2014-10-03

Government Orders
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons ActHon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):  moved that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I am pleased to say that we are in third reading on Bill C-36, one of the most important bills this country has ever had in this Parliament. I will tell you why. It is because so many innocent victims are being lured into the sex trade under human trafficking. We have numerous cases all across this country.
Last Christmas, Canadians got a Christmas present. While they were busy packaging their presents, while they were busy doing things around the house, getting ready for Christmas preparations, the Supreme Court of Canada deemed all the laws around prostitution unconstitutional.
What happened after that? One wise thing the Supreme Court did was to give the government a year, until December 20 this year, to respond to that proclamation. Having done that, our government has put together Bill C-36. It is the first of its kind that Canada has ever seen. For the first time in Canadian history, those who buy sex will be brought to justice. It will be against the law to do that.
Second, the thing that is so unique about Bill C-36 is that there is help for the victims of human trafficking. Many in this Parliament do not understand human trafficking. They talk about prostitutes, the rights of others to set up shop and control a bunch of women, and young men now, in Canada, control and force them into the sex trade. It is the most devious, under-the-surface kind of crime that people now, finally, are starting to understand.
 In this country right now it has been accepted that the buying of sex is just fine, because that is what women do. However, women do not want to service up to 40 men a night. Women do not want to be coerced into the sex trade. Women do not want to give their money to people who beat them if they do not. This is not what women want.
What women want in this country is to be safe. They want to be able to grow up. They want to be able to have a life they can be proud of, and grow and prosper like anybody else.
In this House, I have heard so many speeches, but what I need to tell my colleagues is that Bill C-36 has to be supported. It has to be supported because all of Canada is watching what is going on in this country right now. All of Canada, Canadians all across this country, have sent numerous emails to me, numerous petitions, numerous postcards, and what they have said is that they want their children to be safe. The majority of trafficked victims are underage, and we are finding that now. We know that now.
If members put human trafficking in a Google search, they would see how many human trafficking cases have come to the forefront, from coast to coast to coast across this country.
I have to tell my colleagues in the House what I have done with all those petitions, all those postcards and all those emails. I have categorized them. I know every single part of what is happening in this country, because of all the compilation we have done over 10 years. I know what the people are saying in each of the constituencies across this country.
I am going to be making sure that trafficked victims and their parents are very well aware in every constituency of what all the parliamentarians are saying and doing as far as it relates to Bill C-36.
There is no reason now to do archaic thinking. There is no reason now to say, “I am confused.” Quite frankly, that is a very stupid comment. It does not matter who they are or on what side of the House, right now, in this country, Bill C-36 is a bill that parliamentarians from all sides of the House should embrace.
As I said, for the first time in Canadian history, the buying of sex will be illegal. For the first time in Canadian history, there is significant money being put in to help the victims of human trafficking. For the first time in Canadian history, the advertising of sex, those big ads for fresh Asian girls, any size, any age, anything people want, will be illegal. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is not the girls putting that kind of advertisement in the newspaper. It is predators who are making between $260,000 to $280,000 per year, per victim. 
In this Parliament, a mom, who members would know but I cannot name right now, came to see me because her 16-year-old daughter was trafficked. When I met her, she was a typical staffer, a typical person, well-dressed, well-educated, well-respected. She sat on my couch in my office with tears rolling down her face when she said, “Why don't the parliamentarians in this country stand up for the victims of human trafficking?”
I have heard some of the speeches in the House. They are all in Hansard and everyone knows what members are saying. Parliamentarians ought to know more than the average citizen about human trafficking. It is the right of every single young person to be safe in this country. I heard a speech the other day by a member who talked about how we are taking away the rights of a person to set up a brothel. Basically what the member said was that it is a woman's right to exploit other women. Meanwhile right in her riding there is a trafficking ring going through to the U.S. It has not hit the papers yet, but it will. 
However, I am going to take that speech and I will personally put my feet in that constituency and get the parents and the trafficked victims together and tell them what their MP said and ask them what they think about that.
In Parliament it seems that all of us think that we are wonderful, learned people. We are here for one thing. We are here to serve the people of Canada. We are here to listen to what is going on in our country and everyone here knows about human trafficking. Some members on all sides of the House have really taken up the torch. There are members from the NDP, the Liberals and from our side who have taken up the torch. Unfortunately, many members and leaders have suppressed the voices of members who want to support Bill C-36.
Today is the last time I will have a chance to speak to the bill. Over summer, we came to Parliament to sit on the justice committee and we brought in the most dynamic people, the survivors. I say survivors, not victims, because these victims now have a voice. They have become the survivors and they are listening to everything that is happening in Parliament. Members should choose their words carefully and choose their vote carefully because their voices will go across. The voices of parents, grandparents, victims and organizations that take care of victims, my dear colleagues, are far stronger than anyone else who has a vested interest.
When we hear people saying this is a right to legalize prostitution; it is an industry. Members should shake their heads. It is not an industry and it is not what the elected people in this Parliament of Canada should be professing. They should not do that. If they dare to do it, I promise I am going to make sure I will go to every city, every town, every constituency and I will let their constituents know. They can decide whether they want to elect them to the Parliament of Canada with that kind of attitude.
We have to do something in this Parliament to suppress the human trafficking that is happening across this country.
All we have to do is talk about the victims. All we have to do is talk about what happens to them. Predators come on as the victim's friend to get their confidence and lure them. It can even be a family member. It can be a friend. It can be a woman. It is not just men.
I had one case very recently where a boyfriend said to this young girl, “We'll get married. I love you”. He was her knight in shining armour. What she did not know was that behind the scenes he was part of a little gang that were targeting young girls, getting their confidence, taking away all their support systems through their families, their schools, their churches, all their supports, my beloved colleagues, and he sold her. She serviced up to 40 men a night before we got her out of that ring.
This is something we cannot be silent about. This kind of crime has been below the radar screen for so many years here in Canada. Everybody talks about every other country but Canada. In Canada, predators are making between $250,000 to $280,000 a year off their victims. That is tax-free money. That is why they do it. Mostly, it is because they follow the cash.
Unfortunately, in this country, we have had films like Pretty Woman. We have had films glorifying prostitution. It is not prostitution; it is human trafficking. This is where people do not have a choice, where they are being targeted and are mostly underage victims. What happens is that these victims just give up after a while. They get post-traumatic stress. They sort of look to their predators because that is where they get their one meal a day. That is where they have some semblance of security. This is how they look at it. It is a very sick kind of crime in our nation.
If we look at the trafficking cases in Vancouver Island, the Nanaimo newspaper and the people who work with the trafficking victims say that this ring has been undisturbed for years. We know that. 
In Ottawa, 10 minutes from Parliament Hill, we have had trafficking cases.
What is happening in this country, now, is that police officers are beginning to become schooled in human trafficking. Some police officers who used to think it was just part of a daily occurrence that they did not need to pay attention to, are starting to understand now that behind those young women and young boys on the street is a very sad story where they are being brutalized on a daily basis and huge money is being made off them.
In the country right now “herds of girls”, as they call them, are actually tattooed by the person who owns them.
Years ago, long before the Speaker and I came to Parliament, Wilberforce said that once you know, “you can never again say you did not know”. The other part of that is: what are you going to do about it?
Every parliamentarian in this Parliament knows that human trafficking is happening. Every parliamentarian knows that it is basically our young people. This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing. This is about representing our constituencies so that our children, our young people, are safe and they are not targeted, because this trafficking has grown to epidemic proportions at this point in time.
We had a nanny in Ottawa who was caught up in human trafficking. They are people who are often in a position of trust, a position where they can have access.
It happens everywhere. It happens in our communities, in our schools, in our churches—everywhere—and the victims have been silent. They are silent no longer, and they will not be silent during the next election, no matter what happens on any side of the House.
 Bill C-36 is one of the most important bills we have ever put through Parliament. It makes a statement about our country. When the bill goes through, parliamentarians, on all sides of this House, can say that we will not allow our children to be bought and sold in this country. 
 When one talks about the pornography and everything around human trafficking, that is a conditioning of a society. A 10-year-old boy wrote to me about being addicted to porn. I was interviewed at the National Post, and the next day the National Post stated that this parliamentarian did not know a 10-year-old who was addicted to porn. The parents read this and called the National Post, and said, “We're the parents. I'll tell you about what happened”. 
They came to visit me in Ottawa. I met the little boy, and we found out that a whole school division, and other school divisions all across this country, had porn popping up on their computers. It was not because they wanted it, but because the system is set up in a way that porn inadvertently pops up at random. It has happened on everybody's computer. It is a type of conditioning, a type of acceptance.
We should not accept, in any way, shape, or form, the exploitation of our youth. We should not do that. However, let us be careful. The world is watching what we are doing as parliamentarians here in the Parliament of Canada, on all sides of the House. They all know. It is not a partisan thing.
We have talked about human trafficking, and I have to commend you, Mr. Speaker. You are a man of great honour and you have given much support for this human trafficking. You stood by me a long time ago, when I first introduced Bill C-268. I honour the set of standards you have for what you feel is good for Canada.
 There are people on all sides of the House who have done that, but there are too many today who are resisting Bill C-36 and are making statements in this Parliament that they will live to regret.
 I have been in Montreal a great deal. I have worked with the head of the vice squad there, Dominic Monchamp. I have worked with and rescued victims of trafficking around that area. I do not speak French. Two of my children speak French very well. I wish I did. I try. I love French. However, I have not had the time to speak it eloquently, like most of the people do here. However, I have done a lot of work, and it does not matter what language we have, people know. Some of the most courageous people have come from Montreal, in terms of the human trafficking initiative. They are amazing people. I want each parliamentarian here to be able to leave this place knowing that their lives made a difference in the life of someone who has no voice.
 I look forward to the speeches, and I would implore members to get behind Bill C-36. It is the right thing to do. If they have anything to say, they will hear it again in the subsequent months. I will ensure that happens in each constituency that each one of us lives in.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her work on human trafficking. I encourage her to visit my riding. I could translate what she is saying because most people in my riding speak French. As an MP, I spend time with my constituents to make sure I am on the right track.
I have a few questions for my colleague opposite. She began her speech by saying that, for the first time in Canadian history, it will be against the law to buy sexual services. First, I would like her to tell me what is meant by sexual services, since no one—not the minister nor the committee members—will tell me. Second, how does the member explain the fact that her government refused to also make the sale of sexual services illegal?
There is a dichotomy in the Conservative rhetoric. Even my colleague from Ahuntsic, who was probably one of the biggest Conservative government supporters when it came to Bill C-36, said that she could not support the bill after the committee had finished its work. She introduced an amendment to make prostitution completely illegal because that is what this government wanted to do.
How does the member explain this dichotomy? In this context, why object to removing the criminal records of the victims, the survivors of prostitution?
[Interjection]
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. People are now discovering that when people in prostitution rings get arrested—I call them the victims—they are revictimized. 
I will take the member to the case of Samantha. She was trafficked by her boyfriend and was arrested and re-arrested. In fact, statistics tell us that 60% of the women are arrested, as opposed to the johns who actually purchase sex, because the law has not passed yet. She was revictimized. She had two children at home. It did her no good. 
Through Bill C-36, as it is right now, she would be counselled. She would be helped out of that dilemma, which is like a black hole in which the women lose everything. They lose their dignity, their confidence. They lose everything. That is why we should not be arresting the victims.
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that all members of the House are opposed to human trafficking, the exploitation of any Canadian, the exploitation of women. We are all pro-victim. We are not anti-victim, as the government likes to say.
The member alleged that an opposition member of Parliament in the House, who holds a different opinion from the member on some of this legislation, has a human trafficking ring in her riding, that I believe the member said is funnelling women to the U.S. She has alleged this. She also said that she intended, once this became public, to go to the member's riding to seek political advantage against the member as a result of this human trafficking ring that she alleges is occurring. 
I would urge the member, if she is aware of this kind of criminal activity in anyone's riding, to report it to the police. I would urge that she approach the member to whom she referred to discuss this issue in a constructive way. If she cares about victims, which I am certain she does based on her long-standing work in the House on this issue, she should not try to seek political advantage on the backs of victims in this case. That is what she said in her own words that she intended to do. I would suggest that she try to help with the situation and work with the other members of the House, as opposed to trying to seize political advantage in some member's riding.
[Interjection]
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have to say categorically that it is the member opposite who is trying to twist the words. I know of many cases of human trafficking, and I have worked with the police. Nothing can be said publicly until they have all of the evidence and it comes to fruition.
When I came to Parliament, in 2004, we did not hear about human trafficking. Now we have cases all over the place. How does that happen? I heard a very good comment from the member on TV last night, and I admired him. He was admonishing a reporter who made an inappropriate comment. The member mentioned that he had twin daughters. I think we are all victim oriented, in a way, but we have to put our feet to the ground and support Bill C-36. Everyone will know the outcome of what every parliamentarian says about this bill.
Steven Blaney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul. I have a great deal of respect for her because she is a passionate woman who tells it like it is. Because of her, I discovered something that I did not believe existed in Canada and that is modern slavery or human trafficking.
Perhaps the hon. member does not speak French, but a few years ago, she went to Quebec to speak out against human trafficking and make Quebeckers aware of this issue. I had an opportunity to be there with her. Today, I am very proud of that because I have seen her introduce a number of bills that would punish those who victimize the most vulnerable members of our society. Because of that, I have great respect for my colleague. What she is doing goes beyond party lines and has great historical significance for our country.
I had the opportunity to meet with groups that help victims of prostitution. I heard some heart-wrenching stories from young aboriginal people. Unfortunately, this is happening on our streets. That is why it is important to develop strategies to help victims of prostitution and human trafficking, who are exploited and stripped of their dignity. They need help breaking the cycle of dependence and constant violation of their dignity.
My question is very simple. Governments may put measures in place and organizations may be there to help, but as long as society feels it is acceptable to exploit people by choosing to ignore these issues, there will be a problem. This is then my question:
Does the member believe we can bring about a change of mentality, a paradigm shift, to raise awareness and make it criminal? It would be criminal to buy sex in this country, if this law is adopted. However, socially it is totally unacceptable to purchase sex from victims of exploitation. How does she feel with respect to that? As a society, we were successful at making impaired driving socially unacceptable. Can we do something about the purchasers of sex who are luring young victims?
[Interjection]
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to my colleague who has been supportive of this issue. Parliamentarians must take leadership in making this socially unacceptable. I will help any member on any side of the House who has it in their heart to support Bill C-36 for the good of Canada and the good of our children.
 We have to stop being partisan. There are good people on all sides of this House. This bill is very important. We cannot mess around with it. I am paying attention and will move forward if I see other things happening. I know the victims. I know the police officers who work with them. I know the families who have to endure the aftermath of human trafficking. Parliamentarians on all sides of this House can rise up, in a non-partisan manner, to stop this terrible crime.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, the debate surrounding Bill C-36 is really not that simple. Nevertheless, we can and should make it simpler, by focusing carefully. With that in mind, I would like to start by making certain things very clear.
Bill C-36 does not address the issue of human trafficking. The Bedford decision, handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in December 2013, focused on three specific provisions of the Criminal Code, namely sections 210, 212 and 213. Those three sections of the Criminal Code are found in part VII, titled “Disorderly Houses, Gaming and Betting”. Human trafficking is not even covered in part VIII, titled “Offences Against the Person and Reputation”.
I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul when it comes to the issues regarding sexual exploitation and human trafficking. I even supported legislation in this area when it was being studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, since I was actually a member of that committee. 
However, it is important to not confuse the issue. Yes, people—especially people who want to abolish prostitution in Canada—sometimes call on us to prohibit the purchase of such services. There is a certain logic behind that. I see where the government is headed. However, it is also important that they stop trying to fool us and stop pretending that they are fixing every problem on the planet. The government is following a certain logic by saying that if we prevent the sale of such services by making it an offence, then there will be no sexual exploitation or prostitution.
I would like to come back to the Bedford decision, which is important, because the Conservatives are claiming that Bill C-36 responds to the concerns raised in that case. Bill C-36 is an act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The Bedford case was about three prostitutes, or former prostitutes, who argued that the three provisions I mentioned earlier should be struck down. Those provisions were in part VII of the Criminal Code, under “Disorderly Houses, Gaming and Betting”, which criminalizes various prostitution-related activities. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Françoise Boivin:  Mr. Speaker, I respected my colleague and listened when she was speaking. I do not mind if my colleagues wish to have their conversations elsewhere, but we are under a gag order, so we have very little time to say our piece.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask all members, if carrying on conversations, to move outside the chamber.
The hon. member for Gatineau.
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, the three prostitutes, or former prostitutes, were seeking a ruling declaring that three Criminal Code provisions—provisions that criminalize various prostitution-related activities—infringe on the rights guaranteed under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
Section 210 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to keep a common bawdy-house or being found in one. Section 212(1)(j) makes it an offence to live wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person. Finally, section 213(1)(c) makes it an offence to communicate in public for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.
The three people involved argued that these restrictions on prostitution put the safety and lives of prostitutes at risk by preventing them from implementing certain safety measures that could protect them from violence, including hiring security guards or screening potential clients.
They also alleged that section 213 (1)(c) infringes on the freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that none of the provisions are saved under section 1. They won. The Supreme Court ruled in their favour.
Do not think that the Canadian government sat back and did nothing. It was quite the case and it took more than a year to hear it, present it, prove it, and so on and so forth. There was social evidence to consider.
The Supreme Court focused specifically on the subjects in question. At the end of the day, it found that the act of driving this activity underground put the lives of these people at risk. All those who support Bill C-36 call these people victims. In this context, the risk could not be justified by the clauses in question. The Supreme Court therefore decided to strike them down.
The Supreme Court found that this compromised the right guaranteed under section 7 of the charter. The court ruled that the restrictions increased all the risks to which the claimants expose themselves when they engage in prostitution, an activity that in and of itself is legal.
My heart ached when I heard the stories shared by some victims of human trafficking, which is covered by section 279 and subsequent sections in the Criminal Code. Police officers came to testify in committee and I asked them questions. Absolutely nothing prevented them from conducting the necessary investigations, finding the traffickers, arresting them and prosecuting them to the full extent of the Criminal Code. If we need longer sentences for human trafficking, then that is something to work on. In fact, that is being done with some of the bills introduced by the member opposite, which I fully support. That is the real problem.
Street prostitution, which is what we are discussing, perhaps started with human trafficking. We need to give resources to police officers. Instead, the government is choosing to lecture everyone. It is making cuts to police forces and border services, and it is asking the various police forces to reduce their budget, but this comes at a high cost to our country. The government is not making any sense.
All of the police officers told me that the tools were there. The only tool they thought they could use was the power to give an exemption. That is what they do. We cannot be blind or stupid here. They stopped short of saying what constitutes prostitution as a whole. Even I do not know what it means. Are we talking about the sale of sexual services? Is it the act itself? Does it include escort agencies? Strip clubs? I have so many questions that they did not want to answer.
I heard the member opposite say that she took note of what we were saying. I am taking note of what the government is or is not doing. I am taking note of the fact that statistics were hidden from us for months. The government did not want to tell us what Canadians thought about this issue, even though Canadians themselves paid for the survey. I am taking note of the fact that, according to the minister, a consultation was conducted on the Internet. However, we do not know how many people responded. A hundred? Two hundred? I am also taking note of the fact that most of the people the minister had more personal consultations with felt the same way he did.
That is understandable; however, we are talking about the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and an unequivocal decision by the Supreme Court that clearly explains the situation and what it entails. Parliament was not given carte blanche and told that it had a year to introduce Bill C-36 or the court would do it for us.
That is not at all what the Supreme Court said. The court stated that the government had a year to introduce a bill, if it so wished, but that the bill must comply with the decision that was handed down. In other words, if the life of even one person were endangered, that would be enough to conclude that the proposed provisions are illegal.
Numerous experts told us that there was a problem. The minister himself came to tell us that he expected his bill would be brought before the Supreme Court. I have lost count of the number of times I asked the minister if it would not make more sense to refer Bill C-36 to the Supreme Court. Given what even the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul said, we cannot risk making a mistake and then realizing, a few years down the road, that we have created a quagmire.
The Manitoba minister came to tell us that he would not enforce the legislation this way. We create laws, but it is the provinces and territories and the police that then enforce them. How will they do that?
A whole variety of people came to talk to us. There were members of feminist groups and police officers. They came from all walks of life. Their problems are different, and that is understandable. Time and again we heard about the Nordic model, and I thought it would be discussed here. I think that most of the groups I spoke to before Bill C-36 was introduced expected that the Nordic model would be proposed. Many think that it is the solution to the issue of prostitution and that it has an impact on human trafficking.
I want to believe that. That is what everyone was telling us. It was unanimous. However, we cannot forget that the government is aiming to completely eradicate prostitution one day. While I hope that does happen, I also wish the government good luck. If that is what the government wants to do, I would suggest that it put its money where its mouth is.
In other words, the government is going to have to put some money toward this because it has been proven, even by those who support Bill C-36, that there are two main reasons why people enter this profession. I agree with my colleague that more than three-quarters of these people, the vast majority, do not enter it willingly and do not really consent to it. The two main problems are poverty and drug addiction.
It is inconceivable that a person starving on the streets is going to jump for joy and say she is getting out of prostitution because of Bill C-36. She is not going to do that. She will not even know that the bill exists. Only the Conservatives believe that a criminal commits a crime with the Criminal Code close at hand. For goodness' sake, that is not what happens.
I am saying that the Conservatives do not have the courage of their convictions. I would like to trust them, but they voted against an amendment that would have made all prostitution illegal and a criminal offence. I told my colleague from Ahuntsic that she was wasting her time because they really do not believe in it.
The Conservatives want to pass moral judgment on consenting people. Even my colleague opposite said that a small percentage of people are in the profession voluntarily. She and I may have difficulty understanding this—in fact we may not understand it at all—but if there is consent, it is none of our business.
However, we have put these people at risk. There could be court challenges to Bill C-36. We proposed more than a dozen serious amendments to improve this bill. We constantly heard the word “victim”. 
The Conservatives are smart; I will give them that. They realized that they cannot criminalize victims, since one cannot be both a criminal and a victim at the same time.
I therefore introduced an amendment that I thought made sense, based on the premise that all these individuals are victims, and that was to have all their criminal records erased. A victim should not have a criminal record for something she did while she was being victimized.
However, when the time came to walk the walk, the Conservatives voted against it. When you believe in what you are doing and you really want to eliminate prostitution, you do not vote against an amendment that calls on the minister, who is proposing a tiny investment of $20 million over five years, to report back to the House.
The Manitoba justice minister told us in committee that that was peanuts for his province. It is not enough to get people out of poverty and give them any hope of getting out of that despicable human trafficking situation.
Nor is it enough to solve the problems of substance abuse. The vast majority of people working in this industry, including aboriginal women, are not there because they want to be. Those issues need to be resolved. 
For anyone who believed in the Nordic model, an expert from Sweden appeared before the committee and said that that model could not be implemented without a huge financial investment. Opinions varied widely on that. This is not the easiest file I have ever had to deal with as the justice critic for the official opposition. Everyone, however, whether they were for or against Bill C-36, said that $20 million was a ridiculously low amount.
This makes me wonder whether the government truly believes in what it is doing. The Conservatives' speeches on Bill C-36, which is supposed to be the response to Bedford, are not the legal speeches they should be. Our Conservative colleagues are not talking about the fact that under Bedford, the Criminal Code sections in question will be declared completely unconstitutional in December. 
These are awful, heartbreaking stories of human trafficking. It is a scourge around the world. My colleague across the way is going on a crusade, but that is okay. I will open the doors to Gatineau for her. I talked to the people of Gatineau about this. When people find out that Criminal Code provisions on sexual exploitation, including section 279 of the Criminal Code, exist without Bill C-36, that changes things.
We do not want to put the lives of sex trade workers at risk. Everyone sees eye to eye on that, and I doubt the Conservatives are any different. If someone says it is not serious, then I have a problem with that. We have to be realistic and logical and strengthen the laws, as my colleague across the way has done with a number of bills that address human trafficking. That is what we have to focus on.
We must also give our police officers the tools they need. Do we want them to arrest the woman on Murray Street in Ottawa? Do we want them to investigate the cases my colleague mentioned without naming the riding? I hope it is not my riding. It was as though she was telling us in a roundabout way to be careful what we say.
I am speaking off the cuff, like it or not, but I am weighing my words carefully. This comes from the heart, with great feeling. I worked for months on this file while trying to remain as neutral as possible. There were good arguments on both sides. Feminist groups were saying that prostitution should not be criminalized under any circumstances because it is a form of exploitation. Other groups, such as Maggie's, Stella, the Pivot Legal Society and POWER, told me that many women are in positions of control in this industry and that this was a choice they had made. They were asking who we were to impose something else on them.
From my perspective, the role of the police is to ensure that this consent is real. They need to have the means to do that, and they do under the Criminal Code. Beyond that, this is none of our business. We certainly should not change the fact that people can, according to what they say, voluntarily choose to work in this trade and do so in safety. Now, under Bill C-36, there will be no exceptions. The purchase of sexual services will always be a criminal offence.
There are serious problems associated with this issue. The government is using sound bites and shocking stories about human trafficking, which are true, by the way, to try to tell us that Bill C-36 addresses that. However, this bill does not respond to the ruling in Bedford, and that is unfortunate.
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend talked about the courage of convictions of parties with respect to the issue of prostitution and referred to the Supreme Court decision in the Bedford case. She will know that the Chief Justice said that it will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach reflecting different elements of the existing regime.
Our government is taking a courageous stand. For the first time in Canadian history, we are saying that prostitution victimizes people. It victimizes vulnerable women and girls and young men, it drives the demand for human trafficking, and for the first time, we are making the purchase of the sexual services of another person illegal. That is a courageous stand.
When that hon. member last stood in this House to speak to Bill C-36, I asked her very specifically what the NDP would do if the NDP were in our shoes and had the opportunity to bring in a bill in response to the Bedford decision. How would it address the Chief Justice's request that Parliament do something that is within its purview? How would New Democrats be courageous in helping to reduce the scourge of prostitution that victimizes people in our country? 
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Two things, Mr. Speaker, because there are two elements in the question from my esteemed colleague.
The first one is about the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would like to clarify something, because the Conservatives always fail to mention it. When the Conservatives talk about how the Supreme Court found that “[c]oncluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted”, they always fail to mention that this is true “as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes”. That is clear.
The Conservatives have asked me twice what the NDP would do in these circumstances. We will spell it out when we form the government. Hopefully that will happen soon because we are tired of listening to this type of rhetoric. What I can say is that we will not hide important statistics on such a major issue as prostitution. We will not hold bogus consultations and we will not hide crucial information about such an important issue. When a government makes decisions like that, claiming they are in people's best interests, it loses all credibility. When you do something in people's best interests, you do not have to hide things from them.
Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to say more about the mixed messages the minister is sending. He introduced a bill in the House of Commons and said that his legal experts studied the bill and everything was fine. However, a number of experts appeared before the committee and said that there were constitutional issues and that the bill failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. The minister is saying, in essence, that the bill may not comply with the ruling and may be unconstitutional. 
My colleague spoke about that. Was the bill constitutional or not, and why was the minister unable to give a clear answer?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Gatineau has one minute to answer the question.
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer who will be celebrating 30 years of legal practice in November, I would venture that we cannot say that it is completely unconstitutional or completely constitutional. 
The minister says that he is convinced that this will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. I got a minor amendment passed. I do not really boast about it because I find that ridiculous. Once again, the Conservatives do not want to be clear and transparent.
We asked the minister to report on prostitution and human trafficking two years after the passage of the bill. They amended my amendment to increase the time period to five years. With Bill C-13, they increased it to seven years. We all know that this will be before the courts well before that.
I would like to reiterate that this is a health and safety issue. We must not put the lives of people who work in a very dangerous environment at risk. This is very serious.
The Deputy Speaker: When we resume debate, the member will have approximately five minutes for questions and comments.

Statements by Members
Richmond HillMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada has named Richmond Hill as one of Canada's most desirable places in which to live.
Leadership and innovation, a strong local economy, a highly educated workforce and a high quality of life all contributed to Richmond Hill being ranked one of the top six communities chosen by Canada's mobile populations.
As the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill, I can say first hand that there is no friendlier or more welcoming community that is also the third most diverse in Canada.
The secret to its success is respecting, embracing and celebrating our history, heritage and diversity. Well-attended events, such as the Royal Canadian Legion's annual Remembrance Day parade, the Santa Claus parade, the mayor's annual Nowruz, Eid and Chinese new year's galas, as well as the Tastes of the Hill multicultural festival and Heritage Village festival allow everyone to share and experience Richmond Hill's rich culture and history.
I am proud of the residents who have chosen Richmond Hill as their home, and I congratulate Mayor Dave Barrow and council for a job well done.
World Teachers' DayMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we will never forget the excellent teachers we had, from kindergarten through university.
I come from a family of five teachers, so it is an honour for me to talk about World Teachers' Day. We all know that teachers play a very important role in our education system, helping our children become educated, responsible adults. Good educators listen to our children, respect them and help them make life and career choices so that they can become members of society. They are the pillars of our education system.
I want to thank the teachers in my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, at all schools and grade levels, for their excellent work. I also want to take this opportunity to mention the Chabot school in Charlesbourg, which is educating students about politics and democracy. This public school offers an international education program, and students learn about the workings of our political institutions. Without our hard-working teachers, these kinds of initiatives would never be possible.
Thank you to all teachers across the country.
Hong KongHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Canadians, can trace their roots back to Hong Kong, my family included, and more Canadians live in Hong Kong than live in Prince Edward island, some 300,000 citizens.
The ties that bind Canada and Hong Kong are broad and deep, and we have a duty to those Canadian citizens in Hong Kong and an interest in the future of that great city.
 In 1997, Canada endorsed the one country, two systems formula because it protected Hong Kong's independent judiciary, affirmed the rule of law, secured personal liberties and provided a path to universal suffrage.
 Protests in Hong Kong recently have demonstrated that many have concerns about the continuing independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press and the upcoming 2017 elections.
I urge all parties to this dispute to resolve their differences peacefully. I also urge all parties to uphold the letter and spirit of an independent judiciary, rule of law, personal liberties and democratic elections.
James McConnell Memorial LibraryHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to tour the largest library in my riding, which was built back in 1960. 
The James McConnell Memorial Library is the feeder library to 11 other outlets and 2 book mobiles. Over 500 people visit the Sydney library every day. My first visit to a library was when the bookmobile came to our community of Millville.
It is a great service for all ages in rural areas. Some people say that libraries are passé, but the need for these facilities has only grown over the years. The service we receive from our libraries is invaluable. Many people use the library as a place to study, research assignments and meet for group projects. Whether it is preschool children or those needing public access to computers, libraries are important.
 Our library in Sydney is indeed ready for a new chapter; the other libraries in Cape Breton cannot survive without it. The community and other levels of government are stepping up to the plate and I encourage the federal government to also come forward.
I would like to remind all members of the House to visit their local libraries and see the great things that happen there.
Community ServiceMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two individuals from northeastern British Columbia in my riding, Ernie and Mary.
Mary came from a small town, Dawson Creek, in northeastern B.C. She was born and raised in Dawson Creek, came off a farm and continued to work in the area. She worked with seniors all her life, and recently retired.
Ernie came from northern Manitoba. He came to northeastern British Columbia and worked as a carpenter all his life. He still works as a carpenter to this day, and he is 80 years old.
I would also like to recognize their service to our community. Both have served in many capacities in our local church for the last 50 years. They still serve in various capacities with Gideons, distributing bibles. Mary serves in the local museum, volunteering her time on a weekly basis to serve our constituents.
These people, Ernie and Mary, happen to be my mom and dad. They are with us today. I would like to recognize my mom and dad for their contributions to Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my responsibility to point out that we are not supposed to do that, but under the circumstances, it is well deserved.
Yom KippurMs. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tonight members of the Jewish faith in Canada and around the world will gather to observe Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. 
I would like to recognize the Jewish people of my riding of Parkdale—High Park and all Jewish Canadians celebrating Yom Kippur beginning at sundown today.
Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, focuses on atonement and repentance. It is also a time for families to come together, to reconnect and reflect on the past year and the year to come. It is a time for prayer, for reflection and for family.
As Jewish families observe this solemn holiday, let us all commit to working together to build a better future.
 Tzom Kal. 
Property RightsMr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, property rights should be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately any attempts to amend the Constitution through the general amending formula have failed.
However, the fight for property rights is still a fight worth fighting. More important, it is still a fight worth winning.
I have taken on the giant of constitutionally protecting property rights by means of the smooth stone of section 43, which requires only the approval of a single province if the amendment applies only to that province.
That is why on June 11, I introduced Motion No. 520 to Parliament, a resolution that would add property rights to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Alberta.
I am working closely with Alberta MLAs on this Alberta-led initiative. I have consulted with property rights and constitutional experts who agree that this approach is constitutionally valid and would be a major victory for the cause of property rights in Alberta and lead the way for the rest of Canada.
EksperimentaMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada will be taking part in the 2014 edition of Eksperimenta, which is gearing up to host 11 countries from around the world and which will be showcasing artworks created by youth between the ages of 16 and 23.
The Canadian exhibition in Eksperimenta 2014 will consist of approximately 50 works of art representing 10 high schools from across Canada, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia. These artworks range in media, including digital photography, video animation, mixed media and a virtual reality environment.
Manitoba teacher Ann Donald and Brock University's Dr. Peter Vietgen will be travelling to Estonia during the week of October 20 to 25 to install the Canadian exhibition of youth art and deliver presentations about teaching contemporary art in high schools.
I would like to commend Dr. Vietgen for his work and congratulate St. Catharine's students Briun Pol, Tim Williamson and Jasmine Singleton who have been selected to exhibit their art to the word in Estonia.
Eid al-AdhaMs. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, starting tomorrow, over one billion Muslims worldwide will begin to celebrate Eid al-Adha. This special holiday is a reminder to Muslims of Abraham's sacrifice of his son as an act of devotion to God. It is about giving of what is best of oneself, giving that which is most precious of oneself, to God. It is a celebration of generosity and charity.
Eid al-Adha also marks the end of the annual holy pilgrimage to Mecca. We welcome back all those who are returning from the Hajj and thank them for their deep commitment to the values of unity and peace.
These values of peace, charity, family and friendship are dear to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and they reinforce our common bonds of humanity. They speak to our shared belief in fundamental social justice.
As Muslims come together in the days ahead to pray, feast and give back to their communities, I want to wish them a joyful celebration among family and friends.
On behalf of the entire NDP caucus, I want to thank Canada's Muslim community for its contribution and commitment toward creating a stronger fabric of respect and understanding in our country. In the spirit of peace and friendship, Eid Mubarak.
Yom KippurMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this evening at sunset, the Jewish community across Canada and around the world will gather together to observe Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. Yom Kippur is the most sacred and solemn day in the Jewish calendar.
Those observing seek to atone for their wrongdoings of the past year through fasting, prayer and repentance, they seek forgiveness for the sins they have committed toward their fellow man and against God. 
On this sacred day, the Jewish community comes together to reflect on the year that has passed and to look ahead with hope and optimism at the year to come, seeking this as an opportunity to start with a clean slate.
On behalf of the Prime Minister and the Canadian government, I would like to extend my sincere wishes to all those in Canada and around the world observing this most holy day to have an easy and meaningful fast, and may they be inscribed in the book of life.
 G'mar Chatimah Tova.
Canada PostÈve Péclet: Mr. Speaker, on September 21, I held a public meeting in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île about the cuts to Canada Post.
Over 100 people attended the meeting and several thousand have signed the petition to date. It is therefore imperative that the government listen to reason and cancel the cuts to home mail delivery. We are talking about a service that is vital to seniors, people with reduced mobility and community organizations in my riding. It is a service that helps make their daily lives a little bit easier. We are also talking about thousands of quality jobs that contribute to our economy.
Mail delivery is not a privilege. It is a service that our government has an obligation to provide. We will be the only G7 country that no longer provides home mail delivery. Once again, the Conservatives are showing their contempt for the most vulnerable members of our society. They do not deserve to be in power. I sincerely hope that, in 2015, Canadians will show the Conservatives how dissatisfied they are.
National Cyber Security Awareness MonthMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during National Cyber Security Awareness Month, held every October in Canada and in the United States, Canadians are reminded how to protect themselves against cyber threats. 
Central to that effort is the Get Cyber Safe initiative, a national cybersecurity awareness campaign and a key component of Canada's cybersecurity strategy.
Almost half of all Canadian adults have been a victim of cybercrime and nearly one in five Canadian youth do not know how to use the privacy settings on their social media accounts. 
We all have a role to play in cybersecurity in Canada. That is exactly what we are doing in Orléans with VENUS Cybersecurity.
Therefore, it is with pleasure and urgency that I encourage everyone to visit “getcybersafe.ca” to ensure that they are as safe in the virtual world as they are in their communities. 
Eid al-AdhaHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish Eid Mubarak to all Muslims across Canada and throughout the world celebrating the end of Eid al-Adha.
I have the honour of hosting this year's Eid dinner on Parliament Hill with the Association of Progressive Muslims, organized by the tireless efforts of Mobeen Khaja. 
As one of the oldest Islamic celebrations, Eid al-Adha commemorates not only the end of the Hajj, but it also commemorates the great trials of faith and triumph in the life of the prophet Abraham. Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, is also a time of forgiveness and compassion when Muslims in Canada and around the world take time to consider the most disadvantaged members of society, to donate to the poor and share a meal with less advantaged members.
 Eid al-Adha is also an occasion for Canadians of different backgrounds to see first hand the rich cultural and religious mosaic of Canada, which is one of its defining features. 
 On this blessed occasion, I wish each member peace, happiness, prosperity and a happy Eid.
International TradeMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. 
Last month was the most successful month for trade and investment in Canadian history. We saw the release of the complete text of the Canada-EU trade agreement and the signing of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. 
However, the Minister of International Trade is not done yet. In just a few weeks, the minister will be leading a trade and investment mission to India, where he will continue to advance Canada's economic interests. 
The Liberal record of neglecting trade, however, is just shameful. In 13 long years, it signed agreements with a measly three countries. That is shameful. 
Conservative and Liberal Parties of CanadaFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, seeing what the Conservatives are doing to the environment, the economy, employment insurance, justice and foreign policy only reinforces our belief that we need to replace this tired old government in 2015 and change course.
However, we cannot just switch lanes, we need to make a U-turn. When we take a closer look at the issues championed by the Conservatives, it is clear that there is no real difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals: for the Keystone pipeline, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for the 30-day mission in Iraq, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for invading Canadians' privacy with Bill C-13, the Conservatives got Liberal support; and for destroying the belugas' breeding grounds at Cacouna, the Conservatives got Liberal support.
If the Liberals believe that hope and hard work mean giving the Conservatives a blank cheque and making off-colour jokes about a potential war, they are sadly mistaken.
The NDP will continue to demand accountability. We will provide a real alternative in 2015, and we will put an end to the status quo.
The EconomyMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand the importance of living within their means, and they expect the government to do the same thing. That is why we are working so hard to spend taxpayers' money responsibly and to balance the budget in 2015. 
Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that our approach is working. In fact, is it working so well that the deficit for the most recent fiscal year was just a little over $5 billion, which is much lower than the forecasted amount. This is good news for Canadians and for the economy. Balanced budgets allow us to cut taxes and still guarantee long-term sustainable government services for Canadians.
While the NDP and the Liberals continue to call for reckless spending, the Conservative government remains committed to ensuring that every taxpayer dollar is spent effectively. Unlike the leader of the Liberal Party, we know that budgets do not balance themselves.

Oral Questions
HealthMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada has the most promising vaccine for Ebola in the world, but despite government promises two months ago, it is not getting to scientists and patients.
Yesterday the parliamentary secretary said “consent needs to be provided”, but whose consent did she mean? We know that the World Health Organization is not the problem, so whose consent is she referring to? Is it the pharmaceutical company the Conservatives gave the licensing rights to?
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I have been very clear in the chamber and on a number of panels with this critic, the vaccines have been donated to the World Health Organization. Canada owns these vaccines. We have 1,500 doses. We have donated up to 1,000 to the World Health Organization. It is up to the World Health Organization to deploy these vaccines as efficiently, ethically, and quickly as possible.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and the government have not been clear at all. They keep passing the buck to the WHO, which is not the problem. The American pharmaceutical company NewLink Genetics said it wants to “be in control” of clinical trials. Because of the deal the Conservatives signed with the company in 2010, now the lawyers are holding it up.
The situation is very dire, and Canada's vaccine could help now. Will the government tell NewLink Genetics to allow this vaccine to move, or will it cancel the deal today so that we can get this lifesaving vaccine to where it is needed?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is confusing issues. Let me very clear about this. Canada owns the doses. We own the intellectual property rights to these doses. We have fully and completely donated up to 1,000 of these doses to the World Health Organization. It is up to it to manage the logistics and to dispense them as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Africa has been hard hit by the Ebola crisis. In Liberia alone, 2,000 people have died from the virus. The President of Liberia is urging Canada and the international community to do more to stop this terrible disease. She is making a plea for skilled people, screening centres and trainers for health care workers. In short, the country is in need of everything, and fast.
When will the minister provide assistance to truly help in this crisis?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been at the forefront of responding to the Ebola crisis. We have been there since day one. We have offered $35 million to leading international humanitarian groups such as the Red Cross, the World Health Organization, and Médecins Sans Frontières. We are dispensing equipment, we are dispensing much-needed expertise, and we have the scientific lab on the ground where we have scientists rotating in and out. 
Canada has always shown extreme compassion, and we are ready to help those who are affected.
National DefenceNycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' 30-day mission in Iraq, supported by the Liberals, ends tomorrow. Now the Conservatives want to increase Canada's military involvement, but we still have not received an account of the first 30 days, and many questions remain unanswered. Why do the Conservatives want to send Canada into a new war in Iraq when they cannot even account for what has happened in the past 30 days?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have been forthright about what has happened in these last 30 days. We have said that we have been on the ground to provide strategic and tactical advice, but the NDP does not get it. 
The Leader of the Opposition yesterday mumbled something about nobody being there until September 26, which was completely wrong. Right from the start, the Canadian military has been on the ground and assisting in giving advice. What is the problem with the NDP?
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, while only 26 of the 69 soldiers that we promised were needed, humanitarian aid is not forthcoming. In other words, what we are offering is not needed and what is needed is not being offered. While the Conservatives are getting ready to send Canada into the third war in Iraq in 20 years, what account have they given of the first 30 days of the mission and how does that justify significantly increasing our military involvement?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, ISIL poses a terrible threat to regional security and to the security of this country. The NDP should not need a briefing to know what a terrible organization this has been and the horrors that it has perpetrated on the people there. We have been forthright. We have told New Democrats this and we have indicated that we are putting people on the ground to provide advice to the Iraqis. 
I know they do not get it, but again I would urge her to listen to what the Prime Minister has to say after question period today.
Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister will be moving his motion on a combat mission in Iraq. According to news reports, the Prime Minister wants to limit debate on his combat mission in Iraq to five hours.
Does the Prime Minister really think that five hours is enough time to debate sending our Canadian Forces to war?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that these issues are being discussed among House leaders, but again I point out to the hon. member that under the Liberals there was no discussion on these things—no debate, no votes, no nothing. We have been very clear that any matter of this nature will be put to a vote in Parliament.
 Again, I am looking forward to the Prime Minister's comments.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to have forgotten that we did not go into Iraq, thanks to a Liberal prime minister.
The Prime Minister will put forward a motion on a combat mission in Iraq today. Media reports indicate that the Prime Minister wants to limit debate on his combat mission to a mere five hours on Monday.
Does the Prime Minister really believe that five hours is sufficient time to debate sending the Canadian Armed Forces to war?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the changes this government has brought in so that any type of military mission will be subject to a discussion and a vote in Parliament. Again, I never agreed with the approach of the Liberals when we went into Afghanistan that there would be no discussion, no votes, no nothing. 
We will never go back to the way things were with the Liberals. This is a step in the right direction.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, there are a range of issues that need to be debated.
Will the government do more on humanitarian aid and protection? Are CF-18s really the most appropriate military contribution that Canada can make? What alternatives could be considered, including signals intelligence, reconnaissance, airlift capacity, medical support, training? Canadians deserve to have their voices heard and respected in such a very important set of questions.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the alternatives, or will the debate on Monday simply be window dressing?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think most people are just trying to figure out where the Liberal Party stands on all these issues. I said yesterday that I think they had about three positions. One of my colleagues said that he thinks it is four. I do not want to get into that debate.
That said, we are doing those functions, as we always do. We are reaching out with humanitarian aid. 
Again I would encourage the member to listen very carefully to what the Prime Minister has to say today.
Foreign AffairsMs. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are asking Canadians to just trust them on a combat mission in Iraq, except that in return they are incapable of being transparent and honest about their plan. They are rushing things and dragging us into a mission that could go on indefinitely. It seems that they are forgetting the real victims: the people who have suffered the atrocities committed by the Islamic State armed group. 
What about the humanitarian aid so desperately needed by the civilians affected by this violence?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, assisting the people who are the victims of ISIL is exactly what this government has been doing. We have been consistent in that. This is what our 30-day operation was a part of. Again, it is coming to a conclusion, and we were very helpful in providing that advice because we want to assist the people of that area. It is the right thing to do.
 I encourage the member to listen to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada's involvement in Iraq is not combat or nothing. We can take steps to save lives right now. The minister knows this because he saw, alongside me, the desperate need for humanitarian assistance for displaced people in Iraq. We met children in refugee camps in Erbil who are looking urgently for Canada's help to survive this coming winter. They are still waiting. 
The question is, why has the government failed to step up with new aid so that we can provide support for these kids, these families, right now?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, nothing is further from the truth.
 Canada is the seventh-largest donor assisting people in need during this crisis. Our contribution will allow for those most desperately in need to receive food, hygiene kits, cooking materials, blankets, tents, medical supplies, and other essential supplies, as well as making emergency repairs to essential water and sanitation facilities. This is being implemented right now.
We will continue to work closely with our allies to make sure that we can continue to support the needs of Iraqi civilians, particularly religious minorities. 
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. No one disagrees about the threat of ISIL and what it poses. It is the civilians in Iraq and Syria who are suffering the most.
When the minister came to committee a month ago, I asked him the following questions: Will they support immediate steps to support the set-up of refugee camps? Will they support the protection of minorities? Will they support victims of sexual violence and help for investigating and prosecuting war crimes? 
The minister said yes to all four asks. The problem is that nearly a month later there has been no action on these four asks. Why?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, this is not true. The member is not correct in saying that.
Canada is very active on the ground. As I said, we are the seventh-largest donor. We have an approach to ensure we can reach people in need. There is capacity there, and this why we work with credible organizations like Red Cross, Save the Children, Mercy Corps, and Development and Peace, because they help us to reach the people in need.
This is action. This is exactly what we are doing right now.
Veterans AffairsMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Veterans Affairs tabled a response to a unanimous committee report on a review of the veterans charter. The minister's response is extremely disappointing. His answers were vague. There is no new money and the government says it needs more time to study the problem. The committee heard heartbreaking testimony about the challenges veterans and their families face.
Why is the minister dragging his heels instead of urgently addressing the needs of Canadian veterans?
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action.
 First and foremost, I would like to thank that member and all opposition members for working in a very non-partisan way to come up with a unanimous report. Let us not forget all sides agree that the new veterans charter is a great foundation upon which Canadian veterans can be supported, while the benefits and investments for veterans are being increased by more than $4.7 billion since 2006. Our government agrees with the vast majority of the recommendations, both in spirit and intent.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, we have seen study after study identifying ways to improve the veterans charter, from the parliamentary committee, from the Veterans Ombudsman and from many veterans organizations. The studies are done. Now is the time for action to assist veterans and their families who need help. Our veterans should not have to fight to receive benefits. 
How much longer will Canadian veterans and their families have to wait for the current government to take real action?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage that member to get his facts in order. 
Let me just read a quote from Tim Laidler, who is an Afghanistan war veteran and executive director of the Veterans Transition Network. He said, “It is a step in the right direction.... Veterans...need the changes [the minister] is bringing in”.
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's response to the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is disappointing to say the least. The minister has postponed the implementation of major recommendations to help veterans. Yesterday, the Veterans Ombudsman said that he, too, was very concerned about the timeline for implementing the recommendations.
Will the minister quickly find the money to address the plight of veterans or would he rather save a few dollars at veterans' expense?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action. It has a strong record when it comes to providing benefits and services for Canada's veterans.
Let me read another quote from Tom Eagles, dominion president of the Royal Canadian Legion. He said, “we appreciate that these issues are complex and require considerable time, effort and financial resources to implement”.
I would encourage the member opposite to stop playing political games when it comes to Canada's veterans, get on board with the government and support us if he really cares about them.
HealthMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, despite what the parliamentary secretary said yesterday, and despite what we heard earlier today, it is not true that the World Health Organization is blocking the shipment of vaccines to Africa.
In fact, the WHO said yesterday:
 Given the public health need...WHO regards the expedited evaluation of all Ebola vaccines...as a high priority. 
The WHO says that the Canadian vaccine is one of the most promising. Why is the Conservative government still dragging its feet?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, we are particularly proud of this very promising vaccine. That is why since day one Canada has been at the forefront of responding to the Ebola crisis. Not only are we contributing $35 million to assist those on the ground, to assist them on general humanitarian grounds, to assist them with nutrition and to provide them with treatment, we are also contributing, of the 1,500 doses that we fully own, up to 1,000 doses to the World Health Organization. 
It is up to the World Health Organization to decide how it thinks it can best use these doses. Whether it is going to trials or whether it is directly dispensing them, the World Health Organization is in the driver's seat when it comes to those doses.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of Liberia urged Canada to do more as the Ebola outbreak continues to devastate her country. She said there is an urgent need for highly skilled health workers, testing centres and training. The WHO cites that the situation in Liberia in particular continues to deteriorate. Liberia needs strong international support to bring the outbreak under control.
Will the Canadian government respond to the plea from the Liberian president?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this is a very serious international health crisis and Canada has been showing international leadership. We have contributed $35 million in equipment, direct food and expertise. We have scientific labs on the ground and scientists that rotate through. It is very difficult to put a financial value to that type of humanitarian assistance, and it is very needed. Canada is one of the top 10 contributors throughout the entire crisis to the Ebola response in West Africa and we will continue to show international leadership.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the whole country is very proud of our national microbiology lab in Winnipeg, most recently because of the role that it is playing in the Ebola outbreak. It is a world-class centre for excellence and scientific research, due largely in part to the outstanding performance and directorship of the outgoing national director, Dr. Frank Plummer. However, that was in March.
Can the minister tell us why it is taking so long to fill this important position in this important institution and why the job posting looks like the government is contemplating hiring a mid-level bureaucrat instead of a top-notch scientist like Dr. Plummer?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the work that is being conducted there at the lab. The job has been posted and as soon as I have an update for the House, members will be hearing about it.
National DefenceHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, its various important missions have extracted a large toll from the financial and human resources of the Canadian Forces. Some senior military commanders have argued for a pause in the tempo of deployments. The budget has been cut and procurements have been postponed. Even ammunition is in short supply. In dollars and in personnel, what will Canada's maximum exposure be in Iraq over the next five years? Will there be a new and extra appropriation in this fall's fiscal update?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the mission that has just been completed was included as part of the estimate process. Again, we will use existing mechanisms to report on all these matters to Parliament.
 I would like the Liberals to concentrate on the human cost of what is taking place in that part of the world. This is a huge tragedy and Canada will respond.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, complexities in the Middle East are daunting. We could soon be bombing people in Libya who we were trying to defend not long ago. Even some misguided Canadians who have run amok could soon be among our enemies. In Turkey, which is a NATO ally, there is a long-running fight with the Kurds, but the Kurds are currently a major source of local resistance against ISIL.
 Has this conundrum been carefully explored with the Turkish government? Is it clear who is on what side in the combat Canadians are about to get into in Iraq?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as an analysis of who is onside, the member will find that all of our main allies are onside and are joining this coalition to resist what is taking place in that part of the world. Again, even within Europe, liberal and social democratic parties across Europe are supportive of taking action against ISIL. It would be nice if the Liberals could unequivocally come on side with that.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, many different ways in which Canada can do its part in rooting out the evil that is ISIL. How then has the government weighed all of the alternatives, the costs, benefits and effectiveness, for example, of strategic airlift or training, signals intelligence, reconnaissance, medical support, critical infrastructure engineering, all in addition to massive humanitarian relief and all to do our part against ISIL?
How has the government calculated that the highest and best use of limited Canadian resources are air strikes, potentially crowding out all of the rest?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree, obviously, with the analysis of the hon. member. The mission that we are a part of right now is to provide strategic and tactical advice to the Iraqis at this particular time. This is in co-operation with our other allies.
I would urge the hon. member to keep an open mind and listen carefully to what the Prime Minister has to say today.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the role of the government is to guarantee fair treatment for everyone who lives in Canada. However, this Conservative government does not think that refugees are worthy of being treated humanely. That is shameful.
The Federal Court ruled that refugees, and in particular children, were being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment by being denied access to health care. True to form, the Conservative government is appealing this decision to try to save some money at refugees' expense. 
Will the government finally act humanely and withdraw its appeal of that decision?
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be ashamed of suggesting that a single refugee in Canada is not benefiting from generous health care programs, because that is the truth. We believe that the Federal Court ruling was flawed, which is why we will appeal it. We announced our intention to do so, and in the meantime we will continue to protect refugees and Canadian taxpayers.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, because of the Conservatives, refugees no longer have access to health care. That is an inhumane decision that has an impact on the health of the least fortunate. What will happen to pregnant women, sick children and seniors who cannot pay for the care they need? 
Why does the government not admit its mistake? Why does it not withdraw its appeal of the decision?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member is misleading the House.
There is not a single refugee in Canada who does not benefit from generous health care programs. Even the Federal Court ruling did not say that there were no refugees receiving health care. This is about other categories of asylum seekers.
We will appeal the decision, and we will continue to protect the interests of refugees and Canadian taxpayers.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, he should actually talk to some refugees, like people on this side of the House do. 
It fell to the Federal Court to defend Canadian values, and the court found the Conservatives' policy with respect to refugees “cruel and unusual”. Instead of respecting our shared values and instead of showing compassion for refugees, the government is appealing the decision.
It is unbelievable. The result of the government's intransigence is that desperate parents will put off help for their kids until they are very sick. Pregnant women will go without prenatal care.
Why will the government not show some humanity and drop the appeal?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the member should know better. Refugees in this country continue to benefit from very generous health care programs.
This was a flawed decision. We are appealing it. We are standing up for refugees. We are standing up for taxpayers.
One way that all members of the House could stand up for refugees in Iraq and elsewhere is agreeing to do more to face down the menace of ISIL. Why does the NDP refuse to consider the revocation of passports and the revocation of citizenship for those who take up arms against refugees and kill innocent minorities in cold blood? Why does it exclude all military options to help to protect—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, back to the topic at hand, we already know that the consequence of their appeal will be more kids being hospitalized for serious illnesses.
The Federal Court said that the impact of the government's policy on vulnerable and innocent children “shocks the conscience and outrages [Canadian] standards of decency”.
Yet, the Conservatives have the gall to stand there and say it is about saving money. No Canadian parent thinks that saving money by making children suffer is a good thing.
Will the Conservatives instead do the right thing and withdraw their appeal?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, this is a flawed decision. We are going to appeal it. I am not going to comment in any detail any further on matters that are before a court.
However, what I will comment on is that Canada has opened its doors to 18,500 Iraqi refugees since 2009. They are benefiting from health care. They are benefiting from Canada's generosity. They come from areas where people want the international community to act with humanitarian action, with military action to end the menace ISIL, which has created one of the biggest displacements of humanity and humanitarian crises in our lifetime.
Why does the NDP refuse to do anything to help millions of people in Iraq—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
EmploymentMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, like their comrades in the NDP, the Liberals continue to aimlessly attack the government's overhaul of the temporary foreign worker program, which includes tougher penalties for abusers and reduces the use of the program.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development update this House on why the government overhauled the program and how this position differs from the Liberals'?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have overhauled the program to ensure that employers have to give Canadians first crack at all available jobs. We have had a consistent position on this. That is not the case for the Liberal Party. Yesterday, the Liberal candidate in Edmonton Centre publicly asked for a regional relaxation of the rules so they could bring more temporary foreign workers into Canada. Yet, in the Toronto Star, the Liberal leader argued that the temporary foreign worker program needs to be scaled back dramatically. Which way do they want it?
The Liberals are shamelessly saying one thing in western Canada and the exact opposite in eastern Canada.
Our position is consistent: Canadians must always come first, for every available job.
Rail TransportationAnne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, there have been three other major rail explosions in the United States. That proves that when it comes to rail safety, we can always do better.
Yesterday, the president of Canadian National said that the Lac-Mégantic accident was one person's fault and that additional regulations were unnecessary.
Does the Minister of Transport agree with that, or does she intend to improve safety measures?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Harrison's comments that the government somehow overreacted are disappointing. Of course, our government disagrees with them. We take the health and safety of Canadians as a top priority. 
That is why we have taken a number of very important measures to strengthen rail safety since 2006, especially with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods. We have information sharing with municipalities, which is a first; tough action on DOT-111 tankers; improving regulations on testing and classification; hiring more inspectors for the oversight; a $100-million investment over the last number of years in rail safety; stiff penalities for those who break the rules, and if they break the rules, we will not hesitate to enforce them. 
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, freight trains roll through my riding of Nickel Belt day and night. Residents want to know that their safety is put first when it comes to the shipment of hazardous materials.
The Transportation Safety Board's report condemns the Conservatives' failure to monitor and enforce safety practices of railway companies.
How will the minister fix these serious gaps and ensure the safety of northern Ontario residents?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, what the Transportation Safety Board in fact concluded is that the rules were not followed.
Immediately following this tragedy, though, our government took additional actions, decisive actions, to ensure the safety and integrity of Canada's rail system, and it will implement every recommendation made by the Transportation Safety Board.
SeniorsMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, more than 260,000 seniors across the country are living below the poverty line. As more Canadians retire, that number will rise, but the government seems to content to sit back and watch.
New Democrats are calling for action. We have proposed a workable and effective national seniors strategy, a plan that calls for government investment in affordable housing so that all seniors can age in dignity.
Will the minister support our intelligent plan?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, no government in the history of this country has done more for seniors in Canada than the Conservative Party of Canada. 
We have introduced income splitting. We have doubled the pension income credit. We have increased the maximum GIS earnings exemption to $3,500; automatic GIS renewal when the filed annual income tax was 96% last year. We have increased the age credit twice. There have been tax savings of $2.2 million. There are many other things that we have done.
We stand behind the seniors in this country.
HousingMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question. Shame.
The fact that the federal government has announced that it will be pulling out of and no longer investing in social housing means that low-income households will have less access to this type of housing. In some cases, rent can go up by as much as $200 to $500.
Much like the NDP, the Association de promotion et d'éducation en logement de Saint-Eustache is calling for renewed subsidies. Housing is a right. Why is the government turning its back on those with inadequate housing?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, in terms of housing, we have initiated a new program: housing first. This is an evidenced-based program, which delivers for low-income Canadians who need housing.
Just think how difficult it must be to try to apply for a job when an individual has no address that they can fill in on the form.
Housing first gives someone a place to live that allows them to participate in employment and get a job. That is what we are doing. It is evidenced-based. It is working. The opposition should get behind it.
InfrastructureMs. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an IMF report this week confirms what Liberals have been saying for months, “in countries with infrastructure needs, the time is right for an infrastructure push”.
My constituents in Toronto Centre do not need the IMF to tell them that Canada has an urgent infrastructure deficit.
The good news is that IMF has confirmed that thanks to our low interest rates, infrastructure investments are an excellent way to deliver growth without “increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio”.
When will the government take this sound advice and invest more in infrastructure?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, since we came to power, we have tripled investments in infrastructure. The new building Canada plan, with an envelope of $53 billion over 10 years, is operational. Numerous projects have been announced, and we are working with the provinces and territories on their priorities.
HealthMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Ebola outbreak ravaging West Africa is the most severe and acute public health emergency in modern times. Never in recent history has such a dangerous pathogen infected so many people so quickly over such a wide geographical area for so long.
With Ebola cases and deaths tripling since August, West Africa needs personal protective equipment urgently, but Canada has failed to fulfill its September pledge.
I will ask again: What is the minister doing to ensure that the promised supplies get to where they are needed now?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, we are examining our options to get the protective gear there as efficiently as possible.
As I have indicated, Canada has been showing international leadership when it comes to helping the West African countries deal with this mass Ebola crisis. We have invested $35 million to help on general humanitarian assistance, provide nutrition, provide resources on the ground, and to provide much-needed expertise. 
Canada is showing international leadership.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Cap-des-Rosiers lighthouse, the tallest in Canada, was designated as a national historic site in 1974. In addition, the government implemented the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act in 2010. Now, the government is neglecting it. We cannot let such a gem slip away. The lighthouse desperately needs repairs. Water is seeping in through the cracks.
What is the government going to do to preserve the Cap-des-Rosiers lighthouse?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course, the member will know that under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, there was a process in place for local groups to take over the ownership and maintenance of lighthouses that are surplus to the needs of the Canadian Coast Guard. I assume that is what is happening in this situation.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, invasive carp pose a threat to the ecological and economic health of the Great Lakes and inland waters. If they are allowed to get a foothold, the effects will be irreversible. That is why I introduced a bill to ban the import of live invasive carp into Canada and to give the powers and tools to the CBSA officers to keep these fish out.
Will the Conservatives recognize the seriousness of the invasive carp threat and commit to passing my bill?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his interest in this issue. He might recall that in May 2012 our government made an investment of $17.5 million in the Asian carp program. Also in 2012, we made changes to the Fisheries Act that allowed our department to work with the provinces and territories to develop a regulatory framework to include prohibitions against import, transport, and possession of specific invasive species. In fact, we are working on that now. I do wish the member had voted for both of those initiatives.
Intergovernmental AffairsMr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's north is a fundamental part of our heritage, our future, and our identity as a country. Our government is taking action to ensure that the north realizes its full potential, and there has been significant progress made. The Yukon Territory has had the capability of managing its land and resources for over 11 years now, and just this spring the Northwest Territories realized its devolution agreement by the signing of that with the Government of Canada.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please update the House on the progress we are making to make sure the north realizes its full potential by administering its own fate and its own future?
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to providing the people of Nunavut with more control over their economic and political future, including negotiating the transfer of land and resource management responsibilities. That is why today our government was pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Brian Dominique as the chief federal negotiator, to begin working on a devolution agreement in principle. This clearly demonstrates our commitment to Canada's north. With devolution comes the power for the people of Nunavut to make their own decisions in the area of resource management, to reach out and take control of their own destiny, and to build a strong and prosperous territory for future generations.
Aboriginal AffairsHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Canadians from coast to coast to coast will attend vigils for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and stand in solidarity with their families. The premiers, indigenous leadership, and the international community all understand the need to deal with the sociological root causes. They have demanded a national inquiry.
Could the Prime Minister finally admit that he was wrong, get on the right side of history, and call a national public inquiry now?
Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has acted. We have moved forward with a national action plan to make sure that these victims of crime are being supported, protected, and we are putting in place preventive measures. Unlike the Liberals who vote against matrimonial property rights and those unique things that aid these women, we are focused on making sure that these victims of crimes are supported. We encourage the Liberals to do exactly that and get on board with our action plan right now.
The EnvironmentMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories has experienced the worst forest fire season in memory, destroying 3.5 million hectares of boreal forest. In comparison, the average area of burn per year in all of Canada over the last 10 years was 2 million hectares. 
Northerners know that this disaster is directly related to climate change. Will the Conservatives finally admit the reality of climate change and take action? Will the government be helping the people of the Northwest Territories deal with the overwhelming costs of this year's forest fire season?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government's record is clear. We have taken decisive action on the environment while protecting our economy. Everyone internationally has to do their fair share, and Canada is doing its part. We emit only 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Building on that record, the Minister of the Environment announced a number of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from vehicles a couple of weeks ago. We have announced our intent to regulate HFCs, one of the fastest growing greenhouse gases in the world. We are accomplishing this without a job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.
Public SafetyBob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, two men were convicted on six counts of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the October 2007 killings of six men at an apartment building in Surrey, B.C.
These so-called Surrey six killings were part of a violent gang war that included multiple drive-by shootings and assassinations in the Vancouver area over several years.
Could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness please tell the House what our Conservative government is doing to keep Canadians safe from violent gang turf wars?
Steven Blaney: Mr. Speaker, Canadians absolutely refuse to be held hostage in their own communities by thugs and criminals who are members of street gangs.
While I cannot comment on this specific case, our government is moving along with making murders committed for organized crime an automatic first degree murder charge and eliminating the sentencing discount for multiple murders, which will allow for longer parole ineligibility. We will bring forward legislation to make life sentences truly mean life behind bars.
 The people of Surrey and across Canada can count our government to make our streets safe.
Foreign AffairsMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is about to announce details about Canada's involvement in Iraq. While military intervention to fight terrorism may be necessary, that alone is never enough if it is not combined with sufficient humanitarian aid, as we saw during the war against Saddam Hussein's regime, which is what gave rise to the fanaticism we are fighting today.
What concrete action does the Prime Minister plan to take to address the root causes of the conflict, such as the lack of democracy and the extreme poverty that are fertile ground for terrorism and fanaticism to grow, as we have seen recently?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, we have always been clear. In that part of the world, we are one of the leaders in providing humanitarian assistance. Certainly, that will continue as we conclude our 30-day mission and have a look at that.
 I think all of us are waiting in anticipation and eagerness for the words of the Prime Minister.
National DefenceMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, brutality and atrocities of all sorts of religious extremists and sectarian violence offend every Canadian and are deeply troubling to every citizen. However, we have seen five million killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We have seen Boko Haram kidnap schoolgirls.
 Are we particularly motivated to send fighter bombers because ISIL puts its barbaric acts on YouTube? Will we ask ourselves why do they do that? Are we falling into a trip in which these religious extremists want the U.S. and Canada to bomb?
 Would we not be better off to work with allies, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and potentially even Iraq—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Defence.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are working with our allies. The number of allies that are engaged in this process is growing on a daily basis.
I would just point out for the hon. member that the brutality and extremism that is experienced by the people in that part of the world is also a direct threat to Canada.
Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP): Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister is about to send Canadian soldiers to war in Iraq. He will give us just one day to debate a motion that would put the lives of Canadians at risk. This decision could engage Canada in a costly and unwinnable war with no end in sight.
Will our Prime Minister allow the House to have a full debate? Will he agree to not limit debate? 
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have been very supportive of the actions this government has taken when combat military missions have been undertaken.
We put this matter before Parliament. We have been forthcoming. Again, we are committed to doing something in this area.
I would urge the hon. member to keep an open mind. I would remind him again that we will not go back to the ways of the Liberals, implementing these things with no discussion in Parliament.

Routine Proceedings
Telefilm CanadaRick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, and for referral to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Telefilm Canada's 2013-14 annual report, as per section 23(2) of the Telefilm Canada Act. 
In 2013-14, the success of the Canadian audiovisual industry radiated beyond our borders into new markets. Telefilm Canada, along with an array of partners, ensured that Canadian talent was front and centre, gaining new fans throughout the world. 
Canadian Military Mission in IraqRight Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in recent months, the international community has almost unanimously expressed its indignation and concern over the rise of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
ISIL has established a self-proclaimed caliphate, at present stretching over a vast territory, roughly from Alepo to near Baghdad, from which it intends to launch a terrorist jihad not merely against the region, but on a global basis. Indeed, it has specifically targeted Canada and Canadians, urging supporters to attack “disbelieving Canadians in any manner”, vowing that we should not feel secure, even in our homes. 
It would be easy to downplay such statements and tell ourselves that these are merely the words of some fanatic fringe; however, this terrorist organization does more than just talk. 
More shockingly, ISIL's words are matched by its actions. In the territory ISIL has occupied, it has conducted a campaign of unspeakable atrocities against the most innocent of people. It has tortured and beheaded children. It has raped and sold women into slavery. It has slaughtered minorities, captured prisoners and innocent civilians whose only crime is being or thinking differently from ISIL. Indeed, by late last summer, ISIL stood on the brink of committing large scale genocide in Northern Iraq. 
This is why Canada's allies in the international community, led by President Obama, decided to intervene, and why our country, Canada, became part of that intervention.
On September 5, I announced that members of the Canadian army, in a non-combat role, would advise and assist security forces in Iraq battling the terrorists.
We have already begun, and the Royal Canadian Air Force is transporting weapons and equipment sent from our allies to the security forces in Northern Iraq.
We also indicated that Canada was prepared to do more. 
Today, we are bringing forward a motion asking the House to confirm its confidence for a government decision to join our allies and partners, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and likely others, in launch air strikes against ISIL.
In addition to these air strikes, the Government of Canada, at the request of the Iraqi authorities and other allies and partners, will continue to provide assistance in other non-combat anti-terrorism roles.
We will also contribute one air-to-air refuelling aircraft, two Aurora surveillance aircraft and the necessary air crews and support personnel. In addition, we are extending the deployment in a non-combat role of the up to 69 members of the Canadian army advising and assisting security forces in Iraq.
There will be no ground combat mission, which is explicitly ruled out in the resolution.
These contributions are for a period of up to six months.
Let me be clear on the objectives of this intervention. We intend to significantly degrade the capabilities of ISIL, specifically, its ability to either engage in military movements of scale, or to operate bases in the open.
This mission will stem the spread of ISIL in the region and will significantly degrade its ability to conduct terrorist attacks outside the region. 
To be clear, let us say that this intervention will not eliminate this terrorist organization or automatically guarantee that our style of governance will take its place in Iraq or Syria. However, it will provide the opportunity for others to do so.
But again to be clear, while ISIL will not be eliminated, the risks presented from the territory in which it operates will be significantly reduced to those of other similar ungoverned spaces in the broader region.
There are two other matters on which I wish to elaborate.
 First, the resolution confirms the Government of Canada's intention to strike ISIL and its allies.
We will strike ISIL where—and only where—Canada has the clear support of the government of the country in question.
At present, this is only true in Iraq. If it were to become the case in Syria, then we will participate in air strikes against ISIL in that country also.
The Government of Canada will not hide its disgust at the actions of the Assad regime. What we are doing is taking part in an anti-terrorist operation against ISIL and its allies. We do not want to wage war on any government in the region.
Second, let me assure Canadians that the government is seized with the necessity of avoiding a prolonged quagmire in this part of the world.
The actions we have announced are actions that will be relatively easy to end.
Indeed, we and our allies are acting now precisely to avoid a situation that was clearly headed to a wider, protracted and much more dangerous conflict.
The military measures we are taking do not in any way preclude humanitarian actions. There is no either/or here.
We are horrified by the human suffering and are already providing emergency shelter and emergency medical care to thousands of civilians in Iraq in support of humanitarian organizations on the ground. We are also providing substantial assistance to the Government of Iraq.
This is in addition to large scale financial assistance already being furnished to the significant number of countries in the region that have been impacted by the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.
Let me also assure Canadians that the government will continue to be seized with the broader terrorist threats against Canada. We have strengthened laws in this country to deal with the issue of so-called Canadian foreign fighters. 
We have broadened the grounds for revoking the passports of people who take part in terrorist activities, and we have taken measures to revoke the citizenship of such individuals who have dual citizenship.
We will soon bring forward additional measures to strengthen the ability of our security services to monitor aspiring terrorists to, where possible, prevent their return to Canada or to, where that is not possible, give greater tools to be able to charge and prosecute.
To return to the matter before us today, I urge all members to consider and to support the motion we have presented. I do this in recognizing that in a democracy, especially one approaching an election, there is rarely political upside in supporting any kind of military action and little risk in opposing it.
Nonetheless, this intervention is necessary to ensure regional and global security and, of course, the security of Canadians.
The evidence of the necessity of this is none better than the fact that the mission has been launched by President Obama, the leader who had withdrawn American troops and proudly ended the war in Iraq.
Of course, one could say that while the mission is evidently necessary, we do not have to be the ones doing it because others will. But throughout our history, that has never been the Canadian way.
It has never been the Canadian way to do only the most easy and praiseworthy of actions and to leave the tough things for others. Indeed, we should be under no illusion. If Canada wants to keep its voice in the world—and we should, since so many of our challenges are global—being a free rider means not being taken seriously.
ISIL presents a very real threat. It is serious and explicitly directed against our country, among others.
Left unchecked, this terrorist threat can only grow, and grow quickly. As a government, we know our ultimate responsibility is to protect Canadians and to defend our citizens from those who would do harm to us or our families.
We also know that our country, and it allies, share the obligation and the burden that is incumbent on all free peoples: that of rising up against global threats when it is in our power to do so.
When our allies recognize and respond to a threat that would also harm us, we Canadians do not stand on the sidelines. We do our part.
On Monday, the House will debate the motion moved in favour of an air-strike campaign against ISIL.
I call on all members of the House to show their support for this mission and for the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are now and always ready and willing to answer the call of their country.
Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House of Commons today to make this important announcement. This should be a given in a democracy such as ours, because the Prime Minister has just decided the fate of many courageous young men and women who will risk their lives serving their country.
There is no more important decision that we make in the House, no more sacred trust for a Prime Minister, than sending young Canadian women and men to fight and risk making the ultimate sacrifice in a foreign war.
The Prime Minister is asking for the support of Parliament. He is asking for Canadians' support, but the Prime Minister has refused to answer their questions. 
Let me quote the Prime Minister. He stated:
 Mr. Speaker, as you can understand, I neither have the will nor the desire to get into detailed discussions of military operations here. 
He said “neither the will nor the desire”. “Here” was this Parliament, and it was not just about the details: the Prime Minister has not outlined a broad strategic blueprint for the mission. He cannot even answer basic questions about the breadth or cost of Canada's military deployment. 
When did Canadian Forces arrive in Iraq, and how many? There was no answer. 
What contribution have our American allies requested? There was no answer. 
How much will this mission cost? What are the rules of engagement? What is our exit strategy? There was no answer, no answer, no answer. 
These are not hypothetical questions.
Canada just completed its mission in Afghanistan. That too began as a short mission with a small contingent of soldiers but wound up being the longest war we have ever been involved in. Twelve years, $30 billion, over 40,000 veterans, 160 deaths, thousands of soldiers injured and thousands more with post-traumatic stress disorder: is that what the Conservatives consider a successful mission?
As in this case, the mission in Afghanistan started out with only a few dozen soldiers. Twenty-nine days ago, the Conservatives were adamant that Canada was getting involved in a non-combat mission for only one month with just a few dozen soldiers. The NDP had its doubts. Canadians had their doubts. The Prime Minister's only ally was the Liberal Party, which fully supported a mission that, without a shadow of a doubt, would lead us to where we are today.
However, now that Canadian troops are committed, Conservatives are telling us the mission will be expanded to air strikes, refuelling capabilities, and aerial surveillance, and now the Prime Minister is specifically opening the door to bombing in Syria. We have gone from mission creep to mission leap.
The United States has been in this conflict for over 10 years. It has been fighting ISIS under one name or another for over 10 years. While ISIS has renamed itself several times since 2004—al Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura Council and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham in Syria—it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade. 
Even the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a moment of rare candour for the Conservative government, admitted that there are no quick fixes in Iraq. He called the fight against ISIS and groups like it “...the struggle of our generation”. That may well prove to be an understatement.
In one of the Prime Minister's few real answers about this mission, he said that Canada would be in Iraq until ISIS no longer has the capability to launch attacks in Iraq, Syria, or anywhere else. Now he claims it will be only six months. It cannot be both.
The defeat of the insurgency in Iraq is a goal that the United States has been trying, without success, to achieve since the wrong-headed invasion of 2003. All of the horrors unfolding before our eyes are as a result of that failed mission.
Let us remember that back in 2003, it was the current Prime Minister, at the time leader of the opposition, who went to the Americans to berate the Canadian government for not getting involved in what he considered a just and noble cause. Their nostalgia is such that during the emergency debate in this House just a few days ago, his immigration minister actually dusted off the canard of “weapons of mass destruction” to try to justify this war.
The Prime Minister insists that this mission in Iraq will not be allowed to become a quagmire, but is that not precisely what our American allies have been facing in Iraq for the last 10 years? A decade from now, will Canada still be mired in a war we wisely avoided entering a decade ago?
 Do we have a plan for the war? Do we have a plan for the thousands or tens of thousands of veterans for whom we have the sacred responsibility to fully support in the years afterward?
We hope that we will get some answers during Monday's debate and that, unlike what we see in emergency debates, the ministers responsible will be in attendance and will be able to tell Canadians what is going on.
It is not only New Democrats who feel these questions have not been answered. Here a few examples.
In The Globe and Mail, we read “The case for Canada to go to war in Iraq has not been made”.
In La Presse, André Pratte writes about the courage to say “no”. 
A Toronto Star editorial says “[The Prime Minister] fails to make the case for Canadian combat role in Iraq”.
There are dozens of editorials and opinions like that across our country.
Military intervention is not the only tool at Canada's disposal, and Iraq is not the only place where acts of unspeakable violence are being committed. In the Congo, 5 million are dead after 15 years of slaughter, but the Prime Minister has never considered military intervention there. In Darfur, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions have had to flee, but the Prime Minister has never considered military intervention there. Why?
Why is military action supposedly our only choice in Iraq when it is not even considered elsewhere?
Why does the Prime Minister think that he can use military force to accomplish what others have been trying unsuccessfully to do since 2003?
ISIS has thrived in Iraq and Syria precisely because those countries lack stable, well-functioning governments capable of maintaining peace and security within their own borders. 
Canada's first contribution should be to use every diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resource at our disposal to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground and to strengthen political institutions in both those countries. 
With the well-deserved credibility Canada earned by rejecting the initial ill-advised invasion of Iraq, we are in a position to take on that task. 
However, the tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another western-led invasion in that region. It will end by helping the people of Iraq and Syria to build the political institutions and security capabilities they need to oppose these threats themselves. 
We believe that Canada should not rush into this war. 
Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with this motion, the Prime Minister has finally said in Canada what he said in New York City more than a week ago. He is intent on taking Canada to war in Iraq.
ISIL is a threat both to the region and to global security. ISIL murders ethnic and religious minorities across Iraq and Syria. It murders innocent civilians, humanitarian workers, and journalists. These awful acts have been documented, often by the perpetrators themselves.
This is why the Liberal Party supported a 30-day non-combat role in good faith. It was a mission on which we were briefed. This time, instead of briefings, there has been only overheated rhetoric.
The Liberals will take the following core principles into the debate. The first principle is that Canada does have a role to play to confront humanitarian crises and security threats in the world.
The second is that when a government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, there must be a clear mission overall and a clear role for Canada within that mission.
The third is that the case for deploying our forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear and reliable, dispassionately presented facts.
The fourth principle is that Canada's role must reflect the broad scope of Canada's capabilities and how best we can help.
Unlike the Prime Minister, Liberals believe that Canada can make a more helpful contribution to the international effort to combat ISIL than a few aging warplanes. Canadians have a lot more to offer than that. 
We can be resourceful. There are significant, substantial non-combat roles that Canada can play, and we can play some of those roles better than many, or perhaps any, of our allies. Whether in strategic airlift, training, or medical support, we have the capability to meaningfully assist in a non-combat role in a well-defined international mission.
The fact remains that the Prime Minister has not been up front with Canadians about his plans.
The Prime Minister and the government have given us no reason to believe that once in combat they will be able to limit our role.
The overheated and moralistic rhetoric is being used to justify more than just air strikes: it is an attempt to justify a war.
For Canadians, it is all too familiar, particularly from the Conservative Prime Minister.
The 2003 Iraq war was waged on false pretenses and flawed intelligence. It was a mission that destabilized the region, sowed further conflict, cost our allies around three trillion dollars, and cost thousands of people their lives.
The world is still dealing with the consequences of that mistake.
Let us never forget how that mission was sold to the public.
Back in 2003, this Prime Minister called President Bush’s Iraq war a matter of “freedom, democracy and civilization itself”.
 We know the Iraq fiasco haunts the choices we have to make today, but we cannot make the wrong decision now because the wrong decision was made then.
Canada has asked a lot of our men and women in uniform over the past decade and too often they have returned home only to be let down. If we are to ask more of them now, our deliberations in the House should be honest and forthright to show ourselves worthy of the valour and strength we know our Canadian Forces will always show in the field. We owe them that. 
We know there is a role for Canada to be involved in the fight against ISIL, but there is a clear line between non-combat and combat roles. It is much easier to cross that line than to cross back. It is always easier to get into a war than to get out of one.
The Prime Minister has a sacred responsibility to be honest and truthful with people, especially about matters of life and death. At the end of every decision to enter combat is a brave Canadian in harm’s way. We owe them clarity. We owe them a plan.
 Most of all, we owe them the truth. The Prime Minister has offered none of those.
The Liberal Party of Canada cannot and will not support this Prime Minister's motion to go to war in Iraq.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to rise to respond to the Prime Minister's remarks very briefly.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands have the unanimous consent of the House to respond to the Prime Minister's statement?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, with that, let me convey my thanks to all members of the House for the rare unanimous consent to allow a member from an unrecognized party to respond, although I do stand here recognized as a member of Parliament for the Green Party.
I want to reflect very briefly on the fact that in June 2011, I was the only member of the House to vote against the continued bombardment of Libya, recognizing at the time, as I said in Debates, I was deeply troubled by the fact that among the rebel forces we were supporting was al Qaeda and there were warehouses full of arms that could easily end up in the hands of extremists and inadvertently fuel terrorism. 
I do not stand here to say for one moment that I was right and all members were wrong. That is not my point at all. We were united in our concern as Canadians to do the right thing. However, in this region of the world, if there was ever proof for the adage that the road to hell was paved with good intentions, we have it in spades from the U.S. deciding it would be a bright idea to recruit a millionaire named Osama Bin Laden to take on the threat of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, create al Qaeda, and hope that when they went through somehow Afghanistan could hold it together. 
Then we went back into Afghanistan, and then we had the ongoing crisis of terrorist organizations. We had what happened in Libya.
 In June 2011, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “Obviously no government can be worse than the Gadhafi regime”. I think the road to hell was paved with good intentions again in Libya because we meant well, but in turning down peace offers and peace talks and pursuing a bombardment we inadvertently increased the strength of terrorists.
 I just wanted to add this one thought because I know we are all pressed for time and I appreciate the opportunity and the honour to speak with all members.
I completely support what the Prime Minister said. Canada cannot stand on the sidelines. In every single town hall meeting I had earlier in September, my constituents and residents of my communities opened by saying, “What do we do about this terrorist threat of ISIL? What about ISIS? It is horrific”. My response to them was this. We need to sign the arms trade treaty. We need to stem the flow of conventional arms to terrorists. We need to track the money. We need to find out who is fuelling these people. We need sensible plans. We need to make sure that there are not vast numbers, cohorts of unemployed young men, who feel alienated within their societies. If this is called practising sociology, consider me guilty of it. I call it thinking. We need to think.
 I completely support all of the Prime Minister's intentions. We cannot allow these horrific crimes to go unanswered but we must make sure whatever we do does not make matters worse. That is why I hope we will have a fuller debate for more than just one day so that we can bring to bear the collective knowledge and wisdom of Canadians, every single one of us in this place representing constituents who want Canada to do the right thing. I do not think we are there yet. 
Without disrespect to any of us, bombings have never ended an Islamic or any religious extremist terrorist threat. Time after time it has made matters worse. Let us try to look to the lessons of history before we go to war again. 
Committees of the HouseMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to Motion No. 489, the election of the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this week, be concurred in.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):  moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Thursday, November 28, 2013, be concurred in.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to) 
PetitionsIrene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is from Londoners, from both the Christian and Muslim communities, who are very upset, concerned and dismayed by the brutal arrival of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in northern Iraq, which has seen the further marginalization of Christians. In Mosul, all Christians were given an ultimatum to leave or face death or conversion. They have abandoned their homes. Those unable to leave for health reasons have been forced to convert.
These Canadians are calling on the Government of Canada to highlight the plight of Iraqi Christians, and use all diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to assist them in their plight. They are also calling on the Government of Canada to assist other like-minded governments and organizations engaged in this effort to stop the suffering of Iraqis, and to work with all governments and organizations currently engaged in humanitarian and diplomatic assistance.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in regard to the civilian casualties in Gaza.
The petitioners respectfully support the call by the UN human rights commission for an independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate the conflict in the occupied Palestinian territories, and whether it has been conducted in accordance with international law, including the Geneva conventions.
Palestinians are still recovering from the carnage of 2008 and 2012, and ask all MPs to speak up about this issue.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions signed by hundreds of students in my riding who are concerned about the toxic litter of cigarette butts in their community. They have launched a campaign to clean up the neighbourhood to make it clear of cigarette litter.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to provide guidance and support for all other levels of government to establish funding for the mandatory installation of cigarette butt disposal bins in high traffic areas and to address the issue by establishing comprehensive guidelines and a strategy for both intervention and prevention of the litter's toxic impacts on our environment, such as finding an alternative environmentally friendly way of disposing of this litter.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present these petitions.
In view of the fact we now no longer have a law, or the law relating to prostitution has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are calling on the House to legislate that it is a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, a man or a child, and that it also be a criminal offence for pimps, madams and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, this summer I got to paddle for a week through the islands, shoals and riptides of the west coast of B.C., so I can understand this petition signed by people from all over Canada.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to establish a permanent ban on crude oil tankers on the west coast to protect fisheries, tourism, coastal communities and natural ecosystems.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to present a petition that is signed by a number of people in Vancouver.
The petition draws our attention to the fact that Falun Gong practitioners have been the largest and most severely persecuted group in China since 1999 for their spiritual beliefs in truth, compassion, forbearance.
The petitioners also point out that Canadian investigators, David Matas and David Kilgour, a former member of Parliament, have compiled more than 50 pieces of evidence and concluded that the Chinese regime and its agencies have put to death a large number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. They also tell us that democratic nations have a responsibility to condemn such atrocities.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to condemn these practices and to publicly call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it has been almost five years since Canadians began travelling overseas for treatment for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, and almost five years since they have gone without follow-up care following treatment for CCSVI.
Canadians with MS are wondering when there might be an update on the government's clinical trials and when there might be an update on the government's MS registry.
The petitioners call upon the Minister of Health to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis in multiple centres across Canada and to require follow-up care.
Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to introduce a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians, who call upon Parliament and the House of Commons here assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known.
The petitioners further point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined. They point out that Canada has not banned asbestos and still allows it to be used in construction materials, textile products, and, shockingly, even in children's toys.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms, end all government subsidies to asbestos, both in Canada and abroad, and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 35 minutes.

Government Orders
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have to continue debate on this extremely important issue.
The member for Gatineau highlighted some issues and wanted to elaborate on them during questions and comments. Could she have the time now to comment further? 
Françoise Boivin: That is probably the best question ever, especially for me.
I wanted to speak more about the amendments that we presented.
We often feel that the government opposite rejects outright the amendments that we put forward and believes we propose amendments just for fun. That is not at all the case. We take our role as legislators seriously.
I am still wondering why the government rejected these amendments given its philosophy and its basic principles with respect to Bill C-36. In one of our first amendments, I made suggestions about the application of the Criminal Records Act and the criminal records of individuals—the same people the government called victims—convicted of offences for which they will no longer be prosecuted but exempted. Why would the government not suspend their criminal records?
I also do not understand why the government refused an amendment to make an addition to the preamble. Although we often say that the preambles are not the law, they convey the spirit of the law. Our suggestion seemed to be in keeping with the government's comments.
We suggested that the following be added to the preamble:
 Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford that certain provisions of the Criminal Code have a grossly disproportionate effect on persons who engage in prostitution by putting their health and safety at risk and making them more vulnerable to violence; 
That was the whole point of the Bedford decision. We thought it was important to highlight that and once again underscore how important it is to look at issues such as poverty, housing, health care needs and other socio-economic problems affecting women who are in the sex trade because they lack other options.
These amendments were not dangerous. They reflected exactly what we heard from witnesses, who testified because the government asked them to.
That is where it becomes clear that Bill C-36 is, sadly, part of the Conservatives' ideology. It does not address human trafficking. Frankly, it brings a proverbial sledgehammer down on those who are already vulnerable.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, when the former member for Bourassa joined the mayoral race in Montreal, his election platform included a plan to close all of the massage parlours that were basically brothels and employed minors.
When he was elected mayor, people asked if he was going to follow through, and he said that he would only shut down the ones that employed minors. In the end, none of them were closed because the authorities could not find any that employed minors.
Is that the same argument that we are hearing from the other side—that no one should trade sex for money, in order to protect children? Is that argument not indicative of the deception hidden in this bill? Is the government using children to justify the religious Conservative ideology, according to which it is wrong to pay for sex?
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, this excellent question is worthy of a full dissertation. Clearly, no one has an simple answer.
Indeed, there are a few problems related to my colleague's question. First of all, I still do not know how this bill defines the concept of sexual services. How does that affect the things my colleague mentioned? This is not yet clear. The minister has not provided a clear answer to these questions. 
The example of Montreal is typical of the promises that the current mayor made during the election campaign. This just goes to show that words can sometimes be a far cry from reality. When our intentions are sincere we provide the necessary means to back them up, in other words, in this case, more police officers and a lot more than $20 million over five years. This requires a firm commitment. It is not enough to announce an investment of $20 million at the end of a press conference.
The government needs to walk the talk, which it does not always do.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure that I rise to speak today on what is no doubt an important piece of legislation. I will talk about the issue for the first part of my debate, and then the second part will be more specifically with respect to the bill and why the Liberal Party has expressed so much concern about it.
As a number of members might be aware, I have been a parliamentarian, whether in this House or in the Manitoba legislature, for well over 20 years. There are a number of issues that come into play every so often on which I feel compelled to speak. This is one of those issues. 
If members are familiar with Winnipeg North or the riding I used to represent at the Manitoba legislature, they would be aware that to drive to work I would drive down Burrows Avenue, from roughly the 1900 block all the way down to Salter Street, which is at the 300 block of Burrows Avenue. I would then turn right and head straight to the legislative building.
If there is a heart of this social dilemma that we find ourselves in, I was driving through it virtually every day that the Manitoba legislature sat. When the Manitoba legislature sat, I drove through the core of Winnipeg North, in particular the older neighbourhood of Winnipeg North.
 I think of the streets where there are serious issues of prostitution, and everything around it. We are talking about streets, from Mcgregor , Salter, square blocks to Main Street, and streets like Pritchard Avenue, in part. These streets are part of a community which at one time were the pride of Winnipeg. There is so much richness and cultural diversity there today.
However, there are also some very strong social needs there. What I have witnessed over the last couple of decades is a sense of desperation, a community that in many ways is in need of government attention. When I say government attention, I am not just talking about attention from Ottawa or the province; I am referring to the different levels of government and the many different stakeholders.
There are many different non-profit groups in that little box, if I can put it that way, from Arlington Street to Main Street, from the tracks almost all of the way up to Inkster, and definitely up to Mountain, that do fabulous work in terms of trying to deal with the social issues there.
Over the years, I have observed first-hand the seriousness of prostitution and how that has destroyed the lives of our young people. I have seen prostitutes who would appear to be in the early teens, and when I say early teens, that is even questionable. I know 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds, and even younger, who get engaged in prostitution. Even though it is predominantly females or young girls, there are also males who get engaged in prostitution. It is not by choice that this is taking place; it is a destructive force that needs to be recognized.
I have always felt that the best way to deal with this social issue is to see a higher sense of co-operation from the different stakeholders, and in particular from the different levels of government.
When this bill came before the House of Commons, I was intrigued. Winnipeg North is not unique. There might be a dozen or more other constituencies similar in nature, so I thought this would be a wonderful opportunity for us to exchange ideas, because many of the issues that need to be dealt with when it comes to prostitution go far beyond the Criminal Code. 
I have heard a lot of discussion through this process. I appreciate the time various individuals put in over the summer to sit on the committee. I would often tune in from Winnipeg to catch up on what was taking place in Ottawa, and there has been a lot of debate about the criminal element of prostitution. However, not only is there a role for criminal law to play in this issue; there is also a far greater role for us to play in dealing with prostitution and human trafficking by looking beyond our criminal laws.
I have had first-hand experience and heard sad stories. A family in Tyndall Park had a young lady torn from their lives. She was murdered. She was enticed by drugs and was sucked into prostitution. From what I understand, this particular young lady was drawn into prostitution through crystal meth and the criminal element present at the time. She even had children. 
Thank goodness for her parents, who were able to provide a loving, nurturing family. They never lost hope for their daughter, but sadly, she was brutally murdered. 
There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of others that the system failed that young lady. There is this sense that we, collectively, need to do more. When I say “we”, it goes beyond members of Parliament, beyond elected officials at all levels, beyond bureaucrats at all levels. It goes to the non-profit groups that we refer to and to the core of our communities themselves. I saw first-hand the impact on a family and in part on a community.
Another individual I have known for a number of years tried to provide care to a foster girl. As much as this individual wanted to provide protection for the girl, the system did not allow him to provide the type of protection that he and his wife and his family wanted to provide. That foster child ultimately ended up falling victim to the criminal element and was roped in to prostitution.
I could relate endless stories that I have heard through the years. I can recall one touching one. A family overseas thought they could get their daughter over to Canada. She was told that she would be able to work in the hospitality industry. The family thought, of course, of a restaurant or a hotel or something of that nature. Once this young lady arrived, she was brought into the criminal element, which included prostitution among many other things.
There are numerous stories. I like to believe that we as a whole will do what we can to ensure that we are protecting the vulnerable people in the communities we represent.
I am a very strong advocate for the Marymound centre, which is a wonderful north end care facility that is, in essence, run by volunteers and some paid staff. They take some very troubled individuals into their care and under their tutelage to try to get them out of the rut of the dark side, out of criminality, including prostitution.
I had the opportunity to tour that facility years ago. In the Manitoba legislature and here in Ottawa I have had the opportunity to talk about Marymound as an organization that assists young girls in proving an opportunity to succeed in life. In many cases, they are taken right from the street or from dysfunctional families and brought into a situation where they can feel safe and, hopefully, get on a track that ultimately leads to a much more positive outcome for many of them. 
We need to look at how we can build upon organizations with proven track records of success. When I get into discussions on crime bills, I talk a lot about how we can come up with progressive ideas that would enable governments at whatever level to support initiatives that would prevent crimes from occurring in the first place. 
I would apply that very same principle here. Can government do more than it is currently doing to prevent young girls and boys from becoming prostitutes? What can government do to assist individuals who have already been captured by the criminal prostitution element and are currently in the system? What can we do to assist them in getting out of it? This is where my interest really lies, and I think government can make a difference.
 I cited two specific examples. The first example I talked about was the prostitute with the crystal meth. This is someone who was already in the system. The parents had a tremendous amount of frustration in trying to find ways to get her out of the system. That was the first example that I gave.
The second example that I gave was the loving, caring family that realized their foster child was sneaking out late at night and being drawn into the system. The social services system failed, and no one was able to prevent this particular individual from falling into this brutal system.
That is where I believe we can do more. That is why I brought up the Marymound system. If we have resources like Marymound, which I am using as an example, they can help individuals who are currently involved with the criminal element and hopefully pull them out. 
There are so many other things that we could be doing, such as providing educational opportunities, providing basic life skills that would ultimately lead to alternative forms of employment, and providing hope in many ways. We could look at ways to develop programs that would build self-confidence. There are all of these things. 
I know the member for Kildonan—St. Paul is very much aware of the impact of the system on what could be a wonderful, bright young lady with all sorts of hope and future, and how individuals try to keep a person down through the enticement of drugs or often the beatings that take place. They are used to keep individuals in a place where they should not be. 
Governments and non-profit agencies do have a role to counter that. I have made a few suggestions as to how we could move in that direction, and I would challenge the government to work in co-operation on other initiatives that will make a tangible difference. 
When I was first elected, I remember Vic Toews saying to me that he wanted to see more community policing. He believed we needed to have more policing in our communities. He actually assigned a significant amount of money to ensure that there would be more police hired, but when I looked into it, I found that there was some money, but it was tied. When it was sent to my province of Manitoba, the provincial government sat on that money. For different reasons, It did not want to use it for policing, but the point is that it was sitting on that money, and in my last few days as an MLA, community police offices were actually being shut down. 
Community police officers would go into schools and try to make a difference in the lives of individual young people who found it challenging to be out on the street in the first place. What was missing was the sense that we have not just a responsibility, but a higher responsibility to start working together to make sure that the job is actually getting done. That is something that is very lacking.
If there is anything I can contribute to this debate on Bill C-36, I believe it is to emphasize is a very significant point, and it is this: it is more than Ottawa and more than the provincial and municipal governments. It includes the stakeholders and so many others who need to get involved on this issue.
I would like to indicate the primary concern that the Liberal Party has with this legislation. It can be referred to as 200-plus lawyers. It is the constitutionality of the legislation. 
The government has not been able to provide, outside of its own department, official legal opinions that the bill would stand a chance with the charter, and the reason we have the legislation before us today is that the current laws themselves have failed the charter. That led to the legislation before us today, but from everything we are being told, this legislation will not be able to meet the charter either. 
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, the member skated around the issue four times from Sunday. Two weeks ago, the leader of the Liberal Party tweeted, “The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights”.
The Liberal Party is not supporting Bill C-36. We heard the member speak over and over again about human trafficking in Winnipeg North. Will that member toe the party line or will he vote “yes” to Bill C-36?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that we have legal experts from all over Canada who are challenging this legislation's ability to even clear the charter. The reason we have the legislation before us today is because of the Bedford decision. There have been many commentaries throughout this whole process regarding that. It is one of the reasons I wanted to try to personalize it.
There is much more that we could be doing outside of criminal law. It is more important that when we pass criminal law, we ensure we have it right. The government has not been successful demonstrating that it has it right.
It is not just the Liberal Party or the NDP saying that. We are talking about hundreds of lawyers and different stakeholders that go beyond lawyers.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, the examples my colleague brought forth from his riding were well taken.
I will remind him that we are in third reading, so it is unfortunately a little late for all of the suggested improvements. We are now at the point where we will be voting to accept or defeat the legislation. On this side, we will be voting against it.
Having brought all of these great ideas and knowing that they cannot be brought forward anymore, what is member for Winnipeg North going to be doing regarding this legislation as far as supporting it further down the road? What are we going to be looking at as far as bringing this forward in the community?
Specifically, I would like to know from him if it is a good idea to be passing legislation like this without giving the opportunity and the tools to those who are disenfranchised and have fewer resources in the country to bring forward legislation to the courts. This legislation, from so many experts that I have spoken to, is almost certainly going to be challenged in the courts. It is almost certainly going to be defeated, because it does not actually address the single most important issue that the courts brought up, which is harm reduction.
 Could the member please give some comments on how the community groups that he spoke to are going to be able to challenge this on the ground?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my attempt in delivering my comments was to try to emphasize that the Liberal Party believes we have a very serious social issue in facing human trafficking and prostitution. We need to recognize that government has a role to play that goes beyond the Criminal Code.
What we have before us today is a direct result of a ruling from the Supreme Court. We have been advised, as others have been.
 Let me quote a letter that was addressed to the Prime Minister and authored by, from what I understand, well over 200 lawyers. It says:
 We are concerned about the direction your government is taking with respect to adult prostitution in Canada. Bill C-36, also known as the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, proposes a legal regime that criminalizes many aspects of adult prostitution, including the purchase of sexual services, the advertisement of sexual services, and most communication in public for the purpose of prostitution. 
 As the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held in Canada...three of Canada’s current adult prostitution laws are an unjustifiable infringement of sex workers’ right to security of the person, pursuant to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...These laws were found to create and exacerbate dangerous conditions and prevent sex workers from taking action to reduce or mitigate the risks they face. We are concerned that, for the very same reasons that caused the Court to strike down these prostitution laws, the criminal regime proposed by Bill C-36 is likely to offend the Charter as well. 

Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, the member has just mentioned that the government did not present any witnesses who were, outside of government, legal experts who would support the constitutionality of Bill C-36. I am happy to have the opportunity to stand and correct him.
 The member said that he watched the House of Commons proceedings in the summer. I hope he had a chance to hear the testimony of Professor Benedet of the University of British Columbia, not a government lawyer, at both the House of Commons and the Senate committee hearings.
 I would like to read for him the transcript from Professor Benedet's appearance before the Senate proceedings where she was asked a question by Senator Plett.
Senator Plett said:
 My question is whether you believe that this proposed law is, in fact, in accordance with the Bedford ruling. If so, how? Do you believe that, in fact, it will stand the test of a challenge to the Supreme Court? 
Professor Benedet answered:
 Yes, I do. I do believe both that the law is a genuine attempt to respond to the restrictions put on Parliament by the decision in Bedford, and it does seem to me, that the law is crafted in a way that it meets the demands of the Charter. 
 She further went on to say: 
 Overall, I see here a bill that is largely attuned to the concerns that the court raised. If the argument that is being made is that criminalizing the purchase of sex is inherently unconstitutional, we have to recognize what is being asserted then is that there is a constitutional right to buy women in prostitution. My reading of the Charter of Rights, particularly in light of the equality provisions, doesn't support that conclusion. 
Could the member comment on Professor Benedet's analysis and at least acknowledge that in fact there are legal experts who support the constitutionality of this bill?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would defer to the Liberal Party critic on the issue. I was present when he made the speech indicating that it was very clear that the overwhelming response from the legal community was that this would not pass the charter.
A Winnipeg Free Press story, written on June 10, states:
 Shawna Ferris, a founding member of the WWG, said the bill would put sex workers in danger. Apart from the overall criminalization of purchasing, she said other proposed changes make it harder for sex workers to do their jobs safely. 
 My understanding is this was the attitude in part that ultimately led to the Supreme Court to make some sort of a decision.
At the end of the day, it is the vast majority of the legal community. When I say “the vast majority”, we are probably talking, outside of the ones who maybe work for the department, 95% plus who would have said that this would not pass a charter test. People should be concerned about it.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend all the hard work done by our colleague, the member for Gatineau, on this file.
She highlighted two important priorities of the NDP, specifically, the safety of sex workers and the constitutionality of this bill. Clearly, this bill does not address either priority.
I would like to come back to something my colleague said. Women who resort to prostitution are usually very poor, and unfortunately, many of them have substance abuse problems. What concrete measures does she think the government could take to address the root causes of prostitution, specifically, poverty among women?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one of the things the government can do is demonstrate leadership and work with the different stakeholders to make a difference at the ground level within our communities. It can build upon things such as the Marymound association. It can look at ways in which to encourage these young people to upgrade their education or to get back into school. It can look at ways to find alternative forms of employment, or support them through child care, as an example, or look at drug addiction issues.
If we had a strong leadership coming from Ottawa to work with the different provinces and the other stakeholders, there is a multitude of different programs that could be put into place that would have a profound positive impact. However, there has to be the political will and the sense of need to work with everyone from the community groups within the small communities to the different levels of government.
 If we achieve this and we are successful at doing it, then we will be able to deal with some of the literally hundreds or thousands of cases that occur every year where young boys and girls are being exploited of which a vast majority are female.
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act. 
Bill C-36 is the government's response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in December 2013 in the Bedford case, a decision that will result in the decriminalization of most adult prostitution related activities if this bill is not enforced before expiry of the court's one-year suspension, on December 20 of this year. 
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied the bill in July 2014 and a Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs pre-studied it in early September. Both committees heard from many witnesses, reflecting a wide range of views. That evidence also included consideration of the available research evaluating different approaches to prostitution taken in different jurisdictions.
The government has always maintained that failing to respond to the Bedford decision is not an option and that the testimony before these two committees reaffirms this position. 
At committee, the Hon. Andrew Swan, minister of justice and attorney general for the Government of Manitoba, stated the following:
 The Manitoba government does not support the legalization of prostitution, it does not support the full decriminalization of prostitution or a de facto decriminalization of prostitution, which would occur if there was no response to the Bedford decision. All those options would continue to allow the purchase of others for sex, devalue human life, and enable tragedies associated with prostitution to continue to occur. 
I acknowledge that there are some individuals who will say that they have freely chosen to sell their sexual services. The two committees heard from some witnesses who wanted the law to recognize a profession that they called “sex work”, who wanted the law to help them earn a living selling their own sexual services. They wanted the law to allow them to run commercial enterprises in which sexual services would be sold so they could capitalize on the prostitution of others.
 These witnesses told the committees that existing laws prohibiting assault, sexual assault, forceable confinement and human trafficking provided them with sufficient protection and that they were not victims, that they freely chose what they referred to as “sex work” and that the state had no right to tell them that they could not earn a living doing what they chose to do. 
Conversely, so many of the witnesses who appeared before the two committees spoke of their tragic stories of pain, suffering and victimization, stories of johns who had abused and degraded them for their own sexual pleasure and pimps who had harmed and exploited them to maximize their own profits.
 These stories are also supported by statistics that clearly show that prostitution targets the marginalized, the disenfranchised and the vulnerable, including those who suffer disadvantages because of gender, poverty, race, youth and a history of abuse for addiction. We do not accept that this group should have to wait until a violent offence is committed against them to avail themselves of the law's protection. Make no mistake about it, Bill C-36 is for them.
 Even if in some cases prostitution involves some who identify themselves as consenting adults, that does not detract from the validity of Bill C-36 objectives. Some times it is necessary to prohibit conduct that produces harm or risk of harm to individuals or society, even if not in every case. The courts have recognized that the liberty of some to engage in certain conduct can be constrained to protect others who are vulnerable to the harms associated with that conduct. This includes polygamy, incest, possession and trafficking of drugs and the trade in human organs and tissues. These are practices that so often involve a power imbalance between the participants. That imbalance often results in the more powerful party taking advantage of the less powerful party. 
The criminal law has an important role to play in protecting the less powerful and the vulnerable. Even if in some cases a power imbalance is not present, the elevated risk that the vulnerable could be targeted, that the vulnerable could suffer if the activity is allowed to persist, warrants prohibition of the activity itself because harm results to everyone when a practice that targets the vulnerable is allowed to flourish. 
Prostitution is a case in point. We know that women are disproportionately and negatively impacted by prostitution. We know that indicators of socio-economic disadvantage are risk factors for entry into and remaining subjected to prostitution. We know that involvement in prostitution results in the experience of high levels of violence, both physical and sexual, and emotional trauma, regardless of venue or legal regime. The individual and societal risks of validating this activity are simply too high.
Simply put, we cannot condone this so-called industry for the benefit of those individuals who claim to freely choose it, because doing so would exacerbate the harm experienced by that vulnerable group who are most at risk of subjection to prostitution, and importantly, do not choose it. Facilitating this industry would also harm communities, including through proliferation of associated criminality such as drug-related offences and human trafficking, as well as society at large by reinforcing gender inequalities and normalizing the treatment of primarily women's bodies as bought and sold.
Make no mistake, this is not a business like any other. It is not an industry like any other, or work like any other. It is exploitation of our most vulnerable and our law must say no, this is not acceptable. If that means that some who would like to profit from the trade in sexual services can no longer do so, then that result is necessary to prevent the ongoing and future victimization of others. 
I have focused thus far on the vulnerability of so many of those who sell their own sexual services, but what about those who purchase those same services? Some have asked why Bill C-36 would label this group “exploiters” when some are not. 
We must take into account a variety of societal factors when determining whether the criminal law should apply to certain conduct, including when that conduct can be engaged in consensually. If allowing that conduct results in a reasonable apprehension of harm to some, particularly the vulnerable, the application of the criminal law is justified. 
Bill C-36 recognizes that the act of purchasing sexual services, regardless of the circumstances, contributes to a serious societal problem that implicates the equality of rights of marginalized and vulnerable groups. That practice must be stopped to protect the dignity and equality of those vulnerable groups and indeed every member of our society. This approach reflects one of the fundamental roles of criminal law, which is to protect the vulnerable. 
These are the reasons Bill C-36 proposes a fundamental paradigm shift toward treatment of prostitution as sexual exploitation. These are the reasons Bill C-36 proposes to continue to criminalize those who capitalize upon the exploitation of the prostitution of others. These are the reasons Bill C-36 proposes to criminalize those who fuel the demand for prostitution.
I would like to recap. The important objectives of Bill C-36 are to reduce the incidence of prostitution, a practice that targets the vulnerable; to discourage entry into it; to deter participation in it; and ultimately, to abolish it to the greatest extent possible. 
For the first time in Canadian criminal law, Bill C-36 would make the purchase of sexual services a criminal offence. Although the sale of sexual services would not be prohibited, criminalizing the demand for sexual services in fact makes prostitution an illegal activity.
Some have said that an approach involving asymmetrical criminalization of a consensual activity is unprecedented, but the purchasing offence is almost identical to the existing offence that prohibits the purchase of sexual services from minors. That offence has been on the books for years and is the basis for widespread agreement on the fact that our existing law makes child prostitution illegal. 
Here we see the very same power imbalance to which I have already alluded, and Bill C-36 recognizes that this power imbalance does not cease to exist simply when a person turns 18 years old. The law also treats sexual activity with minors asymmetrically. The consent of persons under the age of 16 to such activity is not valid. In several instances, the criminal law applies asymmetrically to ensure that the person who has less power, who is considered to be vulnerable, is not held criminally liable for engaging in illegal activities.
I come to the critical question that seems to have caused a great deal of confusion. How does Bill C-36 make prostitution illegal?
The Supreme Court of Canada has defined prostitution as the exchange of sexual services of one person in return for payment by another. Criminalizing the purchase of sexual services invalidates the entire prostitution transaction. 
This is no different from the criminal law's approach to child prostitution, and research shows that there is good reason to treat child prostitution and adult prostitution as activities that exist along the same continuum rather than separate activities, warranting suppression in one case and facilitation in the other. In far too many cases, there is no practical difference in warranting differential treatment by the law.
Professor Benedet's testimony before the Senate committee drives this point home. Although long, I would like to quote her fully. 
She said:
 It is a crime to buy a young person for sex, and no one seems to be disputing the continued existence of that provision or questioning its constitutionality. No one is going to come to you and ask you to repeal that provision because it makes kids unsafe by pushing prostitution underground, even though exactly the same argument ought to apply. 
 The reason they will not argue it is that it is generally accepted that buying a young person is exploitation because of the inequality of power based on age, even if the kid says yes. 
She goes on to say:
 Of course, there are usually many other inequalities at work, including some combination of gender, colonialism, poverty and addiction. Yet, when the inequality of age is no longer present, people refuse to see any of the other inequalities that are so prevalent in the prostitution industry, even when that prostitute, now an adult, started as a child, which was true of many of the witnesses in the Bedford case. 
 I submit that it is time to stop ignoring those inequalities and that Bill C-36 does something very important in recognizing that there are other inequalities beyond age that make the prostitution industry exploitative and worthy of the criminal law's attention. 
That is the end of the quote.
As I have said, Bill C-36 does not propose to criminalize the sale of sexual services, instead it proposes to immunize sellers from prosecution for the part they play in the illegal prostitution transaction.
This immunity does not, however, make that transaction legal. The approach does not in any way allow, authorize, facilitate or condone the selling of sexual services. Rather, it recognizes the power imbalance that so often manifests itself in this transaction.
The solution is to assist, not punish, the less powerful party to that transaction. I stress that so many sellers, some who courageously appeared before the two committees, rarely freely choose prostitution. For many, their choices were constrained, whether by the brute force of those who would profit from their exploitation or by the lack of meaningful options from which to choose.
This is the reason the bill proposes to immunize them from prosecution for the part that they play in the illegal prostitution transaction.
It is also why the government has dedicated $20 million in addition to other existing federal initiatives to assist sellers in leaving prostitution. Protecting those who are so vulnerable to the dangers and risks posed by prostitution involve preventing entry into it, helping those involved leave it, and directing the full force of the criminal law at those who fuel this trade, as well as those who capitalize on it.
I want to read to the House the words of a very courageous woman who appeared before the House of Commons justice committee in July this year. Her name is Bridget Perrier and I have to say that I was moved by her testimony. I think all who hear it will be equally moved. I want people to hear this. I think it is important that my colleagues here in the House hear it and that Canadians across the country hear it. She said:
 I was lured and debased into prostitution at the age of 12 from a child welfare-run group home. I remained enslaved for 10 years in prostitution. I was sold to men who felt privileged to steal my innocence and invade my body. I was paraded like cattle in front of men who were able to purchase me, and the acts that I did were something no little girl should ever have to endure here in Canada, the land of the free. 
 Because of the men, I cannot have a child normally, because of trauma towards my cervix. Also, still to this day I have nightmares, and sometimes I sleep with the lights on. My trauma is deep, and I sometimes feel as though I'm frozen—or even worse, I feel damaged and not worthy. 
 I was traded in legal establishments, street corners, and strip clubs. I even had a few trips across the Great Lakes servicing shipmen at the age of 13. The scariest thing that happened to me was being held captive for a period of 43 hours and raped and tortured repeatedly at 14 years of age by a sexual predator who preyed on exploited girls. 
 My exploiters made a lot of money and tried to break me, but I fought for my life. My first pimp was a woman who owned a legal brothel, where I was groomed to say that I was her daughter's friend, if the police ever asked. My second pimp was introduced to me when I was in Toronto. I had to prostitute for money. He was supposed to be a bodyguard, but that turned out to be one big lie. 
 Both are out there still, doing the same thing to more little girls somewhere here in Canada. 
In my view, if there is one more little girl like Bridget Perrier anywhere in Canada, we need to do something about it. We cannot stand idly by. 
The Supreme Court said it is for us as parliamentarians to do something about this. It is within our jurisdiction to do something about this. She did not talk about legalizing brothels and bringing in municipal bylaws to regulate their hours of operation. She talked about using the laws for which Parliament is responsible, the criminal laws, to bring in a new way of responding to what is a horrible practice in our country.
We must aspire to a society free from the exploitive practices that target our most vulnerable members, a society that prioritizes dignity and equality of all. For Bridget Perrier, for Timea Nagy, for Katarina MacLeod, and for the dozens and hundreds of others out there, we must do this. 
I hope my colleagues on the other side of the House, especially the Liberals, who do not seem to be able to make up their minds, will choose to support Bill C-36. Do the right thing and recognize the women who are trapped in this business as victims and help them to bring an end to this awful practice that has enslaved far too many in our society.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, we were deeply moved by the testimony we heard in committee, especially that of Bridget Perrier.
I was at least happy to know that the Criminal Code still has very strict provisions regarding human trafficking and sexual exploitation. I would like to repeat that, because the Conservatives would have people believe that without Bill C-36, Canada would have no such protections, when in fact those provisions provide an excellent framework. 
Since this will probably be my only opportunity to do so, I would like to ask the same question.
If at first we do not succeed, try, try again.
I will ask this again to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. Can somebody please define for me what Bill C-36 means when it talks about sexual services? It is not an idle question. It is important. Does it cover sexual acts that are done that are pretty close to—whatever, I will not qualify it—but that happen in some clubs? Does it touch escort agencies? That is a very important question. 
On the review and report, why did the government push back to five years our motion to get a review and report in two years?
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear I think to everyone, to the courts, that sexual services means the sexual gratification of the other person. There are many cases heard on the definition of that particular phrase, and I would suggest to my hon. friend that she take a look at some of those cases.
We need to take this opportunity, which was presented to us by the Supreme Court, to finally address this terrible trade that is enslaving far too many people in our country.
The hon. member asked why we would want to review the law in five years rather than two. The reason is that we need time to see how the law is being enforced and to have evidence come forward. Two years is a very narrow amount of time for that evidence to become available, but in five years we think it will be sufficient time. That was why I was pleased to support her suggestion for a mandatory review of the bill going forward, and with that small amendment to make it a five-year review as opposed to two.
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, today we heard many things about the bill not being constitutionally sound.
 I would ask the parliamentary secretary to go over the reasons why we believe very strongly that the bill will survive any court challenges that happen.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul for her question. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous work she has done over many years to fight for the rights of trafficked persons in Canada and around the world. She deserves a lot of credit for that.
The Liberal member said earlier that he had a letter from 200 lawyers saying they thought the bill was unconstitutional and did not live up to the test in the Bedford decision. I practise in a law firm of over 950 lawyers, and there are 14,000 lawyers practising in the city of Toronto, if my memory serves me correctly. I think there are plenty of lawyers who agree with the constitutionality of this bill, and I am one of them.
The bill was crafted to directly respond to what was requested by the three litigants in the Bedford case. They asked for the right to carry on their trade from a fixed indoor location where they could adequately screen their clients and protect themselves, and Bill C-36 provides exactly for that. It allows them to get off the streets, to do it in a fixed indoor location, a safe place which has a receptionist and bodyguard, paid for on reasonable commercial terms which are not exploitive. 
I believe those things, coupled with the statement of the purpose of the bill, which is to reduce prostitution and the harm done to both society and communities by prostitution, would ensure that the bill is found constitutional by the Supreme Court if it is ever tested in the future.
I want to say one further thing. Criminal lawyers know that if they cannot defend their clients on the facts, they always challenge the constitutionality of a bill. That is just common law practice.
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple.
I would like my colleague to tell us precisely what new tools Bill C-36 adds to the law. The minister's proposed money and programs aside, what section of the Criminal Code affected by the bill does not already deal with human trafficking and human exploitation? Sections 279 and 279.01 are clear: human trafficking and human exploitation are offences that, committed together with violence, assault or confinement, are punishable to life in prison. 
What tools does Bill C-36 add to existing legislation?
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that she missed it. 
What is new and exciting about this bill is that for the first time in Canadian history it makes the purchase of sexual services of another person illegal. It would allow us to reduce the demand for the prostitution of other people, which reduces the demand for human trafficking. If there are less people trying to buy those services, there will be less young girls trafficked. 
We do not have to wait until they are trafficked, harmed, or abused; we can reduce the demand and make sure it does not happen in the first place. That is what is so very important about this bill, and that is why it is important that we pass it as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It being 1:50 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, September 25, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings, and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 6, 2014, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek consent to see the clock as 2:05 p.m. 
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 2:05 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  It being 2:05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
Department of Public Works and Government Services ActMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ):  moved that Bill C-574, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to begin debate on my bill to promote the use of wood in the construction of federal public buildings.
Bill C-574, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood) is quite simple. It reads as follows:
 1. Section 7 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): 
 (1.1) Despite subsection (1), before soliciting bids for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal immovables and federal real property, the Minister shall give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood, while taking into account the factors of cost and greenhouse gas emissions. 
My bill amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and calls on the federal government to give preference to projects that increase the use of wood products in construction. A number of governments have realized that using more wood in their buildings is not only a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it also provides direct support to the industry. The long list of governments that have their own policies on wood use includes Quebec, France, Sweden, Norway, Austria and Finland.
Bill C-574 was introduced by the Bloc Québécois, which would like to see the House of Commons pass it. A similar bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois in 2010 passed second reading stage in the House. Only the Conservatives refused to support it. 
The forestry industry needs help to adjust to changes in the pulp and paper market. The Conservative government must stop stalling and follow the lead of other countries that have adopted a policy to use wood as a building material in public buildings. 
Given the Conservative government's failure to support the Quebec forestry industry, the Government of Quebec had to be proactive by putting in place a wood charter. With the adoption of that charter, construction projects that are funded wholly or in part by the Government of Quebec must now systematically demonstrate that a wood solution was evaluated. 
Not only will this strategy help revitalize the forestry industry, but it will be an excellent way to combat greenhouse gas emissions, something that is of little consequence to the Conservative government. Renewing our forests will also help with carbon capture and improve Quebec's record in that regard and, by extension, that of the federal government, which prefers to promote the expansion of the oil sands industry.
The Quebec forestry industry is in need of urgent help. To date, the Conservative government has given forestry companies nothing but crumbs. Meanwhile, it has given billions of dollars to the Ontario automotive industry.
It is imperative that the House support Quebec's initiative in this regard and pass Bill C-574 in order to follow suit in the construction of its public buildings.
The bill that we are proposing would provide immediate assistance to forestry companies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The use of wood in federal buildings would help our businesses develop new secondary and tertiary products and find new markets for local products.
Furthermore, given that timber products are alternatives to energy inefficient products, such as steel, which takes a lot of energy to process, the use of wood is a tangible way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to capturing carbon dioxide, wood is also a green alternative to energy-intensive construction materials.
In 2011, Canada's forestry industry represented approximately $23.7 billion of the Canadian economy, which is about 1.9% of the total gross domestic product.
Canada is the second largest exporter of raw forest products in the world, after the United States. It is the fourth largest exporter of all the wood products considered. Canada is the largest exporter of pulp and paper, newsprint and softwood lumber in the world and the fourth largest exporter of wood panels.
A total of 65% of Canadian forestry products are exported to the United States. China is an increasingly important market for Canadian forestry products, particularly pulp and softwood lumber.
In 2011, the forestry industry generated approximately 233,900 direct jobs for Canadians. If we include indirect jobs, such as those in construction, engineering and transport, the forestry industry is responsible for almost 600,000 direct and indirect jobs across the country.
The forestry industry is important to Quebec. Quebec has 2% of the world's forests, an area of 760,000 square kilometres—the equivalent of Sweden and Norway combined.
The industry provides 50,500 manufacturing jobs—26,800 in wood processing and 23,700 in pulp and paper—and more than 10,500 forestry jobs. There are also 630 engineers who work in forest management and logging operations.
The forestry industry generates more than $7 billion in sales outside Quebec, which is about 13% of all Quebec exports. The forestry industry is currently the economic driver of 140 Quebec municipalities. Forests represent the heritage of all Quebeckers, and 90% of them are public land, while 10% belong to private interests—more than 130,000 owners. In Quebec, the potential for public forests is 29 million cubic metres a year, and it is 12 million cubic metres a year for private forests.
For years, the forestry industry has been going from one crisis to the next. First, there was the softwood lumber conflict with the United States from May 2002 to fall 2006. During that period, Quebec's forestry industry lost more than 10,000 jobs.
Even though the Conservatives promised during the 2005 election campaign to create a loan guarantee program for forestry companies that were suffering as a result of the conflict, they reneged on their promise once they came to power. The Prime Minister, who wanted to sign a softwood lumber agreement with the Americans, chose instead to starve the industry to ensure that it would accept any old agreement. Since the industry was short of cash during that period, it was not able to invest money to improve its productivity, and it emerged from the conflict substantially weakened and ill-equipped to face challenges. The consequences are still being felt today.
Then, there was the rising dollar. Boosted by Alberta oil, the Canadian dollar rose by about 60% in four years, compared to the American dollar. Forestry companies lost their competitive edge on foreign markets, especially the American market. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that Canada's forestry industry loses $500 million in revenue for every 1¢ increase in the value of the dollar. The Quebec Forest Industry Council estimates that loss at $150 million in Quebec.
In addition, the paper market is saturated and in slow but steady decline, partly because of improved communication technologies. What is more, companies are being hit with higher oil prices, which increase their production and transportation costs. To top it all off, the construction market in the United States collapsed because of the financial and housing crisis. Not only are sales down, but prices are down and companies are in poor financial shape, which diminishes their ability to invest, innovate, modernize and develop new products. Today, while the higher dollar should allow forestry companies to buy new equipment at a reasonable price to improve and diversify their production, they are often unable to invest because they emerged from the crisis crippled with debt.
The forestry crisis that hit Quebec was very serious. From 2005 to 2011, the forestry industry lost nearly 30% of its workforce. The industry went from 130,000 workers in 2005 to 99,659 in 2011. From 2004-05 to 2012-13, there was a 38.7% drop in jobs in silviculture and timber harvesting, which reduced job numbers to a little more than 10,000 in those areas. Approximately 26,000 direct jobs were lost in the wood product manufacturing sector from 2005 to 2010. Just over 3,000 more were lost in 2011 and 2012. In total, there was a 29% decrease. At the same time, the pulp and paper industry lost 33% of its jobs.
In 2011, Quebec's softwood lumber production dropped by 10% and deliveries were down by nearly 6%.
Quebec and Canada have a long history of using wood in housing construction. Most single family homes are built of wood. Commercial and industrial buildings, however, are usually built out of concrete and steel. Recent technological breakthroughs in engineered wood like finger-jointed wood and glued laminated timber have helped facilitate the development of wood construction. At the same time, many government building codes allow the use of wood in a wider range of situations. For instance, British Columbia allows the construction of buildings of up to six storeys in wood, compared to past norms, which allowed for only three or four storeys. Sweden has buildings of up to 10 storeys with wooden frames.
What have other governments done to encourage the use of wood to build public buildings?
Quebec is already relying on increased use of wood in construction in the province, particularly in public buildings, other non-residential buildings and multi-family dwellings. This strategy aims to maximize Quebec's dominant position in high value-added products.
On April 30, 2013, the Government of Quebec passed its wood charter, which compels contractors to consider using wood in any project paid from public funds. In its own projects, the Government of Quebec is setting an example by promoting the increased use of wood in the construction of large-scale buildings.
By changing the rules in the Régie du bâtiment du Québec, the wood charter allows five and six storey buildings to be built out of wood. In general, this new tool aims to increase the use of wood in construction in Quebec, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop higher value-added wood products.
The wood charter also seeks to promote the use of a combination of wood and other materials and the use of appearance wood. To achieve that goal, educational institutions and centres of expertise will be called upon to provide training related to the use of wood in structures. These institutions will also promote this use so that professionals, such as architects and engineers, will have the latest information on the use of wood as a structural component.
Wood products can be substituted for products with high embodied energy that are at the mercy of rising fuel costs. Environmental concerns have led a number of countries to develop a strategy for the use of wood products, which is an important part of their strategy to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
British Columbia would like to develop the domestic wood market by requiring all new public buildings to use British Columbia wood, if possible, and by making changes to the Building Code that would allow for the construction of six-storey wooden buildings. British Columbia worked with the other provinces to make the same changes.
France's Wood, Construction, Environment plan is designed to increase the market share of wood in the construction industry by 25%. This increase, achieved by replacing products such as concrete and steel with wood, could allow the country to meet nearly 14% of its target under the Kyoto protocol.
Under its carbon neutral public service program, the New Zealand government requires wood and wood products to be considered as the main construction materials for new government buildings of three stories or less in height. 
In Norway, the strategy to increase the use of wood involves promoting and showing the possibilities for the increased use of wood. 
The use of wood can help combat climate change. Forest renewal makes it possible to capture and store carbon. Once mature trees are harvested, young trees absorb more carbon as they grow than trees that are at the end of their life cycle. Moreover, wood products will continue to store carbon throughout their useful life.
As long as the carbon remains stored in the wood, any increase in the overall volume of timber supply will reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Thus, an increased use of wood in construction is a simple way to combat climate change.
Since wood products store carbon, the atmosphere will remain free of that carbon as long as the wood product is being used and even after, if the product is re-used or recycled as a secondary raw material or for energy production.
The use of wood materials in construction can reduce CO2 emissions because they require less energy to manufacture than other building materials. 
The use of wood will kick-start the forestry and wood industry. We are seeing more and more buildings made of wood. Furthermore, wood is also being used together with steel and concrete. In my riding, an increasing number of tourism buildings are being built with concrete, steel and wood, which is becoming more popular. It will revitalize the wood industry.
The minister, my colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, has already said in an interview that more federal government buildings should be built with wood in order to revitalize the wood industry.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my esteemed colleague for introducing his bill. He and I are no doubt in similar situations. In Quebec, the forestry industry is obviously in trouble. I congratulate him for this bill, which may open new, although limited, markets. It is nonetheless a good initiative.
I would like to know what more the government could have done since coming to power to improve the situation of the forestry industry.
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
This has been talked about since 2005 or 2006 and bills were introduced in 2010. However, nothing has been done. The government should invest more.
It is a good thing that they invested heavily in the automobile industry in Ontario, but they should also have invested heavily in the forestry industry. In fact, they invested very little in this area.
If they invested more and there was more development, we could have secondary and tertiary processing, which would allow the industry to get back on its feet and rest a little easier.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague should go see an eye doctor because in recent years, our government has invested more than $632 million in Quebec's forestry industry to help it be more competitive and more effective. 
Could the hon. member talk about at least one initiative that our government has taken in his region? There have been many, but I am sure that he cannot even acknowledge a single one.
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to have my vision checked. The government invested $6 billion in Ontario's automotive industry, while Quebec and the rest of Canada received just a few million dollars. That is not very much.
The Conservative government abandoned the forestry sector and we are paying for it now. The mills are barely hanging on. There is a mill in my Liberal colleague's area that is closing its doors. In the Saguenay, there is a mill that is still for sale because there are no takers for the sawmill. 
If the government made investments, I am not sure where. It must be in Ontario.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this bill by my friend, the member for Jonquière—Alma.
This bill seeks to require preference be given to the concept that promotes the use of wood while taking into account the factors of cost and greenhouse gas emissions. The forestry sector has been in a huge decline for the last half a decade and Canada has shed over 130,000 jobs in that time.
I commend the hon. member on his excellent bill, and I will give him the opportunity to respond further, if he so chooses.
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, indeed, Canada has lost a lot of jobs in this industry. I have a list here and it is frightening.
Between 2009 and 2012, nearly 8,600 jobs were lost in Quebec alone, and between 2003 and 2008, more than 11,329 jobs were lost. In British Columbia, more than 6,000 jobs were lost. I did not just make these figures up. They come from Natural Resources Canada.
These jobs were lost and nothing was done to create diversity, invest in these companies and help them through the crisis. We are not just talking about conflicts over stumpage fees. We need to invest in research into new processes, build and give people jobs.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his bill. I have a simple question for him.
What is he hearing from his constituents who use wood to keep the industry going in his riding?
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
I think it is really difficult to do anything back home. A sawmill has been up for sale for six months, and no one is buying. There are closures all over the place. For example, a few years ago, we lost machine No. 6 at the Kénogami mill. They are looking at starting the machine up again.
Furthermore, there is a conflict over stumpage fees and other details, but that is another complex issue. I think that we should do secondary and tertiary processing. With this new engineered wood, companies are making wood beams that are just as solid as steel beams. That is what we need to develop.
People back home are starting to do it, but it is not easy.
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the government to speak to Bill C-574, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).
Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the intent of the bill, which is to strengthen the forestry sector. No one would dispute that seeking to strengthen various economic sectors of our country is a laudable goal. That is precisely why our government is so focused on jobs, economic growth, and prosperity for all sectors and all regions of our country.
That said, however, members who were present for the debate in 2010 on Bill C-429, which was identical to this legislation and which was defeated, will know that there are several reasons that this bill is fundamentally flawed. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that, even if passed, this legislation would strengthen the Canadian forestry sector it claims to help. 
While I could elaborate at length on the problems with this proposed legislation, I will limit my remarks to the key reasons that our government cannot support the bill.
First, the proposed bill contravenes Canada's legal obligation under the procurement provisions within our country's international and domestic trade agreements.
These agreements prohibit discrimination and unnecessary barriers to trade. Any legislation that were to amend the contract tendering requirements to encourage the use of forestry products or to give preference to a supplier who makes it a policy to use them would contravene Canada's trade obligations under NAFTA, the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and our free trade agreements with Chile and Peru.
This bill does not just contravene international trade agreements. In fact, under the Agreement on Internal Trade, government tender documents cannot require the use of specific materials unless they are needed for technical or operational reasons.
The Agreement on Internal Trade prohibits the introduction of a bias in the form of technological specifications in favour of, or against, particular goods or services, including those goods and services included in construction contracts.
Bill C-574 would also impair the capacity of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to fulfill her mandate as stipulated in her own legislation, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. 
By giving preference to the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal buildings, the bill indirectly promotes one sector over other, also essential, sectors of the Canadian economy. This would, by extension, favour the economies of some regions over others, in direct conflict with the mandate of Public Works and Government Services Canada, which has procurement processes in place to ensure openness, fairness, and transparency in order to obtain best value for the crown.
Let me also note that most PWGSC projects are large office buildings of more than four storeys, and the current national building code does not easily permit the use of combustible materials for the construction of buildings higher than four storeys.
That said, PWGSC already uses a large quantity of wood when fulfilling its responsibility to maintain buildings owned by the federal government and provide office space for public servants. The department spends approximately $160 million a year on office space and furnishings, and approximately 15% of that amount is put towards wood products.
While the Department of Public Works remains an important consumer of wood, our government also recognizes the importance of the forestry industry. It provides, and continues to provide, significant support to the forestry sector.
Given its long-standing importance to our country and to many communities, particularly smaller ones, the forestry sector has received a great deal of government attention in recent years.
Since 2006, our government has supported the forestry sector to the level of $1.8 billion, and it continues to invest in innovative new products, maintaining existing markets and pursuing new markets for Canadian forest products. 
To cite some examples, in 2010 the investments in forestry industry transformation program, or IFIT, was created to enable Canadian forest companies to lead the world in developing innovative technologies that improve efficiency, reduce environmental impacts, and create non-traditional, high-value products from Canada's world-class forest resources, and there have been some tremendous successes.
IFIT funding, for example, to the Tolko Industries Ltd. mill in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, helped the company develop innovative technology that allowed it to become the first in North America to produce different types of oriented strand board on a single production line. 
Under Canada's economic action plan 2014, IFIT was renewed for four more years to the tune of $90.4 million so that it can help support more breakthroughs like this one across the country.
The 2012 and 2013 economic action plans provided the forest innovation program with $197 million over four years. That program helps forestry companies innovate and adopt new technology. For example, the tall wood demonstration project initiative helped increase the export potential for forestry companies in both traditional markets and emerging onces, including China, India and the Middle East.
On the trade side, in 2012, the government announced the extension of the softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States through to the end of October 2015. That guaranteed that Canada's softwood lumber producers would have stable access to and fair market value in U.S. markets. That agreement came into effect in October 2006 and meant that more than $5 billion in U.S. tariffs went back into the pockets of Canadian producers.
It is also important to consider the possible unforeseen consequences if the bill were to pass. Greater demand for wood could lead to greater imports of wood products and that would certainly be of no help to the Canadian forest sector.
As I said earlier, the bill poses many legal and procurement issues that make it impossible for our government to support. In fact, in 2010 when the previous version of the bill was being debated, it is interesting to note that both opposition parties could not agree on a unified position when it came to the bill. The votes were split along regional and provincial lines and even many opposition members could see that the bill was fundamentally flawed and did not support it.
Of note, let me quote the current NDP critic for Public Works, the member for Winnipeg North, who during consideration of the previous identical version of the bill at committee said: 
 We really shouldn't be seized of the issue of what kind of flooring we're going to put into the next public building that we build. It's almost insulting, frankly, for us to be using our time on this. I mean, are we going to have a private members' bill to dictate what kind of curtains we put in the next building we build? I'm starting to get frustrated with this. 
While most of the NDP caucus voted against the bill, the current leader of the NDP, the member for Outremont, supported it.
 Interestingly enough, the Liberal Party was also deeply divided on this legislation, with the current Liberal Finance and National Revenue critic, the member for Kings—Hants, voting against the bill and the current Liberal leader, the member for Papineau, supporting it.
 It will be interesting to see if the current NDP and Liberal leaders will continue to support this flawed legislation, which clearly seeks to unfairly favour one sector over the others and, by extension, seeks to unfairly favour one province and region at the expense of others.
I would like to reiterate that the legislation and its fundamental flaws will not allow our government to support the bill. Today we are seeing Canada's forest sector evolve into a modern, innovative industry with its sights set on new markets, new ways of using wood and new ways to maximize value from forest fibre. Our government is happy and proud to continue playing an important role in supporting these exciting new developments and we do just that because we recognize how important it is to our economy and to our country.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to today's debate on Bill C-574. Contrary to what my Conservative colleague just said, this bill is proposing a rather interesting idea that deserves to be explored further in the House.
The idea is to require that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, before soliciting bids for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal buildings and federal real property, give preference to the concept that promotes the use of wood while taking into account the factors of cost and greenhouse gas emissions.
This idea is part of a sustainable development approach, which might partly explain why the Conservative government does not seem to want to support it. Sustainable development does not seem to be on its radar. We see how the government allows the haphazard and unrestricted development of our natural resources at the expense of a number of economic sectors and the lives of Canadians.
Sustainable development is important to the NDP. It is with that in mind that I am supporting Bill C-574 at second reading, in the hope that we continue to study it in committee. If there are any problems with the bill, that would be the best time to discuss it and propose amendments that might be needed. However, to do so, we need to study the bill more closely. The bill therefore needs to be referred to committee.
The use of wood in construction is a concept that is starting to take off, especially in Quebec, but also in other regions of Canada. Last year, the Government of Quebec adopted a wood charter, in order to have public works managers assess, for each publicly funded project, the possibility of using wood as construction material. This would also include calculating the greenhouse gas emissions in comparison with other types of materials. 
Because that charter was adopted, contractors in Quebec can now build buildings up to six storeys high out of wood, as well as other kinds of infrastructure, such as bridges, for example. Since wood is a sustainable and renewable resource that compares favourably to other building materials, specifically regarding greenhouse gas emissions, I think this alternative needs to be explored.
By using more wood, the government could also save a lot of money, not only when public buildings are being built, but also in the long term. Operating and maintenance costs for buildings made of wood are 55% lower than for buildings made of other materials. 
Never mind the issue of sustainable development, I will speak a language that the Conservatives understand: economics. Saving 55% on operating and maintenance costs is significant, to say nothing of the savings that can be had at the time of construction by using wood. These factors should not be dismissed out of hand when new federal building projects are assessed. 
Furthermore, the new opportunities that would arise from the increased use of wood in various construction projects could definitely help create more good jobs in rural or remote regions of Quebec, of course, but also many other areas of Canada. This is very important.
The Canadian forest products industry is one of Canada's largest employers. It provides 230,000 direct jobs in 200 communities across Canada. The benefits of using more wood in federal buildings would be visible from coast to coast to coast. We must bear that in mind when evaluating this kind of legislation. This could mean economic benefits for every province and territory. This is very important.
Among the 200 communities that boast jobs directly related to the forestry industy, several are municipalities in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where the forestry industry has always played a very important role in the regional economy. For instance, in the Portneuf RCM, which includes 18 municipalities, over 1,400 people are employed in the forestry industry, mainly in wood processing.
In addition to veneer, door and window plants, there are also many sawmills in the Portneuf RCM. The forestry industry also played a major role in first attracting people to live in the Portneuf RCM.
The situation is similar in the Jacques-Cartier RCM, which includes nine municipalities. In addition to its historic role in the settlement and development of the Jacques-Cartier region, the forestry industry continues to be important to the regional economy, mainly because of the businesses working in secondary and tertiary processing of wood products.
By passing a bill such as Bill C-574, we could create good jobs in ridings such as mine and in a sector that has experienced major difficulties in recent years. My riding was not spared by the crises in the manufacturing and forestry industries. A few years ago, the AbitibiBowater plant in Donnacona closed its doors, leaving employees without jobs, resources or pensions. The Conservative government of the day refused to take action, which was very unfortunate. The MP at the time—I cannot remember if he was an independent or a Conservative—was not of much help to the people of Donnacona, who were directly affected by the AbitibiBowater plant closure.
That is why members introduce bills such as Bill C-574. They do so to address some of the problems in remote rural regions where it can be difficult to create good jobs that provide adequate income for households in the area.
At present, in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, municipalities have used wood in a number of commercial buildings. The results are quite interesting. This was made possible by the leadership of the municipal councils, but also with the support of the Province of Quebec, which strongly supports the use of wood as a construction material in public buildings and public works.
I would like to give an example that is quite beautiful to see. I invite you to come and visit this building. In 2010, the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs built its head office in Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures in my riding. It decided to use wood for both the interior and the exterior of the building. The result is beautiful, and the building blends in well with its natural surroundings. In 2011, this building and the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs even received a cecobois award of excellence. The Centre d'expertise sur la construction commerciale en bois or cecobois is an organization that seeks to promote and support the use of wood in multi-family and non-residential construction in Quebec. Of course, it also promotes the use of local resources, such as wood, and tries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while supporting more responsible economic development based on the principles of sustainable development. An organization that demonstrated this type of leadership can be found in Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures.
More recently, on September 24, the Centre d'expertise sur la construction commerciale en bois also presented two awards of excellence to municipalities in the Portneuf RCM: Cap-Santé and Portneuf. Cap-Santé built a multi-purpose facility, called the Maison des générations, which will be used by various organizations in the community. A lot of wood was used, and the results are extraordinary. In Portneuf, Bishop Bridge is a wonderful structure made predominantly of wood.
These two municipalities are good models, and the government should look at what was done and how the communities benefited from these projects. It should play a leadership role to try to ensure that the principles of sustainable development are upheld, to help Canadians save money and to promote development in a sector that has lost a lot of jobs in recent years.
That is why I support Bill C-574. I hope that we will have the opportunity to take this bill further and at least examine it in committee so that we can seriously discuss and study it.
Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we need to once again address the difficulties that producers and processors in the forestry industry are grappling with. Bill C-574 is fundamentally related to the ongoing crisis in one of our country's oldest industries. We have been helplessly watching the demise of our forestry industry in forests from British Columbia to New Brunswick. Paper mills are dropping like flies and the recent announcement of the mill closures in East Angus and Shawinigan, in Quebec, confirm this strong trend that is undermining our industry. 
Forestry producers are not only required to go further to get raw materials, but they also have to compete with new technologies and other replacement products in the construction industry.
As we know, the need for paper is dropping. Research and development in Canada is at a standstill, despite the importance of the forestry industry to our economy. Tens of thousands of jobs depend on this industry, which is hundreds of years old. In Mauricie, entire communities depend on wood—from logging to its transport, processing and marketing.
We are still shocked by the slow erosion of our forestry industry and especially by the inaction of governments in response to the disappearance of thousands of specialized jobs in Canada. Since the first lumber camps opened in Mauricie, forestry has fed families and communities and has been a part of the region's social and economic fabric.
Much like other regions of Canada that rely on forestry, we are still waiting for concrete action to revitalize these companies that are being threatened by changing technologies and globalization. However, using more wood is a realistic solution to address the economic problems of the regions, if only because of the diversity of production and our expertise.
From timber to softwood lumber, there are many possible solutions to address today's industrial needs. We have been blessed with all this wood around us, but considering that the government's efforts have been largely symbolic, we cannot say that we are out of the woods.
Legislation on the use of wood in federal building projects is a no-brainer, but why is it that we have not already developed the instinct to include our own primary resources in our infrastructure? These days, many young people are leaving the regions because there are no jobs. The federal government, with its employment insurance system, sends them a clear message that they should leave rather than invest in their communities.
It is strange, to say the least, that we have to convince this government of the regenerating capacity of our forests. Logs from our forests are fueling softwood lumber industries all around the world. When will we get a real lumber policy that will make a difference here at home, in our communities?
The time has come to take action in response to the plant closures that are tearing our industrial base apart. We need forestry policies right now to save an industry that operates in many regions across Canada. Our country has always had these vast forests that, over the centuries, have helped us prosper around the world. What kind of policies can we create now to develop this industry in the context of globalization and bilateral and multilateral agreements?
The resource is there, and as new technologies emerge, we need to take action. Sustainable development and air pollution are the focus of public debate, and without a doubt, our forestry resources are part of the solution. 
At the local level, municipalities and business owners support including wood and wood waste in the economic cycle of production and consumption. Efforts such as using biomass to heat institutional facilities are starting to pay off. 
We are at the dawn of a wood revolution, and we are seeing wood included in new technologies. We need to give ourselves the chance to continue to prosper, with the help of these industries that are the backbone of our regions. Let us be forward thinking and develop policies to promote the forestry industry, not just because it has economic value, but also because these products have environmental value and have no equivalent in the construction industry.
It goes without saying that we should incorporate wood into our federal infrastructure, but the ultimate goal is for the government to promote wood production at the national level. We are distressed by the recent closure of paper mills in Quebec, and we urge decision-makers to agree on a national wood policy in order to put an end to the demolition of an industry that helped build our nation. Jobs are being lost and communities are dying. When will the government react and invest in research and development?
We are not asking for government funds to be allocated without any kind of coordination or planning. We are looking for a national policy that will include solutions that come from the industry itself. 
[Interjection]
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of order. 
In my remarks earlier, I quoted the NDP critic for public works and I indicated he was the member for Winnipeg North. I should have said he is the member for Winnipeg Centre.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member, and that is so noted.
Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we know, forestry is part of our history and identity as Canadians, and I would like to thank the member for Jonquière—Alma for introducing the bill. It provides me with an opportunity to discuss our country's vital forest sector.
While the bill is problematic, and I will touch on some of my concerns later on in my remarks, I can appreciate the desire to support our forestry industry. Our government shares this appreciation, and is in fact already acting upon this in significant ways.
Further to the points previously raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, allow me to describe in greater detail some of the ways that our government has demonstrated consistent support for the forestry sector. 
Economic action plan 2014 continues to make unprecedented investments to innovate Canada's forestry sector and to protect it from the threat of pests. Today this sector provides direct employment for over 235,000 workers in every part of our country, and it is a particularly important employer in rural and remote communities. In fact, in 200 communities, it accounts for at least half of the economic base.
However, the forestry sector has faced some challenges over the last decade. These challenges have come about due to a variety of factors, including the worldwide economic downturn, the stronger Canadian dollar, a structural decline in North American newsprint demand, and increased competition from other forest products. 
Yet, the tide is turning. I am pleased to report that forestry sector markets are rebounding and market expansion efforts are proving successful. Jobs and the economy are the top priorities of this government, and since 2006 our government has provided over $1.8 billion in various initiatives to support the economic competitiveness and environmental sustainability of Canada's forestry sector. This includes investments in developing new markets, supporting innovation, and reducing the industry's environmental footprint. Thanks in part to this support, Canada's forestry industry is reinventing itself, by becoming more innovative, more environmentally friendly, and more global in reach. It is adopting innovation as part of its new business model.
How is all of this happening? A main hub of the forest sector innovation system in Canada is the not-for-profit organization FPInnovations, which our government helped to create in 2007. Today, FPInnovations is the world's largest public-private forest products research institute. Comprised of Canada's three national research institutes and Natural Resources Canada's Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, FPInnovations focuses on the development of emerging and breakthrough technologies, such as biomass harvesting and conversion, and nanotechnology. It conducts forest products research under NRCan's forest innovation program and is a partner in deploying promising new technologies into the forest products industry.
The investments in the forest industry transformation program, or IFIT, go another step forward. Through this program, our government is helping to see that new first-of-their-kind products, technologies, and processes with demonstrated value are brought to market. Our government has already supported 14 world-class or Canada-first projects, and economic action plan 2014 has committed more than $90 million to the program over the next four years.
A great example of a project that has benefited from IFIT is the one at Lauzon, in Papineauville, Quebec, a collaboration with the Centre de recherche industrielle du Québec and FPInnovations. In a global first, Lauzon is piloting Canadian-developed scanning technology that allows it to classify and sort logs in order to increase the amount of wood fibre recovered to 70%, compared to the current industry standard of 40%. 
The capacity to convert low-quality wood fibre into customized unfinished flooring planks greatly increases the value that Lauzon obtains from each log. This technology could potentially be replicated in other hardwood flooring mills, thus benefiting the wider industry.
In another great project, Kruger Biomaterials Inc. is building a demonstration plant in Trois-Rivières for the commercialization of cellulose filaments, which are used in papermaking to soften, strengthen, and brighten paper. This Canadian innovation is another exciting world first, and as such will provide Canada with an immediate competitive advantage.
Strong, light, recyclable, and made without effluents, cellulose filaments have such a wide array of non-traditional uses that they have the potential to radically transform Canada's forestry sector.
Last December, Natural Resources Canada announced a $15 million investment in the commercialization facility, complementing earlier investments in R and D undertaken by FPinnovations. It is investments like these that are helping to shape the forestry sector of tomorrow.
Other investments have helped develop and expand markets.
 In economic action plan 2012, $105 million over two years was announced to support forestry sector innovation and market development.
In economic action plan 2013, our government committed to an additional $92 million over two years, starting in 2014-15, to develop innovative new products and to diversify our markets. This market diversification strategy has helped Canada's wood products sector increase its exports in some rapidly growing Asian economies over the last decade.
For example, our government's focus on expanding export markets has resulted in a 1,000% increase of Canadian softwood lumber exports to China. Further, the value of Canadian wood products exports to China increased almost 24-fold between 2002 and 2012 to $1.4 billion.
In other trade-related activities, in 2012 our government announced the extension of the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement until October 2015, providing stable access to the U.S. market, and under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement announced last fall, our world-class wood products would enjoy preferential access to, and increased demand from, the EU's member states.
It is no secret that expanding markets mean more jobs for Canadians, and that is good news for the economy and good news for Canadian families.
There are many other initiatives I could mention. However, with my limited time remaining, let me just mention the $18 million over four years announced in economic action plan 2014 for an action plan to assist eastern Canada in combatting the spruce budworm outbreak. Along with our government's other strategic investments, this investment is intended to help the industry and communities maintain their recovery momentum
I would now like to turn my attention to the reasons that I cannot support the bill. 
While I certainly appreciate the desire to assist the forestry industry, this legislation has fundamental flaws that make it very problematic. If passed, Bill C-574 would contravene Canada's obligations under its international and domestic trade agreements, such as NAFTA, WTO, and the Agreement on Internal Trade.
Furthermore, by advocating an amendment to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to mandate the use of wood in the construction, maintenance, or repair of public works real property, the bill is in effect introducing an untenable bias into the procurement process.
Government contracting and procurement processes are in place to ensure openness, fairness, and transparency. Mandating the drafting of tender requirements to include a preference for wood products would grant an unfair advantage to suppliers proposing wood solutions at the expense of other important sectors of our economy, such as the steel industry and the concrete industry, for example.
In closing, our government's top priority is to create jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for all sectors of our economy, including the forestry industry. That is why we are making significant investments in forest industry innovation and expanding markets for Canada's wood products sector, and it is why we are committed to continuing to support the forest sector and to achieve real results for Canadians, something the bill fails to do.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
It being 2:50 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:50 p.m.)