national public inquiry would bring at least some closure to these families for the loss they have experienced in their lives.
My mother's story is a perfect example of how we can bring closure to these horrible experiences that many of us have gone through. For 140 years, children were sent to residential schools. We really have to get to the bottom of things, and that can only be achieved with a public inquiry.
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, certainly our thoughts and prayers go out to the families. No one can even imagine what they have be going through for the last 20 to 30 years.
I am very proud of our action plan. I would like to ask the member opposite this: Does he not think that raising awareness to break intergenerational cycles of violence is important? Does he not think engaging men and boys is important? Does he not think that addressing underlying causes of violence through structured training initiatives is important?
We are doing many things in this action plan, and it will help aboriginal women and girls on reserve, and I am very proud of it.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member opposite was not really listening or did not understand what I said. Beyond everything she just mentioned, the issue before us concerns a national public inquiry to determine why this is still happening today.
Despite all the reports that the hon. members opposite are citing and despite all the plans the government might come up with, I think we must get to the bottom of this. That has not been done. No plan will work if we do not understand the real reasons behind what is still happening today. What is more, I am pretty sure this plan was not drawn up in partnership with those whom it is meant to benefit.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by thanking my hon. colleague for his very powerful speech. To me, and I think to all of us, it is a reminder of why we are here. We bring our personal experience and the issues that we care about. It is not just a debating club or about procedure; it is about these incredibly important issues in our society that have been buried and washed over. That is why today New Democrats are united, as the official opposition, to make sure that this debate in the House is heard and that the commitment we have made will happen. Within 100 days of becoming government, we will hold a public inquiry.
It took more than 20 years for the Oppal inquiry in British Columbia to happen. When I was a city councillor in Vancouver, in 1987, and women began to go missing in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, we were told not to worry, that there would be a case-by-case criminal investigation. It was very similar to what we heard from the Minister of Status of Women yesterday. 
Those disappearances were never followed up on, and it was the families and friends of the missing women, many of whom were aboriginal and sex workers, who finally got together and said there was something horrific going on. It was not about individual cases, but about our justice system, predators, and the failure of our justice system to see the missing women as citizens and vulnerable people. 
For years, these disappearances were not dealt with, and it took more than 20 years until finally there was a public inquiry in Vancouver. It was not a perfect public inquiry, but it was important because it shed light and opened the door to examining some of the systemic issues that my colleague talked about.
We need to take the experience in British Columbia and understand that it is happening right across the country. It is not isolated to the Highway of Tears, in northern B.C., or to Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. It is happening in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and in Atlantic Canada.
I listened to the Minister of Status of Women yesterday talk about her action plan, and I looked at that action plan, $2.5 million over five years, to create projects and raise awareness. Awareness is important, and we have to show the leadership here to create that awareness. However, we need to have a public inquiry to ensure we are not just looking at individual cases but at what happened and why society as a whole failed these women What is it that went wrong, and why? Only a public inquiry can do that.
I remember meeting with the Liberal minister of justice, in 1999, a couple of years after I had been elected, and explaining what had happened in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. I was shocked. Although he was sympathetic, he was not aware of what was going on. I realized then that there was a tremendous amount of work that had to be done. The story was focused in Vancouver. At that point, the story of what was happening had not yet fully come to light. 
Mr. Speaker, that is how long it takes. An inquiry is important because the stories of the families need to be heard. We are talking about individual women who are missing and have been murdered. We are talking about the impact on families and communities. 
What I find troubling about the government's response was said so well by Audrey Huntley, the co-founder of No More Silence. She said, in reaction to the government's announcement, “It feels to me like it’s really laying the blame on the aboriginal community and completely ignoring stranger violence”. She went on to say:
 We need to engage Canadian society in why aboriginal women aren’t valued. That’s really what it comes down to. They’re not valued when it comes to the police investigating their cases, they’re not valued by that child welfare system and they’re not valued by their foster families, so really it’s a very deep systemic problem. 
That is what Audrey Huntley had to say.
She is not the only one to understand the depth and the horror of what is taking place and that only a public inquiry can examine some of the systemic issues, whether it is the way that policing investigations are done, contributing factors of violence and poverty and racism, and the legacy of colonialism and residential schools, as has been so well articulated by my colleague today.
We were glad that a motion was passed a couple of years ago in the House to set up a special committee, but even that committee became a disappointment. Yet again, the government refused to act on the need for a national inquiry. I want to thank my colleagues, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who was on that committee, and the member for Churchill, who has had this file and has done so much work on calling for a national inquiry. These are contributions that we make as individual members to keep this issue alive.
We are here today to say that we will not let this issue be swept under the carpet. We will ensure that those voices are heard. I do not believe it will take 20 years, like it did for the Oppal commission. I believe we will have a historic opportunity in about a year to change the government and to put in place a government that is progressive, an NDP government that actually listens to what people are saying and will make commitments to follow through on the suffering and historic injustices of aboriginal people in this country. 
A public inquiry is a very key component of that, but it is not the only component. There are many things that need to be done: addressing poverty; ensuring clean water, education, and housing. These are all issues that our leader, the member for Outremont, has raised and articulated in this House. He has met with the aboriginal leadership and communities. This is a very deep commitment that we bring, not only to this debate, but to the work that we do from now and into the election.
I am glad we are having this debate today. It is a Friday afternoon, and I know members would probably like to be home today. We would all like to be home. However, this is our place. We are here for a reason. We are here in solidarity with the organizations that have called for the national inquiry. We are here in solidarity. We are here to ensure that those voices are heard. I am glad we are having this debate, and we will make that commitment to follow through. 
I know the Conservatives do not like it. They want to have us contained to the little action plan that trots out just a few million dollars over five years. It is a pathetic response to a huge issue in this country. Let it be said that the Conservatives should listen to what those families are saying. They should understand that a public inquiry, which we have the power to bring about in a timely way—not that it is the be-all and the end-all; it is really just the beginning—is a powerful instrument to shed light on this issue and to bring justice for the missing and murdered women.
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points that I would like to raise. I am an aboriginal woman. I stand in this House and listen, day in and day out, to the debates and comments from the NDP and the Liberals about aboriginal women's issues. However, when it comes to taking real action, I see the opposite happen, day in and day out.
I am an aboriginal woman who went to residential school. My mother went to residential school. My uncles went to residential school. My brother went to residential school. However, I also came into this House to make changes to support aboriginal women.
I had a good friend who was killed in a domestic violence situation. Her husband was released from prison under the house arrest law of Canada. I still firmly believe today that she would still be alive if that law had not existed. We as a party worked really hard in this House to remove that section in order to protect women.
The second point is that as an aboriginal woman standing in this House and fighting for the right for aboriginal women to have rights equal to those of non-aboriginal women when it came to matrimonial rights, it was very disturbing to watch the NDP and the Liberal women fight so that aboriginal women would not have the same rights as they do when it comes to matrimonial rights and property. 
When it comes to domestic violence situations, women cannot escape with property or any belongings, so if those members really want to protect women, they will give them the same rights as non-aboriginal women in this country.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the minister for being here, for being in this debate and for sharing with us a little bit of her own experience. That is very important. We honour and appreciate that.
I listened to what she had to say, and when she says that she is committed to change, that is good. However, we have to ask the question, and she needs to ask the question of her government, what is the change that the government has actually brought about? What I see, and what was announced in this action plan, is really just a list of projects that will take place over a few years. It does not address the systemic change that needs to take place. That is the point that we have got to make. That is the point that the minister, unfortunately, does not want to respond to.
We will keep pressing it until that inquiry happens, so that we can really get under the root causes of the systemic violence that is taking place, and the missing and murdered women. We will not let up until that is done.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an issue that should not be partisan and that should not divide members of the House, this is perhaps one of those issues. It defines a circumstance in this country that really challenges us.
The issue that is in front of us requires more than just simply trotting out a list of things that have been done and that have clearly left us short of a solution. It is a list of programs that have not delivered us the safety or even the security of our friends and family members. Rather, it is a list of programs that need to be changed if we are going to solve this challenge.
The question is, what needs to be on that list that is not on it? We do not have an answer to that question. I would like to know what other steps should be there.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member on his election in Trinity—Spadina. He represents an urban riding very similar to my riding of Vancouver East. It is an important point, because the issue that we are debating today of the missing and murdered women is a huge issue in our cities. It is an issue in the urban environment as well as in remote communities. This covers all of the territory of Canada.
The member asks a very important question: what needs to be done? What are some of the things that we need to respond to?
I can tell him that our members on the special committee that was set up last year valiantly tried to include measures that need to be taken, not just these little projects that will take a couple of years or so. We tried to include big issues, such good housing, clean water, education, equality, and proper supports and resources for addiction issues. The list is long, but none of that is being done.
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate on the concurrence motion before the House today. I want to thank all the members of the special committee on all sides of the House who participated in this important study.
Our government takes this issue very seriously. I was pleased to be a part of the committee that heard from several expert witnesses, along with the families of the victims. 
It is so important to speak to the first nations who have been affected and ask them how we can help. How can we work to break the cycle of violence? I am proud to speak about the special committee's report today and highlight the good work the committee has accomplished.
We have done Canadians a great service by bringing attention to this serious issue and shedding light on this complex problem. Our government is deeply committed to ensuring justice for all Canadians and to cracking down on crime. 
The research is clear. Aboriginal women experience high rates of violence. The RCMP's recent report, for example, has confirmed that aboriginal women are overrepresented among murdered and missing women. Far too many aboriginal families have felt the effects of violent crime and have lived with the aftermath. This is unacceptable. 
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. 
Canada is a country where those who break the law are punished, where penalties match the severity of the crimes committed and where the rights of the victims are fully recognized. Abhorrent acts of violence are not tolerated in our society. These violent crimes must be strongly denounced by the communities in which they occur and by all Canadians.
Earlier this year, the Minister of Status of Women met with aboriginal leaders and community groups to talk about violence against aboriginal women and girls. She also met with some of the families of the women who had been murdered or gone missing. At those meetings, they discussed what the government should do to address this serious problem. The minister was told repeatedly that the time for talk was over. What we needed now was action. It was time to stop these terrible acts in our communities and to rally around victims and their families. 
The Government of Canada has put in place a range of measures totalling nearly $200 million to address violence against aboriginal women and girls. This includes supporting the DNA missing persons index, with $8.1 million over five years, as well as $1.3 million per year in ongoing funding; continuing to support police investigations through the National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains; and providing safe haven for victims by funding shelters and prevention activities on reserve, with $158.7 million over five years.
In addition to these ongoing initiatives, our government has taken steps to improve the status and protect the rights of aboriginal women. For example, we passed the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act to ensure that people living on first nation reserves would have similar access to similar matrimonial real property and protections to those living off reserve. Both sides of the House voted against that. 
We also introduced the Canadian victim bill of rights, which sets out for the first time in Canadian history clear rights for victims of crime. 
Finally, there is our Safe Streets and Communities Act which eliminates the use of conditional sentences, or house arrest for serious and violent crimes. 
This brings me to the action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women and girls. This action plan is our government's response to the report of the House of Commons Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women. It sets out how we will allocate our new investment of $25 million to reduce violence against aboriginal women and girls. The plan identifies how we will work with partners in three priority areas: preventing violence, supporting victims, and protecting aboriginal women and girls from violence. 
Over the next five years, we will provide funding to aboriginal organizations and communities to develop local solutions to address these priorities.
By bringing together a broad range of initiatives, the action plan builds on the valuable work that is already under way to address violence against aboriginal women and girls. The goal is to leverage these earlier successes so we can build upon previous investments, while expanding our efforts. For example, under this action plan, more communities, both on and off reserve, will develop community safety plans. That is $8.6 million over five years.
 These plans work because they are designed and implemented by community members who understand better than anyone the unique safety challenges of the community in which they live. This initiative has been very successful in empowering communities to take charge of their own safety.
 In addition to community safety planning, we will fund projects aimed at breaking intergenerational cycles of violence and encouraging healthy relationships. That is $2.5 million over five years. We will work with communities to empower women and girls to speak out. We will engage men and boys in preventing violence against women and girls.
The action plan also sets out a range of initiatives to support victims. That is $7.5 million over five years. This includes support for family-police liaison positions. Family-police liaison improves communication between police and victims families by ensuring that family members have access to timely information on cases.
Violence against aboriginal women and girls is a serious issue that requires a multifaceted response. No government or organization can tackle this problem alone. This work must be done in partnership across federal organizations with provinces and territories and through the leadership of the aboriginal communities and organizations.
The action plan is one important step toward safer communities for aboriginal women and girls. Specifically, we will continue to work with federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety to coordinate actions across the law enforcement and justice systems. We will ensure that aboriginal organizations and communities play a direct role in the community safety planning initiative and other efforts. We will provide communities and organizations with easier access to funding for a variety of projects to address violence against aboriginal women and girls, including those to raise awareness, promote healthy relationships and prevent violence on reserves.
By working together, we must ensure that aboriginal women and girls are no longer victimized, but are able to reach their full potential as mothers, as daughters, as sisters and as Canadians.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's comments and I know she participated in the special committee.
It is important to note that the premiers and pretty well every aboriginal organization in our country have now come to the conclusion that a public inquiry is needed. Therefore, it is ironic and questioning as to why the federal government would be so offside with what has become a very strong consensus.
 Could the member imagine a situation where 1,200 nurses had gone missing and were murdered over a period of years? What would be the response of our society? Would it be that we would look at this case by case and ensure that the law would be applied, or would it be that something was terribly wrong with what was happening to nurses who were disappearing and being murdered? 
Why are the Conservatives so opposed to the need and the evidence for a public inquiry when the consensus is so strong that it needs to be done?
[Interjection]
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is correct. I did sit on that committee for approximately a year, and I heard the same thing the member heard. When we listened to the families of the victims, only one family member asked for a national inquiry after she was finished her statement.
I am not sure why the member opposite thinks all the organizations and every aboriginal woman and girl is supporting a national inquiry, because that is not so. 
Here are some examples. Despite the opposition's assertions that we are not listening to indigenous communities, we have heard some resounding support for our action plan.
 The commissioner, James Wilson, of the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba had this to say:
 The announcement of [this] framework is a solid step towards building a new relationship that will address and overcome this issue. Through this relationship, we can help shape a brighter future for Indigenous women and girls across the country. 
The president of the National Association of Friendship Centres spoke up and offered this input:
 Experience has shown us that the most effective way to address this critical and troubling issue is in our own communities through targeted and sustained investments that address community needs and priorities. [This action plan] sets us on the right path to advance this important work. 
We are listening to them.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the list of programs, largely announcements that were made before my arrival in the House of Commons. If they were effective, we would not have a list with 1,200 names on it.
While the focus is clear that there is work to be done sometimes within the community that is affected, quite frankly, the dynamic is right across the country and exists on and off reserve, in rural Canada and urban Canada, in the east and the west.
Clearly, when there is a need for a new approach to tackle a problem which we have not solved, why is the announcement about response to a problem instead of the steps that are required to prevent this problem? Why are we falling back on a list of old programs that have failed rather than reaching out to find new programs that are clearly required to solve a dynamic that is absolutely, fundamentally unacceptable?
[Interjection]
Susan Truppe: First, Mr. Speaker, I point out that when the Liberal government was in power for over 10 years, it did nothing to help women and girls, let alone aboriginal women and girls. 
I do not know how the member can wonder what we are doing for women and girls in general, because no government has done more for women and girls and aboriginal women and girls than this government.
What we have accomplished in the last even five years is improved community safety, and that is working well. We have established a national centre for missing persons and unidentified remains. We have launched a new website for tips. We have developed a police database, a compendium of best practices to help communities. We have developed community safety plans, funded awareness materials, and allocated $25 million toward the missing and murdered aboriginal women. 
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly appropriate that we are discussing this issue today. In the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, it is Take Back the Night, where a large group will gather, people will give speeches, and then there will be a march. It is very appropriate to be discussing this very important issue here today. Of course, part of the goal of Take Back the Night is that eventually we will not have to be discussing violence against women and girls.
 It saddens me to hear about these violent acts against women, sisters, mothers, daughters, and wives almost every day in communities across Canada. I am a nurse. I worked in aboriginal communities. I worked in rural emergency rooms, and I saw first hand some of the horrendous situations that young women, girls, and older women face. 
I find it a little offensive when opposition members indicate that they do not think we care about this issue. We care passionately about this issue, but we disagree on the best way to move forward.
Our government believes that we know many of the causes. I was on the committee of murdered and missing aboriginal women. We heard about programs that were working. We heard about prevention programs. We looked at this for a year. We heard from families. Everyone was touched by the conversations we had with them. I think we need to look at this issue and not say that one group cares and the other does not care. We all care; we just disagree in terms of how we need to move forward.
Again, it is terribly distressing to know that aboriginal women and girls continue to face violence and that so many go missing or are found murdered. These are issues that require concrete, long-term action to address every aspect of these crimes. Nothing is more important than the safety of families and our communities. Of course, we have made this a top priority over many years.
We have also heard about matrimonial real property rights on reserve. I still cannot believe that the opposition did not support that moving forward. It so important. 
We heard from the minister, who talked passionately about how some of the things we have done she believes will make a real difference. She talked about matrimonial real property rights and house arrest. We heard the passion in her voice.
The committee's report had a number of specific recommendations, such as stronger laws so that violent, repeat offenders serve appropriate sentences. 
In Kamloops we had a violent repeat offender who took a woman from her place of business and brutalized her. It was an awful thing to hear the history of that perpetrator. It was known that he was on the street and that he was a high risk to reoffend. We are bringing in those tougher sentences, and we are doing that through both government and private members' bills.
The victims bills of rights was introduced on April 14 and is mentioned specifically in the committee report. Once passed, victims' rights would be enshrined in Canadian federal law. It would for the first time establish statutory rights to information, protection, and restitution. 
Over the period of the summer, I had the opportunity to be joined by the Minister of Justice in a round table conversation. We had the mother of a young girl who was brutally murdered talk to us about how she felt as a mother and how she was treated within the system. She had very practical, sensible recommendations for the victims bill of rights, and she encouraged us to move forward with it because of the experience she had had. It is an important measure.
Another important measure the report calls for is the creation of a national DNA missing persons index. In budget 2014, we committed $8.1 million to do just that. This index would allow for the national collection and matching of DNA profiles to support the investigations of missing persons and unidentified human remains. We intend to introduce legislation to allow for the creation of the index in the upcoming months. 
One of the things we heard from some of the families was a strong desire to have closure and resolution. This measure would help provide these families with that closure.
We are also looking at addressing human trafficking in a very strong national action plan to combat human trafficking. This was launched in June 2012. We have introduced aggressive measures and initiatives to prevent human trafficking, identity and protect victims and prosecute perpetrators. Again, theses are significant investments to specifically address violence against aboriginal women and girls.
In budget 2010, $25 million went toward programs and initiatives that addressed the disturbingly high number of missing and murdered aboriginal women.
 In terms of the inquiry, the NDP opposition talked to the process in British Columbia. I know Wally Oppal has very specifically come out and he said that we do not need a national inquiry, that there has been report after report and recommendations have been made. He has said that we need to move on.
I will close with the same comment I made at the very beginning. Everyone in the House cares passionately about this issue. The only difference is how do we best move forward. In this case, the government feels we are best to move forward with action, and that is what we intend to do.
The Speaker: It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Canada Pension Plan[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour has three minutes left to conclude her remarks.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I will be shifting a little, but in many ways these two are linked in how we as a government believe that people who commit violent offences such as murder are very much linked with the missing and murdered aboriginal women's piece too. However, we are talking about Bill C-591, introduced by my hon. colleague. From the comments by the opposition, it appears that all parties will support this. 
The bill would amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and deny CPP survivor benefits and the OAS allowance to people convicted of murdering their spouse, common-law partner or parent. As the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex and others have pointed out, no one wants to see spouse killers receive taxpayer-funded financial benefits for their heinous act. It truly would be an insult to the taxpayer. It is an insult to the families of the victims as well as an insult to the principles of justice. Certainly no person who pays taxes and personally contributes to an insurance plan wants to see murderers receive a benefit for killing someone.
Currently, when someone murders their spouse for whatever reason, he or she stand to gain those benefits. Thankfully we are speaking of a very rare situation. Death at the hands of family members is not that common and the convicted murderers are not always eligible for these benefits anyway.
 However, each year between 2003 and 2012, an average of 21 individuals in all age categories were accused of killing their parent or step-parent. Among them were approximately 5 to 6 persons accused who were between the ages of 18 and 25 and 3 of the accused were under the age of 18. That is absolutely appalling.
It is important to remember that many people accused of killing a spouse or parent are not found guilty of murder and among those convicted of murder, some do not qualify for these benefits in any case. Of these people, roughly half would be rendered ineligible for the CPP survivor pension and death benefit, one-third for the OAS allowance for the survivor and less than one-tenth for the surviving child benefit.
 I will emphasize that fewer than 30 people each year would be affected in the context of a public pension system in which the CPP alone gives coverage to 13 million contributors per year. Again, it is a very small number.
We are proceeding carefully with the bill because we want to be fair.
 It is important to note the legislation will only apply to people who have been convicted of murder rather than all those who are charged with murder. That is a basic principle of common law, that a person accused of crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the discussion of private member's Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits).
I have listened with great interest to the rhetorical flourishes of the Conservative members who have debated this bill so far. The member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley said his government “always puts victims first”.
Not to be outdone, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo said: 
 It is clear that our Conservative government continues to stand up for the rights of victims and that Canadians can count on us to deliver results. 
Quite the chest-thumping by a party that is trying desperately to persuade Canadians that it is only party that is tough on crime. 
The only problem is that this bill did not actually originate with them. This is decidedly not a Conservative bill. On the contrary, it is a watered-down version of a bill that was first introduced in this House as far back as June 2010, and which was then reintroduced in this current Parliament on June 9, 2011.
How can I be so certain of that chronology? It is because, in fact, it is my bill. I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and as New Democrats we are certainly used to governments stealing our ideas and implementing them. However, when the Liberals did it with respect to medicare and pensions, they at least did not have the audacity to claim these ideas as their own. That is why everyone knows it was J. S. Woodsworth who gave Canadians their old age pensions and Tommy Douglas who brought us medicare.
However, the Conservatives have made this place so hyperpartisan that they cannot even acknowledge in passing that this bill had its genesis across the aisle. It is mind-boggling, unless of course they were fearful that by referencing my bill, they would draw attention to the differences between our two legislative initiatives and that theirs would then be found to come up short, and indeed it would. Let me explain. 
At the heart of both my bill and the bill now being put forward by the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex is the principle that criminals should not be able to profit from their crimes.
I had assumed that this principle would be firmly enshrined in the eligibility criteria for government benefit programs. Members may imagine my surprise then when I received the following correspondence.
 I have a relative who killed his wife, served very little time for manslaughter, and is (and has been) collecting CPP survivor benefits for over 10 years. Since 1-2 women per week die at the hands of their partners, how many more men are collecting this? How is this legal? 
I researched the file to verify that this could really happen and learned that there is no legal prohibition that prevents people who have been convicted of spousal homicide from collecting either the death benefit or the survivor pension. Clearly that is a loophole that must be closed.
My bill set out to do precisely that. It would have amended the Canada pension plan to prohibit the payment of a survivor's pension, orphan's benefit, or death benefit to a survivor or orphan of a deceased contributor if the survivor or orphan has been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the deceased contributor.
Now I want to draw attention to that last line. My bill would have prohibited anyone from benefiting from both murder and manslaughter. That is something the Conservative bill we are debating here today does not do. Yes, if someone is convicted of first or second degree murder, that person will no longer be entitled to collect survivor pension benefits; however, if someone commits manslaughter, that person can merrily continue to collect.
Really? How is that fair? How is that putting victims first? I cannot imagine that this would pass the nod test for anyone who is watching this debate, either here in the House today or on their TVs.
It sure does not pass the nod test for Susan Fetterkind. Susan is a woman from British Columbia whose father killed her mother. He stabbed her multiple times and then went on to collect pension survivor benefits for 28 years, until his death.
I have been on numerous radio and TV shows with Susan, and she has just one message:
 The government is enabling killers to profit from murdering their spouse. You're not supposed to be able to profit from murdering somebody. 
Ostensibly, the Conservative MPs want people to believe that they agree, so we would think that Susan would be happy with the legislation that is before this House today. We would be wrong.
Here is what she had to say about the bill being brought forward by the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex:
 His bill mentions first and second degree murder but it does not mention manslaughter. My father did a plea bargain and he was convicted of manslaughter. 
Therein lies the rub. Whereas my bill covers first and second degree murder as well as manslaughter, Bill C-591 does not include manslaughter as a reason for revoking pension entitlements.
This creates a huge policy gap, especially when we consider that the largest proportion of family-related homicides are spousal murders and that a great number of those result in a plea bargain to reduce conviction of manslaughter.
Do we really want to legislate a system wherein a person who is convicted of murder cannot collect pension benefits, but if he manages to have the charge plea bargained down to manslaughter then it is fine for him to collect? This is a loophole that must be closed. This is an area that my NDP colleagues and I are determined to redress when the bill gets to committee.
I know that more than one person will have picked up on the fact that I said “he” can still collect after committing manslaughter. I know that will generate some heated feedback from those who think I am promoting sexist stereotypes. Let me be clear: all violence is unacceptable. However, here is the reality. About half, 49%, of all female murder victims in Canada were killed by a former or current intimate partner. In contrast, only 7% of male murder victims were killed by intimate partners. That is why this issue is of critical importance to women's groups from across our country, and why I was proud to get support for my bill from the Woman Abuse Working Group's action committee in my hometown of Hamilton.
All of us in the women's movement, and in the NDP caucus, would prefer if instead of just dealing with the consequences of violence against women, we turned our attention in a systemic way to preventing intimate partner violence in the first place. It is not like we do not know what needs to be done. There have been gazillions of studies, with detailed recommendations, about how to reduce the rates of violence against women and how to protect vulnerable women. However, appallingly, we have a Conservative government that simply refuses to act.
All of the evidence shows that violence against women and children increases during times of economic crisis, which should suggest the need for an urgent increase in services. Instead, we have a federal government that has been single-minded in its purposeful gutting of financial resources for the most meaningful community supports. Cuts to social services, housing, child care, social assistance, shelters, and legal aid all contribute to diminishing the independence of women and making them more vulnerable to violence. It does not need to be that way, and it should not be that way. But when a government is intent on being tough on crime instead of being smart on crime, we end up dealing only with the symptoms and never the cause.
My NDP colleagues and I are committed to dealing with both. We will support the bill that is before us today, Bill C-591, and we will work to improve it in committee, by making sure it does not just cover first and second degree murder but manslaughter as well.
We will also fight to eradicate the root causes of domestic violence and continue to push for the passage of our Motion No. M-444, which calls on the federal government to establish a coordinated national action plan to address violence against women. The Conservatives have happily adopted my bill as its own. I would encourage them to steal Motion No. M-444 too. 
New Democrats are secure in the knowledge that ours are still the only policies worth stealing. If the Conservatives need to be able to claim those ideas as their own in order for them to take action, then I say to my colleagues on the other side of the House, by all means, fill your boots. I have a number of other private member's bills on the order paper. Let us work together to get them passed too. I can assure members opposite that they are as meritorious as the one they stole here today.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for that speech. The speech that I am about to give is going to sound quite familiar, although I can assure her that I did not have an advanced copy. Until she said that all good ideas emanate from her caucus, I agreed with almost everything she said.
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act, proposed in its latest iteration by the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex. I understand that this is the member's first private member's bill, so I would like to take a moment to congratulate him on the introduction into the House of Commons of the bill back in June.
Interestingly, my first motion in the House as a member of Parliament for Charlottetown was also concerning old age security. My motion sought to reaffirm the government's support of old age security and asked for a commitment to keep the qualifying age at 65 instead of 67. Of course, we in the Liberal Party know that the motion to protect old age security did not receive the support of the Conservative government benches.
As the justice critic for the Liberal Party, I appreciate the fact that the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex has put forward a solution to an existing loophole in the CPP and OAS legislation as opposed to haphazardly amending the Criminal Code, as so many of his colleagues want to do.
Bill C-591 seeks to amend the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act to ensure that someone who has been convicted of murdering his or her spouse or parent will be ineligible for the CPP victim's benefit, the CPP orphan benefit, and the OAS annual allowance for survivors. As my colleague across the way explained in his initial speech in June, the bill is consistent with the legal principle of ex turpi causa, which means that one should not benefit from his or her own misconduct.
The member for Markham—Unionville has said the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill. We believe this is, in essence, a sensible bill that seeks to close an existing loophole in the CPP and OAS Act. While the Library of Parliament has confirmed that the intent of the bill is currently the existing departmental policy within government, it is not yet law and we agree in principle that the bill is a positive step for the families of murder victims. 
However, we have some concerns that we would like to see addressed at committee and many of them we heard from the previous speaker. We also heard earlier in debate from the NDP member for Nanaimo—Cowichan that there seems to be a loophole in the very bill that is designed to close a loophole. The bill seeks to withhold respective benefits from those who are convicted of first or second degree murder of a spouse or parent, although someone who is convicted of manslaughter will still be eligible. 
The member for Chatham-Kent—Essex has indicated that in cases of manslaughter, the principle of ex turpi causa does not always apply as clearly as it does in cases of first and second degree murder convictions. In his speech last June, he stated:
 Courts have said that the principle of ex turpi causa should not be applied automatically to manslaughter and other offences involving responsibility for a death without examining the specific circumstances of each case. 
While it is heartening to hear a defence of judicial discretion from the Conservative benches, this exclusion for manslaughter must be given considerable thought. It presents an issue that deserves more attention and discussion at committee stage. The possibility exists that someone could kill a spouse in circumstances that would otherwise give rise to a conviction of first or second degree murder but be convicted of manslaughter as part of a plea bargain and, as the bill currently reads, be eligible for benefits he or she should not be receiving. Ultimately, this is a bill that the Liberal Party will support because it deserves its time at committee.
I am mildly encouraged by the bill and the solution it proposes. As the Liberal justice critic, I would recommend that the government consider taking further fiscal and legislative measures to address the issue of domestic violence and intimate partner abuse before it results in the death of a spouse or parent. 
Intimate partner abuse is a serious issue in Canada, particularly for Canadian women. I would not be doing this topic justice if I failed to mention that it is Canadian women who are overwhelmingly the victims in cases of intimate partner abuse. This is also true in cases of spousal homicide.
I am supportive of the bill and will be voting to send it to committee.
Please allow me to offer some other observations on the approach taken by the hon. member with respect to this legislation, and let me begin by quoting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development. This is an excerpt from the speech on the bill when it was introduced in June of this year. He said:
 The Department of Employment and Social Development already has administrative procedures, based on common law principles, that prohibit a spouse, common law partner, or child from receiving survivor benefits if the department is informed that the person has been convicted of the murder of an individual and is the survivor and consequently the primary beneficiary. The problem is that there is no provision in the law to prevent these provisions from actually being paid. What C-591 would do is give clear authority, raise the visibility, and increase transparency to ensure that no one could benefit financially from murdering a spouse. 
I draw attention to this excerpt because it highlights how straightforward the amendments in this specific bill are. 
Since 2006, the Conservative government has routinely bundled hundreds of amendments into monstrous omnibus bills. It has used these omnibus bills to alter everything from employment insurance to environmental regulations, fisheries regulations, legislation related to justice and public safety portfolios and, yes, even the Old Age Security Act, so it is entirely fair, and not at all irrelevant to this debate, to ask this question: why is this bill presented as a private member's bill instead of being included in an omnibus bill?
By asking this question, I run the risk of confusing my Conservative colleagues, as difficult as that may be. Let me clear. I am in no way supportive of the Conservative government's reliance on a poisonous combination of simultaneously introducing omnibus bills and time allocation motions to push through bad legislation that has not been properly vetted by parliamentarians.
While the Liberal Party is glad to have Bill C-591 headed to committee for further review, I am genuinely interested as to why, or maybe how, these amendments escaped the pull of an omnibus bill. This fairly straightforward bill is a perfect example of the value in not relying on omnibus legislation. This bill is straightforward, yes, but it could always be better.
The issue around manslaughter convictions as a result of plea bargains that I raised earlier, as did the member for Hamilton Mountain, is just one piece of this bill that should be further clarified. Presenting this bill as a private member's bill provides the time for scrutiny that hundreds of pieces of omnibus legislation never get at committee before they are passed into law.
In the Liberal Party, we believe that giving parliamentarians from all parties the chance to discuss potential issues before bills become law is a sound method of developing balanced, effective public policy the first time around. For this reason, I am glad that this bill, straightforward as it may be, was given the time for debate in the House of Commons. I will vote in support of sending it to committee for further study.
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits).
I would first like to thank my colleague and hard-working member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. It is a perfect example of what a private member's bill can do. It focuses on closing some loopholes within existing legislation.
To begin with, this bill delivers on commitments the government made in the 2013 throne speech, namely to support victims of crime and to strengthen Canada's justice system.
The bill would enshrine administrative procedures in the legislation of the Canada pension plan or the Old Age Security Act based on the well-established common-law principle that an individual should not benefit from his or her crime. These procedures would make spouses, common-law partners, or adult children ineligible to receive Canada pension plan survivor benefits or the old age security allowance for the survivor when he or she was convicted of first- or second-degree murder of the very person whose death enabled eligibility for those benefits. By legislating the principle that an individual shall not benefit from his or her crime by becoming eligible for CPP or OAS benefits as a result of committing murder, Parliament would be sending a strong signal of support for victims of crime. 
The CPP benefits we are talking about are the monthly survivor's pension paid to the spouse or common-law partner of the deceased contributor. The monthly children's benefit for dependent children up to the age of 18, or to age 25 if they are full-time students, in a lump sum death benefit is usually paid to the contributor's estate.
For a spouse or a common-law partner or a child to be eligible for Canada pension plan survivor benefits, the deceased contributor must have made sufficient contributions to the Canada pension plan to generate such a benefit. This bill also applies to the old age security program allowance for the survivor provided to low-income survivors aged 60 to 64.
Here is how the bill would work. If the survivor of the deceased individual would normally be eligible to receive these benefits, the survivor benefits could initially be paid to an individual charged with murdering a spouse, common-law partner, or parent. This eligibility would be immediately revoked when Employment and Social Development Canada was informed that the claimant survivor had been convicted of murdering the person in whose name the benefit was being paid. At this point, the claimant would be determined to have never been eligible for the benefit. An overpayment would then be established for all Canada pension plan or old age security benefits the individual received as a result of the death, and steps would immediately be taken to recover any overpayment in those circumstances. 
In cases where a person was convicted of murder but was subsequently found to be not guilty, as a result of an appeal, for example, that person would be entitled to the full benefit once the Department of Employment and Social Development was notified. This would include payments retroactive to the first day of eligibility resulting from the death of the spouse, common-law partner, or parent.
 With respect to the Canada pension plan, in cases where a person under the age of 18 was convicted of murdering a parent, the surviving child benefit could be paid until the child reached the age of 18. That is because when the child is under 18, the children's benefit is not paid to the child but to the parent or guardian to help with the costs of caring for that child.
 I agree with the member that we do not want to create a scenario where the surviving parent of the child convicted of murdering the other parent is forced to repay the children's benefit they received. This would be punishing a victim who had committed absolutely no crime.
The Canada pension plan would be amended to ensure that under no circumstances could an individual known by the minister to have been convicted of murdering his or her spouse, common-law partner or parent be eligible for a Canada pension plan death benefit resulting from that death. This would not affect the estate of a person who has been murdered. The Canada pension plan benefit could still be paid to the estate of the deceased.
The bill is consistent with, among others, the policy of the United States Social Security Administration, which makes individuals convicted of felonious and intentional homicide in the death of an insured wage earner ineligible for survivor benefits. The United Kingdom also has legislation to prevent individuals who have unlawfully killed their spouses, partners or parents from receiving benefits resulting from those deaths.
In order to better enforce these new legislative procedures, the government would engage directly with victims' advocacy and stakeholder groups so they can easily notify the department when someone has been convicted of murder, and the death of his or her victim would normally entitle them to a benefit. 
These amendments underscore and emphasize our government's commitment to maintaining a key principle of justice: that a person convicted of a crime should not be able to profit from that crime. It is a fundamental principle that is espoused by Canadians in our great country from coast to coast to coast.
The legislation would reinforce that the government puts the rights of victims ahead of the rights of convicted murderers. I look forward to the bill being debated at committee and to considering potential amendments that could make the bill even stronger than it already is. 
What is crystal clear is that the murderer of a spouse, parent or partner will not benefit from his or her crime by gaining access to benefits from the Canada pension plan or old age security. I know that is something that all members of the House will find is amenable and in line with what their constituents would like them to do.
I look forward to the bill being debated in committee and coming back to the House, and to its speedy and expeditious passage as we fix this loophole in the legislation and continue to make our streets and communities safe. 
I appreciate this opportunity to share these few thoughts with hon. colleagues in this great chamber.
Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I am rising to speak to Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act with respect to pension and benefits.
I am pleased that the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex thought it worthwhile to introduce a bill similar to the one previously introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. She is an authority on pensions, old age security and the status of women.
I am proud to see that the Conservatives saw fit to bring back her bill, which was originally introduced in June 2010 as Bill C-527. It died on the order paper when the election was called in May 2011. The hon. member introduced her bill again, during the 41st Parliament, and now we have before us Conservative Bill C-591, which is strangely similar.
Compared to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, this one has some flaws. We hope that these will be reviewed in committee. My colleagues spoke about manslaughter because the bill is also intended to eliminate recurring problems in the Canada pension plan legislation and regulations that for years have allowed certain criminals to collect their victims' benefits. Everyone in the House agrees that that is terrible. We could take a look at that and strengthen the bill. 
As absurd as this may seem, the bill proposes amending the Canada pension plan to prohibit the payment of the survivor's pension, orphan's benefit or death benefit to a survivor or orphan of a deceased contributor if the survivor or orphan had been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the deceased contributor. 
Clearly, we can all agree how terrible and absurd it is that this has not already been dealt with. It was my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, who first introduced this bill following a disclosure from a concerned citizen. That individual informed the member's office that a family member who had killed his wife and served a very short sentence for manslaughter had nevertheless been receiving CPP survivor benefits for over 10 years.
If one or two women are murdered by their spouse each week, how many men are receiving these benefits? How can such a thing be legal? After conducting some research, my colleague learned that, legally, nothing prevented people who had been convicted of spousal homicide from receiving death or survivor benefits.
Not only are women more vulnerable after they retire because, in general, they earn only about 70% of what men do, but they also live longer. Women are therefore much less financially secure over the course of their lifetime. They are not able to set aside as much for their retirement and they also tend to be victims of crime more often. Thus, the existing legislation deals them a double whammy.
It is imperative that this flaw be corrected. That is why my colleague introduced this particular bill. Much of the credit goes to her and the individual who made her aware of this problem. 
In the House, the bulk of our work involves solving problems that arise in our riding offices and dealing with problems in our ridings caused by laws. In our riding offices, we can really do a lot of good and change things for people.
The integrity of pension plans is of great importance to Canadians. Lately, it has been coming up on the news almost every day. The fact that a person who has been convicted of spousal homicide can benefit from such a horrendous crime shows that there is a problem of fundamental justice that must be corrected quickly.
That is extremely appalling, and I am disappointed that the government chose not to work with us over the past three years, after this bill was introduced, to put an end to this problem. However, better late than never. I therefore support my Conservative colleague's initiative.
However, I think that the measures included in this bill should have been taken much earlier. Instead, the government chose to go after workers by lowering the age of eligibility for pension and old age security benefits. It made cuts to government services for seniors. The government made it harder to access services by putting them all online. The services are longer available in paper form. Furthermore, it did not index the guaranteed income supplement. The government left seniors to struggle with a lack of housing and assistance to break their isolation. A number of things could have been done to help seniors, but no action has been taken since this government took power. It has done nothing but hurt seniors.
We know that two-thirds of workers will not have enough savings to retire in basic comfort—above the poverty line, that is—but the government is letting murderers receive these same benefits. Murderers are living off the money they receive from the government, when they killed their spouse. That is really something that all members of the House should find atrocious. 
I would like to use this opportunity to say that we should enact every possible legislative measure and make every possible systemic change to reduce the incidence of violence against women, especially domestic violence. We really have to work on this. We have to take positive measures to help women become more independent; that includes pay equity. We have to take steps to ensure that women have access to the job market and can become independent.
Lastly, I am disappointed that the government had the opportunity to introduce this bill in the past but waited so long to do so. It was not drafted in consultation with the House, and it is not a government bill, which it should have been.
In closing, as several of my colleagues have pointed out here, criminals should not benefit from their crimes. That is a common law principle. That is what we are doing today. Pensions and old age security are crucial elements of the Canadian retirement system. We have to protect them. It is our duty as legislators to take every available opportunity to improve them and provide better benefits to the people who need them. 
The Speaker: There being no other members rising, I will go back to the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for his five minute right of reply.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been quite obvious that, as my first private member's bill, it is something that most members agree on as I did not see too much disagreement.
 I want to especially thank the members for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Hamilton Mountain, Charlottetown, Richmond Hill, and just now, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for their remarks. Certainly everyone seems to be in agreement that this is an injustice in today's society must be remedied.
The purpose of the second reading of the bill is to decide whether the it should go on to committee. I think the greatest area of dissension may be some disagreement as to whether manslaughter should be added to the bill. That is why we do these things. That is why this is a House of debate and why we consider bills. It is to introduce and suggest some possible improvement.
 In my opening remarks and in my answers, I mentioned why it was my intent to not include manslaughter, but it is something we will talk about in committee and consider. 
I again want to thank all those who participated in and have helped with the bill. I hope the result of all of this effort in the House will make Canada a better and more just place in which to live.
 It is an honour to be part of the kind of system, government and country in which we live.
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Speaker:  Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. 
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Speaker: It being 2:11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:11 p.m.)