2014-09-26

Government Orders
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from September 22 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act.
Bill C-36 would fill the gap created by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Bedford decision, which would result in the decriminalization of most adult prostitution-related activities if Bill C-36 is not in force before the expiry of the court's one-year suspension. I know with deep appreciation that the House of Commons justice committee and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied the bill during the summer recess in recognition of the Supreme Court's one-year time limit.
We have heard numerous criticisms of Bill C-36 from those people who oppose its approach, an approach that reflects a fundamental paradigm shift toward the treatment of prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation by criminalizing those who fuel the demand for prostitution and continuing to criminalize those who capitalize on that demand.
These criticisms include that the bill does not respect the Bedford decision, assertion one; that it should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for determination of its constitutionality, assertion two; and ultimately that the Bedford decision requires decriminalization of adult prostitution, assertion three. I propose to address each of these three assertions in turn.
With respect to the first assertion, that the bill does not respect the Bedford decision, the Supreme Court of Canada defined in Bedford the objectives of the three impugned prostitution offences narrowly as addressing primarily the nuisance aspect of prostitution rather than its harms. In doing so, it came to the conclusion that the effect of these offences was either grossly disproportionate or overbroad with respect to its objectives because they prevented sellers of sexual services from taking steps to protect themselves when engaging in a risky but legal activity. Specifically, existing provisions do not permit selling sexual services from fixed indoor locations, which was found to be the safest way to sell sex; hiring legitimate bodyguards; or negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places.
Bill C-36 comprehensively responds to these concerns. First, it articulates its new elevated objectives in its preamble. No longer would the law focus on addressing the nuisance aspects of prostitution. Bill C-36 is clearly targeted at addressing the exploitation involved in the practice and the harms it causes to those involved, to communities and to society at large by normalizing a practice that targets those who are disadvantaged, including because of gender, race, youth, poverty or a history of abuse.
Second, the scope of Bill C-36's proposed new and modernized offences is consistent with its objectives. Bill C-36 primarily targets the purchasers, those who fuel the demand for prostitution, and third parties, those who capitalize on that demand. Moreover, the proposed purchasing offence would make the prostitution transaction illegal. No longer would prostitution be a legal activity.
Bill C-36 would also immunize from prosecution those who are viewed as the vulnerable party to that illegal transaction, the sellers. Only in certain narrow circumstances would that group be held criminally liable, where their actions harm other vulnerable members of society, our children.
The justice committee narrowed the proposed “communicating offence” to apply only where communications for the purpose of selling sexual services occur in public places that are next to locations designated for use by children, namely, school grounds, playgrounds and daycare centres. The Senate committee heard that this narrowed offence clearly delineates the parameters of criminal liability and strikes the right balance between the protection of sellers and the protection of children who could be drawn into prostitution through exposure to the practice or harmed by dangerous refuse left behind, such as condoms and syringes. Furthermore, Bill C-36 would not prevent the implementation of certain safety measures noted in Bedford.
Specifically, Bill C-36 would not prevent selling sexual services from a fixed indoor location, hiring legitimate bodyguards or negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places, other than in those three child-specific locations I have already mentioned. This does not mean that Bill C-36 would facilitate or authorize the sale of sexual services. On the contrary, just as the bill seeks to reduce the purchase of sexual services, so it also seeks to reduce the sale of those services. While we work toward achieving the bill's objectives, those who remain subjected to prostitution should not be prevented from taking the measures that the Supreme Court of Canada found to be the most safety-enhancing.
Some witnesses before the two committees found this approach contradictory and therefore constitutionally suspect. I cannot agree. In my view, this approach recognizes the power imbalance that often accompanies the prostitution transaction. In too many cases this transaction does not involve two consenting autonomous individuals 
Asymmetry in the application of the criminal law to the prostitution transaction recognizes that so often prostitution involves the purchase of sexual acts by those with money and power from those with little money and less power. In particular, prostitution allows men, who are primarily the purchasers of sexual services, paid access to female bodies, thereby demeaning and degrading the human dignity of all women and girls by entrenching a clearly gendered practice in Canadian society.
 This brings me to the second assertion, that Bill C-36 should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for constitutional analysis. I stress that the Bedford case constitutes a constitutional analysis on these very issues and I have just referred to the many ways in which the decision influenced the development of the bill. Moreover, we have heard academics tell the two committees that constitutional cases need a solid evidentiary foundation as to the effects of the legislation. The evidence adduced in Bedford does not provide that record in respect to Bill C-36, which has different objectives and proposes new prostitution offences. In short, it would be premature to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for its constitutional analysis at this stage.
 I note, however, that the Minister of Justice tabled a technical paper with both parliamentary committees that summarizes the evidence relied upon in the development of Bill C-36. The technical paper is also available on the department's website.
The third assertion is that Bedford requires decriminalization. There are those who claim that Bedford stands for the proposition that the law must allow the purchase and sale of sexual services in fixed indoor locations; the employment of bodyguards, receptionists and others who may enhance safety; and all public communications for the purpose of selling or purchasing sexual services. However, this reading of the Bedford case ignores the fact that the court analyzed the three impugned provisions in their existing legal context. This context makes adult prostitution a legal activity and as held in Bedford, reduces the objectives of existing prostitution-related offences to combatting primarily the nuisance effects of prostitution. Moreover, this interpretation of Bedford ignores the Supreme Court of Canada's clear statement that Parliament is not precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted.
Those who read Bedford as requiring decriminalization appear to have forgotten the premise of the Supreme Court of Canada's analysis, that prostitution is currently a legal activity. In that context, the court found that sellers cannot be prevented from implementing safety measures. However, Bedford does not stand for the proposition that prostitution must be recognized as work like any other and those involved in the trade, be they sellers, so-called managers, or other third parties.
Bill C-36 fundamentally alters the premise on which the Supreme Court of Canada's constitutional analysis was based. It makes prostitution illegal because it is too dangerous and poses too great a harm to those involved, the communities in which it is practised, and society at large to entrench it as a form of work recognized by law. Bill C-36 posits that doing so would increase the sex trade, and concomitantly, increase the risk of vulnerable persons being drawn into it. The Bedford case does not preclude such an approach, rather it opens the door to it.
Bill C-36 is a welcome change to the criminal law's approach to prostitution. It recognizes that entrenching prostitution as a legitimate profession by facilitating it through decriminalization would result in more vulnerable persons being drawn into it. I do not think this is the type of society to which we should aspire.
I implore my fellow parliamentarians to stand with those who have been subjected to prostitution by force or through lack of meaningful options, some of whom courageously testified before the two committees and were silenced by prostitution's oppression. I ask all members to stand with me in support of the bill, which was specifically developed to protect vulnerable persons from oppression.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a subject that has captured the interest of many people across Canada. I remember near the end of the summer having a number of ladies visit me in my office and urge me to support the bill. They are very concerned about the protection, especially of women and girls.
One of the things that many constituents have also suggested is that we should just legalize it and that would end the problem. I was wondering if my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, could give some feedback from other jurisdictions that have used various models. We have sometimes heard in the House about the so-called Swedish model. We have heard about legalization. I would be interested in helping myself and my constituents understand better what the implications are and have been for those jurisdictions that have gone ahead with legalization.
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very relevant question.
Studies that have been conducted on other countries that have legalized or decriminalized prostitution—New Zealand, Australia, Holland, Germany—have found that in cases where it has been legalized, there has been a direct increase in human trafficking. There has also been a huge increase in the number of very violent crimes against the sex workers, so those who are vulnerable, because of legalization, have become increasingly more vulnerable.
However, in the case of Sweden, which is the Nordic model, from which we drew some of the best parts and of course formed our own Canadian model, what was found was that the number of sex offences decreased, the number of workers withdrew, there were social programs put in place to help those who wanted to withdraw, and there was notably a decrease in the sex trade, which is what we are trying to do with this very bill.
Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague opposite. Does he feel that this bill will criminalize someone who is severely disabled, has no sex life and calls on an escort?
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, that is a somewhat exceptional situation, but I see no exception for people who are disabled. It will never be legal to purchase sexual services in Canada. The goal is to protect the vulnerable because we know that this activity is extremely dangerous.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the criticisms of this government has been its general attitude in dealing with some of the social issues in communities. In Winnipeg North, for example, there are many entry points where individuals get involved, whether it is with prostitution, drugs or other issues. These are very strong social concerns.
Could the member explain why it is that the Conservatives seem, despite talking about $20 million over x number of years, to have really fallen short? Why not support our communities by being more proactive, by looking at ways in which we can prevent our young people in particular from getting into activities such as prostitution, selling drugs and some of those minor crimes, and invest in our young people? Why is that not happening with the government?
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, certainly on the topic of prostitution this government is committed to initially, and I do say initially, invest $20 million over five years to develop programs to withdraw those who willingly want to withdraw from the area of prostitution.
When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable, obviously our children, we have struck a balance and made it an offence to sell sexual services in areas where children could be available, because we do not want to expose them to used condoms or to an otherwise unacceptable social activity.
Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to 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.
In December 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the Criminal Code imposes dangerous conditions on sex workers, which contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The sections prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients threaten sex workers’ right to security of the person.
This bill is meant to respond to the Bedford decision. However, the exact opposite is happening. The NDP consulted many legal experts, stakeholder groups, sex workers and authorities who are affected by this bill, and that is in addition to the 75 witnesses who appeared in committee. The vast majority of them said that they do not believe the bill is going in the right direction.
Unfortunately, there are many problems with the bill. In short, it forces sex trade workers to work in even more dangerous conditions. They are putting themselves in danger because they have to be more isolated. They will be on the streets and in alleys. The bill perpetuates and exacerbates stigmatization. It does not take into account the opinions of experts, education and advocacy groups or sex trade workers. It will have a negative impact on the important process of negotiating the parameters of the transaction, safety, the client's choice and the consent of the parties involved. What is more, for these reasons and in light of the 2013 Bedford decision, experts have found that the bill is unconstitutional.
In short, the Conservatives want a model where sex trade workers are only approached in the street late at night, where they are unable to ask questions or take safety precautions to protect their bodies and their lives.
I would like to read an open letter signed by more than 200 legal experts from across Canada. They are calling on the federal government to examine the harmful and unconstitutional impact of this bill. The letter reads:
 Bill C-36...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 (Attorney General) v. Bedford (“Bedford”), 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 (“the Charter”). 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. 
 The prohibition on purchasing sexual services (and communicating anywhere for that purpose) will have much the same effect as existing adult prostitution laws. Targeting clients will displace sex workers to isolated areas where prospective customers are less likely to be detected by police. Such criminalization will continue to limit the practical ability of sex workers to screen their clients or negotiate the terms of the transaction, as there will be pressure from clients to proceed as quickly as possible. Sex workers will continue to face barriers to police protection and will be prevented from operating in a safe indoor space, as clients face the potential of being arrested if they attend such spaces. 
 As a result, while criminalizing the purchase of sexual services is said to be aimed at protecting sex workers, this type of criminal prohibition will in fact do what the current adult prostitution laws do, which is to subject sex workers to a greater risk to their safety. This constitutes the reason why such laws were invalidated in the Bedford judgment. 
 Bill C-36 also proposes a law that will prohibit the sex industry from advertising. This type of prohibition will significantly limit sex workers’ ability to work safely indoors, as it restricts their ability to communicate their services to potential clients. This is concerning considering that the Court in Bedford clearly found that the ability to operate in indoor venues is a key measure for sex workers to reduce the risk of violence. 
 We would also like to address the proposed prohibition on communication to offer sexual services in a public place.... This provision continues to criminalize street-based sex workers, who are among the most marginalized segment of the industry, and is only marginally narrower than what the Court struck down in Bedford. The law will have the same effect of displacing sex workers to isolated areas where they are more likely to work alone in order to avoid police detection, and where they will continue to rush into vehicles without taking the time to screen clients and negotiate the terms of the transaction. 
The letter has been signed by over 200 legal experts, and I think it explains very clearly why we, as legislators, cannot support this bill. The letter is readily accessible to all online; it can be found among the press releases on the Pivot Legal Society website. That organization, one of the signatories to the letter, works to address the root causes of poverty and social exclusion through legislation and policy, exploring what forces people to live on the fringes of society and what keeps them in difficult situations.
Whatever my hon. colleagues' personal beliefs are on the matter, we are going to have find a way to agree on how to respond to the requirements set out in the Bedford decision. This letter shows that the measures proposed in the bill go against those requirements.
We also need to guarantee the safety of sex workers, as directed by the court in the Bedford decision. However, this bill does the opposite by treating sex workers like criminals and putting their safety and their lives at risk.
Furthermore, this bill is unconstitutional, like many bills this government introduces, and too often they put the safety of the most marginalized people in Canada at risk. This includes aboriginal populations, women, transgendered people, refugees, people in the LGBTT community, and so on.
Again and again, the Conservatives try to protect the people they judge to be victims. However, in doing so, they marginalize them more. The government takes away their capacity for self-determination, which is just as important to human dignity as it is to protecting oneself, being safe and living a full life.
Everyone in Canada has a right to live free from violence and the risk of violence. As legislators, it is our duty to think about at-risk populations and help them reduce that risk. Bill C-36 flies in the face of this duty by increasing the risk of violence and death for a population working in an extremely dangerous profession.
Almost all experts agree. Not only did the Conservative government fail in its attempt to draft a proper bill, but because of it, we are also faced with the very disturbing possibility that the lives of sex workers will be deliberately and intentionally put in danger.
I therefore ask all of my colleagues in the House to vote against this bill.
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest. She recently heard the response of the parliamentary secretary in response to a question I posed regarding the experience of other jurisdictions that have implemented some form of what we sometimes refer to as the Nordic model. It is clear that the bill we have before us is crafted after that but is a huge improvement.
I am wondering how she can ignore the lived experience of communities, jurisdictions, and other nations that have gone a different route and experienced a rise in prostitution. Those who have implemented a variation of the Nordic model have seen an increase in safety for women and girls who are vulnerable to trafficking.
[Interjection]
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that my colleague did not really listen to my speech.
He thinks it is the Nordic model, but that is not true in the least. This bill actually criminalizes women by taking away the means to do their job. Our priority is the safety of sex workers. It is obvious that this is not the Conservative government's priority with Bill C-36. The bill flies in the face of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Bedford case, which struck down three provisions of the law that put sex workers at even greater risk.
This bill criminalizes these men and women even more and puts them in greater danger. It runs completely counter to what the government claims to be doing, which is helping the people in this trade. It is awful to see this government constantly contradicting the Supreme Court and marginalizing Canadians.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is because of the Supreme Court ruling in Bedford that we have legislation before us today.
One of the challenges that the government has failed to meet is the whole issue of future constitutional challenges with regard to the current legislation if it were to become law. When we have asked for legal opinions to support that the legislation being provided is constitutionally sound and would pass, our understanding is that the response has been very negative.
In presentations at the committee stage, from what I understand there was lawyer after lawyer suggesting that the current legislation will not pass constitutional scrutiny. I am wondering if the member wants to provide some thoughts on the fact that when the House of Commons passes legislation there should be some sense that it will meet constitutional requirements.
[Interjection]
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, we should not have to read in the House letters signed by 200 legal experts stating that a bill is contrary to a Supreme Court decision. This government clearly does not know how to govern on behalf of Canadians or how to work with the Supreme Court and respect Canadian law. By contradicting Supreme Court decisions, the Conservatives show that they have no respect for law and order, even though they claim to champion these ideals.
The NDP wants to work in a progressive manner to develop a comprehensive strategy to protect and support the men and women who do this work and to empower them. That is what needs to be done in order to take them out of dangerous situations.
Once again, this government is doing the opposite. It is marginalizing Canadians, our permanent residents, our refugees and members of our trans community. It constantly flies in the face of Canadian law and puts Canadians in danger. That is really appalling. This government has got to go.
Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join third reading debate on Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act. This bill would ensure that the Supreme Court of Canada's Bedford decision does not result in the decriminalization of most prostitution-related activities when the Supreme Court's one-year suspension expires on December 20.
Both the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied Bill C-36 this summer and heard from numerous witnesses, many of whom agree that decriminalization of prostitution would result in an increase in the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable groups in our society.
We have heard much about the proposed prostitution reforms of Bill C-36. These reforms reflect a fundamental paradigm shift toward treatment of prostitution for what it is: a form of sexual exploitation of, primarily, women and girls. We know that those who suffer socio-economic disadvantage are targeted by prostitution. We know that prostitution involves high rates of violence and trauma.
 The committees have heard those stories from courageous survivors who came forth to tell their stories, stories that are supported by relevant research. This bill responds to this evidence. Its objectives are to reduce the incidence of prostitution, discourage entry into it, deter participation in it and ultimately abolish it to the greatest extent possible.
 Bill C-36 contains other related amendments as well. I would like to focus on these aspects of the bill.
The bill recognizes that prostitution is linked to human trafficking. In fact, research shows that jurisdictions that have decriminalized or legalized prostitution have larger sex industries and experience higher rates of human trafficking for sexual exploitation. This is not surprising. Allowing the purchase and sale of sexual services results in an increase in demand for those services, and an increase in demand results in an increase in supply.
Research tells us who is at risk of meeting that demand: society's most vulnerable, those who are disadvantaged by sex, youth, poverty, race, drug addiction, a history of abuse. This group is equally vulnerable to the coercive practices of those who would exploit them for their own gain.
Prostitution and human trafficking exist along a continuum. For example, a person may decide to sell their own sexual services to pay rent, feed their children or just survive.
That person may be recruited or forced to work for those who would exploit her, or she may seek out the protective services of those same people, thinking that they will protect her when engaged in an inherently dangerous activity.
The concern is that it is in the economic interests of those so-called protectors to exploit the prostitution of those they claim to protect. What may have been originally conceived of as a mutually beneficial relationship can quickly become exploitative and abusive.
Traffickers use all manner of practices to keep their victims providing the services from which they profit. They threaten their victims and their victims' families, they assault, they sexually assault and they forcibly confine them. They leave their victims with no choice other than to provide the services demanded of them.
Bill C-36’s reforms would assist in preventing this trajectory by criminalizing those who fuel the demand for sexual services and those who capitalize on that demand.
When prostitution-related conduct becomes human trafficking-related conduct, the bill would increase the penalties to ensure that traffickers would be held to account for the horrific human rights abuses in which they engaged.
Specifically, Bill C-36 would impose mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, any time a person commits any of the human trafficking offences against a child.
Although the Criminal Code currently imposes mandatory minimum penalties for trafficking children, it does not impose MMPs for receiving a material benefit from child trafficking or for withholding or destroying documents to facilitate child trafficking. Bill C-36 would fill this gap. MMPs of two years and one year respectively would apply to this conduct, which is consistent with the MMPs proposed for child prostitution.
The bill would also impose MMPs for the offence that prohibits human trafficking. Individuals convicted of human trafficking would receive a minimum sentence of five years if they committed kidnapping, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault or if they caused the death of the victim, and four years in all other cases.
This is consistent with existing penalties for child trafficking of six and five years in these same circumstances. Bill C-36 properly addresses the continuum of criminal behaviour associated with the provision of sexual services for consideration.
The fact that prostitution may, and does, result in human trafficking for sexual exploitation underscores the importance of prohibiting prostitution. The bill would ensure that the penalties for all of these related offences would be commensurate with the harmful conduct they censure.
Bill C-36 would also amend the definition of weapon in section 2 of the Criminal Code.
This amendment would ensure that offenders who possessed weapons of restraint, such as handcuffs, rope or duct tape, with the intent to commit an offence or to use such weapons to commit a violent offence would be held to account. Specifically, the amendment would clarify that.
First, possession of a weapon of restraint with intent to commit an offence constitutes criminal conduct under the offence prohibiting possession of weapon with intent to commit an offence.
Second, using a weapon of restraint to commit an assault or sexual assault would constitute criminal conduct under the offence prohibiting assault with a weapon or the offence prohibiting sexual assault with a weapon, depending on the facts of the case.
This approach would provide greater protection to all victims of these offences, including those who would sell their own sexual services. We know that sexual assault and assault are offences to which sellers of sexual services are particularly vulnerable.
Bill C-36 is more than just a response to the Bedford decision. It is also a response to the complex web of criminal conduct associated with prostitution.
It would provide law enforcement with powerful tools to address the many safety and societal concerns posed by prostitution.
Most importantly, it sends a strong message that Canada does not tolerate a practice that targets the most vulnerable in our society and places them at risk of suffering unspeakable and unimaginable human rights abuses.
Bill C-36 would clarify that it would not acceptable for those with money and power to buy sexual services from those without money and power.
I stand in support of this message and of a society that does not tolerate the many harms and abuses associated with prostitution. It will come at no surprise that I stand in support of Bill C-36.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague from Ottawa—Orléans for his speech. I do not agree with him, but his speech was well thought out.
Unfortunately, the bill before us does not seem to reflect the Supreme Court's ruling, which dealt with the safety of women and not with criminalizing prostitution. As the parliamentary secretary and member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe said, this does not prevent women from engaging in prostitution in a protected area away from the street.
As pointed out in the Supreme Court ruling and the testimony, a safe and secure place is not necessarily a place where women can engage in prostitution.
Does the member agree with the leader of the NDP, who says that the bill should better reflect the Supreme Court's ruling and not just focus on criminalization?
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, this bill clearly does not criminalize sex workers. The bill criminalizes the pimps—the people who profit off of these vulnerable people.
I have been here for nearly nine years. In everything I do here I try to help the most vulnerable people. I do not understand why members of the official opposition cannot recognize that the most vulnerable members of society are those who are forced to sell their bodies. These people will not be criminalized by this bill. This bill will criminalize those who abuse these vulnerable people and who mistreat them with impunity.
When I was a municipal councillor, I was against objectifying women. I did the same as a library trustee, and I will do the same here, in Parliament.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I shake my head at the member's comments. He talks about the fact that this does not criminalized those individuals who are involved in the sex trade, and that is true. However, the end result of this legislation would certainly put their safety and security at extreme risk. This is the reality.
The Minister of Justice, when he was announcing the bill, said something along the lines of “prostitution ends here”. Are the Conservatives dreaming in Technicolor? This legislation would drive the trade underground and put at risk the safety and security of those individuals. The government has failed to look at that point.
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the objectification of women should be a proposal in the House.
We are trying to protect the most vulnerable people in society. We are doing this, not by punishing them but by punishing all those around them who profit from their misery. I wish that the ideology of those who would want to objectify women would get out of the way and help us to do this and protect them.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks, my gosh, would it not be great if we could just legislate love, friendliness, and so on? However, we cannot just pass a bill and then things happen out there. There is a real world.
Anyway, the subject at hand is Bill C-36, and I want to touch on the first three key points in the summary:
 This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, (a) create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose; (b) create an offence... 
—subject to several exceptions—
 ...that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a); (c) create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale and to authorize the courts to order the seizure of materials containing such advertisements and their removal from the Internet.... 
Then there are several other sections, but I wanted to mention that to be sure that we understand where we are.
By way of background, it is critical to reference the now-famous Bedford case. This case is the reason we are here today.
The Criminal Code outlawed communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution, living on the avails of prostitution, and operating a brothel. 
In a landmark case, a group of sex workers brought forth a charter challenge arguing that those three aforementioned provisions of the Criminal Code put, in the view of sex workers, their safety and security at risk, thereby violating their charter rights.
In its landmark decision last December, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with those sex workers and consequently struck down those three Criminal Code provisions, determining that they violated section 7 of the charter, which protects “life, liberty and security of the person”.
The Supreme Court suspended that ruling from coming into force for a period of one year in order to give Parliament the opportunity to enact new legislation if it chose to do so, and this past June, the Attorney General introduced this bill, Bill C-36.
 I want to spell something out in the beginning. It has never happened before, I am sure, but there is some confusion over the Liberal position, so let me be clear: we do not favour the legalization of prostitution.
My colleague, the member for Charlottetown, made it clear that the government will do basically what it will because it controls the majority in both the House and the Senate. All of us in this place know that is what happens. We have seen at the committee hearings that the government seems to be taking the position of going full speed ahead on the optics rather than on the detail of what this new law may or may not do.
I believe what we have before us today will actually put the new law in the same place as the old law: because the government would not refer it to the Supreme Court, it will eventually be challenged and go there, and again we will be back here, in another Parliament at another date, trying to pass a law on this subject again.
There has been a fair bit of discussion on this issue. I have had many people in my office talking about their concerns, including sex workers and those who represent sex workers. The constituents in my riding are certainly on both sides of the issue. Some think the government's proposal is not bad and others think it is absolutely terrible. However, I can certainly say that sex workers who are in the business, some of them by desire and some not, are extremely afraid where the bill leaves them, and that is afraid for their safety and security.
In my view, the government did not do the in-depth consultations necessary in the beginning. It consulted, as it usually does, with those who tend to agree with its approach to criminal justice.
I have gone through some of the committee minutes. Based on what we have before us today, the government also did not listen to the witnesses who appeared before the committee, because we have virtually the same bill that went to committee. There were a lot of good suggestions coming out of the committee, and none of them were really listened to.
It is a little off track, but I had the opportunity this summer to attend a number of Canada-U.S. meetings with the Council of State Governments Justice Center. What I find remarkable about some of the states is that they are taking a different approach to justice. I would like to read one section from one of its papers. The paper is called “Lessons from the States: Reducing Recidivism and Curbing Corrections Costs Through Justice Reinvestment”, and it applies to our approach to criminal justice in Canada. This is what it says:
 A number of these states have responded with “justice reinvestment” strategies to reduce corrections costs, revise sentencing policies, and increase public safety. Justice reinvestment is a data-driven approach that ensures that policymaking is based on a comprehensive analysis of criminal justice data and the latest research about what works to reduce crime.... 
The reason I read that is because this bill is going in the opposite direction. It is based on optics, not detail.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to stand up for question period, so I will finish later.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I apologize. I need to interrupt the member for Malpeque.
The time for government orders has expired. He will have three minutes remaining in his speech when this matter returns after question period.

Statements By Members
Outstanding CadetMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight an outstanding 16-year-old army cadet from my riding. He is Master Warrant Officer Radley Kolb of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in Estevan.
 This summer Radley spent most of July and a few days in August at the Canadian Forces base in Trenton, Ontario, successfully making five parachute jumps from a plane at 1,250 feet to accomplish his paratrooper certification. He is the first person from Estevan in more than 40 years to successfully complete the paratrooper program and is now the only person in Saskatchewan with this certification.
It is one accomplishment for this young cadet in the short six years he has been with army cadets. The paratrooper certification will help put Radley another step closer to his dream of a career in the Canadian military.
Again I would like to congratulate Master Warrant Officer Radley Kolb on his accomplishment and wish him great success in his future with the Canadian military.
Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial DayMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the annual Police and Peace Officers' Memorial that will be held in Ottawa this Sunday. I am honoured to attend, representing the official opposition.
As NDP public safety critic, I want to thank today all those who serve our communities as police and peace officers for the work they do each and every day to make our communities safer.
I want to pay special tribute in the House today to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives in the line of duty in the past year.
On Sunday we will be paying tribute not only to the three RCMP officers brutally murdered in New Brunswick earlier this year, Constable Douglas J. Larche, Constable Dave J. Ross, and Constable Fabrice G. Gevaudan, but also to Toronto police constable John Zivcic and Saskatchewan conservation officer Justin A. Knackstedt, who were also killed in the line of duty since the last memorial.
Though every name we add to this list of honour is one too many, this year we truly have too many names to add.
I am sure that other members of the House will want to join me in extending our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of these Canadian heroes. 
Floods in KashmirHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly three weeks since Kashmir was struck by devastating floods. Reports indicate that at least 480 people have died in this disaster, and some say that this is the worst flooding in decades.
Indian and Pakistani officials have been working diligently to address this situation; however, much work is still needed.
Quick action is needed to contain any possible outbreak of water-borne diseases, which can significantly aggravate the already dire humanitarian situation.
Canada stands ready to assist in addressing this humanitarian tragedy.
I would like to express my sincere condolences to the families and friends of those who have passed away in this tragic disaster.
Entraide Bois-de-BoulogneHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country that welcomes immigrants, and as such, there are few things more critical than successfully integrating newcomers from around the world. Immigrants can be disoriented, and they must be welcomed by the community. Integration is essential, but it would be impossible without outstanding front-line volunteer organizations.
One such organization is Entraide Bois-de-Boulogne, a non-profit in my riding, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, that helps immigrants from around the world, particularly the Middle East. This year, the organization is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
I know that all of my colleagues will join me in congratulating and thanking management and volunteers at Entraide Bois-de-Boulogne for their half century of unwavering dedication. We thank them for every family they have assisted, every child they have helped with homework, every stereotype they have shattered and every successful inter-community dialogue. We thank Entraide Bois-de-Boulogne for taking to heart and implementing Amin Maalouf's philosophy: “The more you absorb the culture of your new homeland, the more you can imbue it with your own.”
Book Launch in South Shore—St. Margaret'sMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to share the recent launch of a book in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's, entitled Firefighters of Lunenburg County: The Greatest Volunteer Success Story.
Back in April 2013, I had the honour of announcing funding of $25,000 for this project through the new horizons for seniors program. This book is certainly one of the many tangible results of what new horizons for seniors funding can achieve.
The book project steering committee and its team of volunteers were able to capture and celebrate the history of our local fire departments in Lunenburg County, paying tribute to the many men and women, both firefighters and auxiliary members, who built and continue to maintain our volunteer fire departments.
This book includes terrific photos and touching stories, and it is a very attractive and professional coffee table book.
As the member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margaret's, I want to extend my sincere gratitude for the efforts and contributions made by our volunteer firefighters and auxiliary members, both past and present.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in July and September, Trois-Rivières hosted two oath-taking ceremonies where more than 200 immigrants from around the world became Canadian citizens.
Their pride at finally being fully integrated into Canadian society was lovely to see. They showed the same pride at having chosen Trois-Rivières and Mauricie to start this new chapter of their lives. I was pleased to be able to finally say “welcome home”.
However, we all know that for their integration to be a success, new Canadians certainly have to be able to participate in the workforce. I wish new Canadians the same success as the people who have had the pleasure, I hope, of working with me over the past few years. Those with names like Boivin, Dowd, Vézina or Lupien work alongside people called Chevaucherie, Verbeeck, Traoré or Karkach.
That is why I am again calling on all employers back home to take a chance on being open. Do not be intimidated by a name that is hard to pronounce. Together, we will meet the challenge of developing a more prosperous, fairer, and more inclusive society.
RussiaMs. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on this day in 1960, Cuban leader Fidel Castro announced his support for the then U.S.S.R. From that day forward, the world watched as the U.S.S.R. expanded and positioned itself as a threat to the western world, with an ally that is particularly close to Canadian and U.S. shores.
My family and millions of others lived through the horrors of Communism in Europe, and we now see the threat of expansionist Russia through the continuing hostilities in Ukraine. Allies in eastern Europe are likewise concerned.
This is a seminal moment in Ukrainian history, and the people of Ukraine need good neighbours and honest brokers to step up and speak up. I am proud to be a part of a team that is stepping up and denouncing the actions of a very aggressive Russian state.
Maternal, Newborn, and Child HealthMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Prime Minister addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations, where he focused on Canada's global leadership to end the preventable deaths of mothers and children within a generation.
In his address, he noted the tremendous progress the world has made to save the lives of the world's most vulnerable through significant financial commitments and strategic partnerships. This was generated through the Canadian-led 2010 Muskoka initiative, and then the 2014 Saving Every Woman Every Child: Within Arm's Reach summit, which was in Toronto.
There are very inexpensive things that are making an enormous difference: from training birth attendants to providing small kits that cost five cents to reduce infections in children, newborns, and mothers to providing vitamin A tablets, which make a significant impact on mortality, at a cost of four cents a year.
In the words of our Prime Minister, “We have seen success, and we have momentum. Saving the lives of children and mothers is a fight we can win.”
The Apple of TomorrowMylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House about the efforts of a group of farmers who have been working tirelessly for over 20 years to create a new apple: the Rosinette.
This new variety of apple is now being grown in numerous orchards in Oka, including the Coeur de pomme and Jude-Pomme orchards, and throughout Quebec.
The Rosinette, which is proof of our farmers' leadership, is available thanks to a group called The Apple of Tomorrow, producers and people of various backgrounds who are working to develop and diversify the apple industry. I am very proud of the farmers who make their career their passion, who provide us with the best nutritious foods and who form the foundation of a sustainable economy in our rural communities.
The Rosinette will be sold in Quebec this fall. Montrealers will be able to find it at the Verger Villeneuve kiosk in the Jean-Talon market.
I invite all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Roland Joannin, of Saint-Joseph-du-Lac, who started this project, as well as all those who have worked so hard to create the Rosinette.
Gilles LatulippeMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that Quebeckers learned of the passing of Gilles Latulippe, a great actor and comedian from Quebec's large artistic family.
Throughout his long career, he brought laughter and comfort to millions of Quebeckers over many generations. His passing leaves us with fond memories of his humour and talent. He will be remembered as one of the mainstays of television, given his many successful shows including Le 5 à 6, Symphorien, Poivre et Sel and Les démons du midi, just to name a few.
He was also a theatre personality and staged an annual summer show at his own theatre. He travelled all over Quebec, making us laugh and providing us with endless thrills as only he could, in such a simple and straightforward manner.
He received many awards and accolades, and right now, my thoughts are with his family, because he was, first and foremost, a great man to all those who loved him.
LabourMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”. Those are the immortal words of J.S. Woodsworth, and words we live by on this side of the House each and every day.
While the end of the Bombardier strike in Thunder Bay is something to be celebrated, the decision by the members of Unifor Local 1075 to go on strike, to stand firm during negotiations, and to hold out for a better deal was rooted in universal values that are held by most Canadians. Fairness, equality, and solidarity are all values we hold dear in this country.
We know that when times are tough, we should co-operate to make them better, and when times are good, we should share in this hard-won prosperity. We believe that in a competitive global marketplace, we are stronger standing together than on our own. These values were defended with great pride and effectiveness by the members of Unifor Local 1075 during this strike.
I congratulate all members of Unifor Local 1075 on their new collective agreement, and I would like them to know that on this side of the House we standing in solidarity with them.
International TradeMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the organic sector of agriculture on an important trade accomplishment. Last week, the agriculture minister announced an agreement with Japan to boost trade in organic products. This new deal will make it much easier for Canadian businesses to sell organics in Japan, and gives our organic farmers equivalency agreements in markets, representing 95% of the world's organic sales.
Japan is the largest organic market in Asia. Demand is very high for quality Canadian products, like maple syrup, honey, soybeans, and grains. Industry estimates that this agreement will enable organic exports to Japan to reach $20 million annually in the next five years.
To quote Matthew Holmes of the Canada Organic Trade Association, “The government's leadership has ensured our producers enjoy privileged market access, while saving Canadian organic farms and businesses the needless costs of additional inspections and redundant certification”.
There is no doubt that Canada's products and standards are among the best in the world. Canadian farmers can count on our government to support growth and long-term prosperity on their farms.
Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial DayMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, September 28 is Canadian Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day. This occasion recognizes police and peace officers who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. This weekend, men and women from across Canada will gather in Ottawa to take part in the weekend's events.
I would like to recognize officers from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Newfoundland correctional officers who are here today. They have travelled from Newfoundland and Labrador to participate in the national memorial day. I thank all police and peace officers from my province and the entire country for the work they do and the important services they provide.
We only need to reflect back to June of last year, when a tragedy fell upon Moncton and three officers of the RCMP were killed in the line of duty. Families and colleagues continue to mourn their loss, while Canadians remain steadfast in support of the RCMP and all police and peace officers throughout the country.
As Canadians, we must never forget those who have sacrificed their lives, and always be mindful that police and peace officers do their jobs so we can be safe in our homes and communities. Today, we remember and stand in honour of officers who have sacrificed their own lives to serve and protect others. We continue to support and pray for the officers who work every day to protect us and our families.
Maternal, Newborn, and Child HealthMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I too would like to highlight the work of our Prime Minister in maternal, newborn, and child health.
The Prime Minister and Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie have been in New York this week advocating for children and mothers. When world leaders met in Muskoka, in 2010, our Prime Minister put maternal and child health on the agenda. Our government followed up with an important high-level summit in Toronto, in May, generating tremendous support for this issue.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced an important investment through the World Bank that will engage the expertise of the private sector, leveraging funds to make a difference. These are key initiatives, agreed upon in Toronto, that further our record of encouraging involvement by partner countries and organizations.
Our government is a world leader in the protection of mothers and children, and Canadians can rightly take pride in Canada's leadership.
National DefenceMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, sending Canadian men and women into harm's way is the most serious responsibility we have as legislators. Yet, the Prime Minister has refused to answer a single question in the House about the deployment for war.
It was in New York that he first mused about sending bombers to Iraq. Meanwhile, his hand-picked spokesman has treated the House of Commons as a crude circus, underlining Conservatives' disrespect not just for the institution of Parliament but for the Canadian people.
The Conservatives have systematically undermined the independent officers of Parliament who hold government to account; they have created black holes of secrecy around their ministers, and turned parliamentary committees into kangaroo courts. However, now they have reduced Parliament itself to a debased side show on the eve of a war.
In a minute, the Leader of the Opposition will rise to ask the Prime Minister questions about the plan to deploy troops to Iraq. The Prime Minister has a chance to answer these questions in the House about sending our men and women overseas to fight another war. Will the Prime Minister do this?
Islamic StateMr. Chungsen Leung (Willowdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the world watches the disturbing situation unfold in Iraq and Syria, we are again shocked by ISIL's latest action.
A few days ago, we learned that ISIL destroyed the Armenian Holy Martyrs church, and the Museum of the Holy Martyrs, a memorial to the victims of the Armenian genocide that houses the remains of those who perished in 1915. The deliberate and barbarous destruction of another holy site again reveals the true nature of ISIL and its agenda, which is driven by hate and intolerance.
Our government continues to condemn ISIL, a terrorist organization that tramples on the fundamental rights of all people.

Oral Questions
National DefenceHon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, in New York, the Prime Minister claimed that he had received a letter from the United States asking Canada to take on a larger role in the war in Iraq. Last night it was revealed in several news media and in particular, on Global, that it was in fact the Prime Minister who proposed getting Canada even more deeply involved in Iraq. Why did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians about who proposed escalating Canada's involvement in Iraq?
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us put things in perspective here. We have a murderous terrorist group literally raping and pillaging across the Middle East. They are beheading journalists, kidnapping women and selling them into slavery. Our government is focused on how Canada can contribute to stop this reign of terror. Instead, the opposition is focused on intergovernmental correspondence.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, let us put things in perspective here. This is about whether or not the Prime Minister of Canada tells the truth. Here is what the Prime Minister said in New York:
 The United States has just recently, in the last couple days, has asked [Canada] for some additional contribution.... 
That was not true and that is a serious matter.
Yesterday evening, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the House of Commons would vote before Canada launched any air strikes in Iraq.
Since when has Canada been planning on delivering air strikes?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant contact with all our allies, including and especially the United States, on multiple foreign affairs matters, including what is going on in Iraq with ISIL. We are working with our allies to determine what role Canada can play to oppose this murderous regime.
The U.S. request for further military assistance is under consideration. What we have yet to hear from the NDP is exactly what it would do to address the ISIL terrorist threat.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, are these air strikes one of the options that the government is currently considering? Are they one of the requests contained in the letter that the Prime Minister claims to have received?
For the sake of clarity, since the Conservatives are saying that there is no problem, why not make the letter public so that Canadians can judge for themselves?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Liberal government, our government's practice on combat missions, whether it was in Afghanistan or back in Libya, has been clear. The government's decision to deploy the Canadian Armed Forces in a combat mission will be debated and voted on in the House of Commons as a matter of confidence. Canada's current mission is not a combat mission. We are looking at renewing our current 30-day commitment, which started on September 5.
I am not going to speculate on a decision that has not as yet been taken. That said, our government's practice of subjecting combat missions to parliamentary debate and votes is long-standing.
International TradeThomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, actually, the public record could not be clearer. Ten years ago, when he was opposition leader, the current Prime Minister said, every military mission, no conditions, no exceptions. There was absolutely no reference to combat missions. They are making that up now. The same thing happened in the 2007 throne speech. They are making it up.
This morning, while the Prime Minister is smiling for photo ops with European diplomats, the largest economy in Europe is preparing to block the new agreement. Germany wants to say no.
Can the minister confirm that Germany is threatening to reject the new free trade agreement between Canada and Europe?
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce to the House that Canada, just today as part of our Canada-EU summit, has released the full text of the agreement for CETA.
This is a deal that will lead to 80,000 new jobs for Canadians and a 20% increase in trade. The German delegation that was here yesterday is very positive on this agreement. This will move it forward and will bring tremendous opportunity for exporters in Canada.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, here is what the Germans are very positive about. They are very positive that they reject the investment rules in the agreement. They said:
 It is utterly clear that we reject these investment protection rules.... 
Germany is rejecting the nefarious investor state provisions in the CETA that would give private corporations the right to sue elected governments and effectively overturn democratically elected laws. Numerous news agencies report that Germany stands ready to block the deal. Will Conservatives finally abandon these undemocratic provisions in the CETA and get a trade deal with Europe that is a good deal for all Canadians?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition once again has it wrong. Negotiators from Canada and the EU, including Germany, were given a clear mandate for investor state dispute settlement to be a part of this deal, as has been the case with dozens of other deals that the EU and Germany have signed. This provides certainty for both countries in the event of any dispute. In a deal this big—we are talking about a $12 billion impact on our economy and 80,000 net new jobs—it is sad to see that the NDP is once again going to oppose trade.
National DefenceMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, the Prime Minister suggested that he had been approached by President Obama about making a bigger contribution to the war in Iraq. Yesterday, we learned that, in fact, the opposite was true. The Prime Minister was the one who asked the United States what else we could do.
Why did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what has happened. We know that this conversation started back in August with President Obama reaching out to Canada and to the Prime Minister to engage all allies in trying to build a coalition to deal with ISIL. I can say that throughout history Canada has always answered the call when innocents are being killed and when civilization itself is threatened. We will not stand idly by while ISIL continues to murder the innocent civilians and religious minorities in Iraq.
The United States has asked for additional military support. We are going to consider this request as we come up on the renewal of the 30-day deployment.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in his interview with The Wall Street Journal, the Prime Minister was in fact misleading on more than one issue. He in fact told the interviewer of The Wall Street Journal that Canada does not collect metadata for its national security activities when in fact it does. As I said, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he was approached by the United States, as opposed to the inverse of that. Do Canadians not deserve a Prime Minister who is honest on these crucial issues?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, what a bunch of bunk. I can say that CSEC is prohibited by law from targeting Canadians at home or abroad, directly or indirectly. The CSEC's independent watchdog said in his annual report this year that he is “concerned that commentators are raising fears that are based, not on fact, but rather, on partial and sometimes incorrect information regarding certain CSEC activities”. He also verified that “CSEC's activities do not intentionally target the private communications of Canadians or any person in Canada, which would be unlawful”. The opposition members should read the watchdog's report.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, just as a correction, Canada does in fact collect metadata; it depends on it for its security activities.
A Canadian military mission in Iraq is an extremely serious undertaking. Canadians need to be fully informed about what the government is proposing to do on their behalf. There should be no confusion about important questions, such as whether it is the U.S. asking Canada for additional help or the Prime Minister offering to provide additional help for an expanded mission. Can the government assure us that going forward it will be fully transparent with Parliament and Canadians about what undertakings it is proposing?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that we are going to be reporting back to Parliament. We are looking at the 30-day deployment and renewing it. The one thing we will not do is sit idly by while innocent civilians are being killed in Iraq. There is targeting of the Yazidis, Christians and other religious minorities and the Kurds. We will be there to help where we can. As cabinet considers these options going forward, we will definitely inform the House.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are leading us into an expanded military role in Iraq, and the Liberals are ready to go along without a vote in Parliament. We have gone from mission creep to mission leap. The most basic questions have been left unanswered, yet the Conservatives offer more military involvement to the U.S. without consulting Parliament. The question is this. When exactly did the Conservatives offer Canadian troops to the United States? When did they do that?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member has been. On September 5, the Prime Minister announced that we are deploying up to 69 special forces from the Canadian Armed Forces, and they are there in a non-combat advisory role, providing strategic and tactical advice. We are proud of those brave men and women who are serving, assisting at the invitation of the Iraqi government. They are there with its authority and co-operating with forces in the north alongside the Kurdish peshmerga. This is a non-combat role and we do not vote on non-combat missions in the House.
Foreign AffairsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we are now hearing that the government offered the Americans our troops before we were asked. That is what I am hearing the parliamentary secretary say. While the Conservatives have no problem expanding our military role in Iraq, they have been failing to tackle the enormous humanitarian needs in this conflict. Over 2.2 million people in Iraq are in need of humanitarian assistance. At the committee on September 9, the minister promised that Canada would help support refugees for the coming winter, combat sexual violence and prosecute war criminals.
Why has the government walked away from those commitments? We have not heard announcements on these very important aspects of the mission.
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, Canada condemns in the strongest terms ISIS terrorists' repugnant killing of innocent civilians in northern Iraq, including women and children, and Christian, Yazidi and other religious communities. Canada has been helping since the beginning of the crisis. We are the seventh-largest donor to the humanitarian crisis. Canada's contribution will continue to allow for those most desperately in need to receive food, hygiene kits, cooking materials, blankets, tents, medical supplies and other essential supplies, which are needed. As well, we are making emergency repairs to water systems.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since the conflict in Iraq began, the Conservatives have been tangled up in their half-truths and contradictions. There are urgent needs on the ground. It is no longer enough to merely condemn. We really need to help. The refugees need help. Children are being wounded and thousands of women are falling victim to sexual violence. We can help our allies by contributing in our own way, by making help for civilians a priority.
Our allies are getting involved by offering humanitarian aid. Why is the Conservative government not supporting those efforts?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, as I said earlier, we are the seventh-largest contributor to the humanitarian situation in the Middle East. It includes people who are in Lebanon and Turkey. We continue working with our allies. We are continuing with our emergency relief stockpiles of basic lifesaving necessities. They can be shipped around the world at any time. In times of crisis, rapid delivery of basic supplies is a matter of life and death. Maintaining stockpiles on both sides of the globe is going to allow us to reach people far more rapidly. We continue—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
La défense nationaleAlexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, from the outset, the Conservatives have been refusing to answer Canadians' legitimate questions. They are refusing to explain the nature and scope of Canada's military involvement in Iraq.
With regard to humanitarian aid, the Conservatives are simply not living up to the expectations of our allies and the international community. Now, more than ever, we need a debate and a vote in the House on Canada's role in Iraq.
Why is the government refusing to explain itself to Canadians?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, we have troops deployed around the world right now in non-combat missions. The HMCS Toronto is just leaving the Black Sea as part of the NATO maritime task force. We have soldiers who are training in northern Poland. We have a squadron of CF-18 jets that are doing air policing in the Baltics.
All of these deployments happened without a vote in the House. We have 69 members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are providing tactical advice in Iraq. The Royal Canadian Air Force is also providing support in Iraq. I can tell members that all of that is non-combat roles, and we do not vote on that in the House.
Social DevelopmentMr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have completely bungled the Social Security Tribunal. A former member has confirmed what we already knew, that the government is hiring people whose main expertise is donating to the Conservative Party. Then they are pressured to ignore due process, and all the while waiting times continue to grow. Conservatives are throwing fairness out the window. It is vulnerable seniors and unemployed Canadians who are paying the price.
When is the government going to finally fix the mess that it has created with the Social Security Tribunal?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tribunal is providing great service to Canadians who put their appeals through. We have added 22 new employees to the Social Security Tribunal, an increase of over 50%. We are getting the job done.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a former member of the Social Security Tribunal has confirmed what we already knew. Tremendous pressure is put on members to adjudicate cases as quickly as possible, to the detriment of Canadians. It is important for the Social Security Tribunal to adjudicate cases and to do it well. Once again, the most vulnerable Canadians pay the price.
How can the Conservatives first pillage employment insurance and then scrap the only institution able to correct these injustices?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we will not acknowledge spurious complaints by former disgruntled employees that are broadcast in the media.
The Social Security Tribunal is doing the job for Canadians. In fact, we have decreased the amount of complaints that actually get to the tribunal by 90% by adding the ability within the department to review claims before they actually get to the Social Security Tribunal. It is a better system, it is cheaper for taxpayers and it delivers better service to Canadians who use the system.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tribunal does not take the time to carefully listen to appellants, and now it is more difficult for Canadians, especially youth, to find employment.
A report by the Conference Board of Canada shows that a wage gap is developing between younger and older workers. This is a danger to our economy and our society.
Will the Conservatives adopt the youth hiring tax credit proposed by the NDP?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under our Conservative government, Canada continues to have one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the G7. Since coming to office, we have helped 2.1 million youth obtain skills training and jobs.
However, we recognize that more can be done. That is why economic action plan 2014 will help young Canadians get the skills they need to get in-demand jobs, help young entrepreneurs start more businesses and support more paid internships for graduates.
EmploymentMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have a youth unemployment rate double the national average and Conservatives want to brag about it. It is incredible.
How about the fact that just last month Canada lost another 100,000 jobs in the private sector? How about the fact that not a single private sector job has been created by the Conservatives in the last year? How about the fact that 1.3 million Canadians are out of work today?
Cherry-picking economic statistics, as the Conservatives are so in favour of doing, brunching with billionaires and bragging does not help Canadians who are out of work, cannot access employment insurance and are looking for a job.
How about a jobs plan for the 1.3 million Canadians out of work today?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is the best cherry picker I have met to date.
Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. Over 1.1 million net new jobs have been created since the recession, over 80% full time, nearly 80% in the private sector, and two-thirds in high-wage industries. Both the IMF and the OECD forecast Canada to be one of the strongest growing G7 economies in the years ahead.
With a fragile global economy, we must stay the course with our low-tax plan for jobs and economic growth.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the OECD actually said, because all the spin that the parliamentary secretary wants to put on the economy does not help and offers no comfort to the 1.3 million Canadians who are out of work.
When it comes to low-wage, precarious part-time work, Conservatives are actually world beaters. In their race to the low-wage economy, Conservatives have Canada sitting at third worst among all developed nations. This is one race that Conservatives should not be trying so hard to win.
How about a real plan to bring Canadians back to those full-time, well-paying jobs with benefits that are actually family-supporting jobs, not these precarious low-wage jobs that do not put food on the table for Canadians?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our government has provided record support for low-income Canadians. For example, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians, 380,000 of which are seniors, from the tax rolls. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn without paying taxes. We have created the landmark working income tax benefit to support low-income Canadians who work. We have increased the guarantee income supplement for the most vulnerable seniors. The NDP voted against each and every one of these measures and against low-income Canadians each and every time.
International TradeHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they say the third time is a charm. Today marks the third time in 12 months that the Prime Minister has falsely announced the completion of the Canada-Europe free trade agreement.
Unfortunately for Canada, our Prime Minister's actual accomplishments on trade are far less than all the jet-setting photo ops would suggest. Now Germany is saying that it will not approve the deal unless negotiations are reopened.
How many more phoney “mission accomplished” photo ops can we expect until this deal is finally accomplished?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, as I said moments earlier in the House, we are proud that the full text of the Canada-EU trade agreement was released today as part of our Canada-EU summit, celebrating a trade deal that will raise trade by 20%, have a net benefit on our economy of $12 billion and 80,000 net new jobs.
 I find this ironic coming from a Liberal Party whose trade critic does not even sit on the trade committee, whose trade policies under its last government were about putting politicians on an airplane and serving BeaverTails in China. It should finally get behind a trade deal that is good for Canada.
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, what is ironic and sad is that the parliamentary secretary is refusing to answer the question. What does he make of the German government's statement that the agreement is not a done deal, that Germany cannot sign the agreement as it stands and that it has to be renegotiated?
Why did the Prime Minister announce three times that the agreement was completed and boast about it at photo ops when it was not true? The agreement is not a done deal.
What does he make of the German government's statement? Can he answer the question?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in response to another question, in the negotiations of CETA, both Canada and the EU member countries gave direction to negotiators to have investor state dispute provisions within the agreement, much like the hundreds of agreements that EU nations have signed with similar dispute mechanisms. This provides certainty that exporters demand.
The member should think that exporters lead to one in five jobs in Canada. This deal will present an opportunity for 80,000 net new jobs. It is time for the Liberals get on board.
Canadian Wheat BoardWayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has never been as closed, secretive and non-transparent as it is today. There is no data in the annual report, no financial statements and no examination by the Auditor General. This agency, concocted and directed by the government, is playing with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and, worse still, hundreds of millions of dollars in assets originally taken from western Canadian farmers.
What about public disclosure and public accountability? Will the government guarantee that farmers' money and assets will not be sold off in secret?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, much to the joy of our western Canadian grain farmers, our government delivered on its promise to free them of an obligatory marketing board. We were elected on a platform to deliver marketing freedom to farmers and we followed through on that commitment.
However, as the Canadian Wheat Board now competes in the open market, it has a right to protect commercially sensitive information. Unlike the member opposite, the economy is our top priority. Farmers and our government recognize the numerous benefits that are now available on the open market.
The EnvironmentMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister skips out on the UN Climate Summit in New York, major financial institutions met in Montreal to make commitments about the carbon footprint of their investment portfolios. The Montreal carbon pledge is proof that it is possible to protect the economy and the environment.
Why are the Conservatives refusing to take action when even the big banks are doing their part?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government's record is very clear. We have taken decisive actions on the environment, while protecting the economy. Everyone internationally has to do their fair share, and Canada is doing its part, as we emit only 2% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.
Building on our record, I also announced this week a number of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from vehicles. I also announced our intent to regulate HFCs, one of the fastest growing greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
We are accomplishing this without a job killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, this is a little different, because we are talking about divestment now. About 1,300 major investment groups met in Montreal to draft the Montreal climate pledge. They agreed to disclose their companies' carbon footprint and increasingly shift investment away from fossil fuels.
Business worldwide can see the writing on the wall. Even World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, is urging investors to divest from fossil fuels. However, the Conservative government is ignoring these major investors and therefore risking our economy.
Has the minister even considered the impact of divestment on Canada's economy?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. Our government is committed to reaching an agreement at the global climate deal in Paris next year that is fair to Canada and that includes all emitters and all economies. We want a fair agreement that includes those sectors.
We will also continue to make progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while keeping the economy strong. We have taken action on some of Canada's largest sources of emissions, such as the transportation sector and the coal-fired electricity sector.
 Thanks to these actions, carbon emissions will go down close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals. and we have done this without introducing the job killing carbon tax that the NDP wants.
Citizenship and ImmigrationRandall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, the Red Cross has sounded the alarm on the deplorable conditions of thousands of refugee and immigration detainees in Canada. Instead of making a commitment to fully implement the Red Cross recommendations, the government yesterday preferred to dodge the question.
Let me ask this again. Will the Minister of Public Safety fully implement the Red Cross recommendations? Will he ensure that immigration detainees are treated with decency, that families are no longer separated and, in particular, that children receive the care they need? Will the minister stand today in the House and make that commitment?
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada welcomes one out of every ten refugees resettled around the world, more than almost any other country in the world. We are a world leader with respect to refugee protection. The member should know that our government is committed to strengthening Canada's role as a global leader in refugee protection by enhancing our resettlement program.
Our government is committed to helping refugees settle. I would urge the hon. member that when we bring legislation forward in the House that would make it easier and better for refugees to access all of those services, he and his party not vote against them as they have done on every occasion.
Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, instead of hiding behind the same old lines we heard yesterday, the minister should tell us how he plans on ensuring that the Red Cross's recommendations are implemented. How does he plan on ensuring that the 4,000 immigrants, many of whom are children, will not be detained in Canadian prisons alongside dangerous criminals? Surely we are not scared of children.
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, our government has been clear about our reforms on the once broken asylum system and who qualifies for what.
Genuine refugees continue to receive comprehensive health care coverage that is on par with what Canadians receive. Canadians have been clear that they do not want illegal immigrants, failed asylum claimants and asylum claimants from safe, democratic countries receiving better health care benefits than Canadian taxpayers, including what seniors receive.
That member should vote for these important reforms when she comes into the House and not go on record, as she has with her party, and vote against important help for those who need it.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week the court has condemned people for honour-based crimes in Canada. A family was intimidating and harassing a young woman simply because she was seeing a young man. On this side of the House, we believe those are barbaric practices that they have no place in Canada. Sadly, the Liberal leader refuses to condemn these barbaric practices because he does not want to offend some people.
Could the minister update the House on what action we are taking to combat so-called honour-based crimes?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, individuals from all over the world come to Canada so they can live in a free society and embrace Canadian values and traditions. However, Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to barbaric cultural practices that allow for any type of violence against women, including spousal abuse, violence in the name of so-called honour, female genital mutilation, early enforced marriage or other gender-based violence.
 We will not tolerate barbaric cultural practices in any form and we will take action to ensure that those convicted of these heinous crimes face the full force of Canadian law.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on March 26, in the foyer of the House of Commons, the Minister of Agriculture said that Conservatives had passed an order-in-council “requiring a minimum of one million tonnes of grain to be moved each week, backstopped by penalties of up to $100,000 a day”. This is a direct quote from the minister.
Now the rail companies are not delivering the minimums and suddenly his tough fines have disappeared. Suddenly they are $100,000 per week.
Why did the minister back down instead of standing up for grain producers?
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the act says that it is per violation for $100,000.
CN and CP have been told what levels of grain they must ship in order to ensure we are moving grain in the country. They have not hit their targets in the last number of weeks. As a result, we have appointed an enforcement officer who is investigating. We will hold the companies accountable for their lack of grain movement.
This government is here to protect Canadian farmers.
Niki Ashton: Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture specifically said fines of “$100,000 per day”. Then he went all across the country talking tough. Now, when it comes to actually getting tough with the rail companies, the minister has failed.
Grain producers deserve a government that will stand up for them and demand rail companies treat them fairly.
Why did the minister break his word and back down? Why is he not standing up for western Canadian producers?
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it is this agriculture minister who has continuously stood up for farmers in the west, and indeed in all parts of this country, specifically on this file, having recognized the problem early and ensuring that we bring in emergency legislation to deal with the matter as quickly as possible. That is exactly what we have done. Members on the other side of the House can make all the complaints they want; the current agriculture minister got the job done. The grain is moving, and it will continue to move in this country.
Regional Economic DevelopmentJohn Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, the Ring of Fire development is on life support, and the Conservatives are nowhere to be found. It was almost two years ago that the Treasury Board minister, who became the self-appointed point man on the Ring of Fire, stated to a Thunder Bay audience, “we cannot afford to allow this development to stall and become mired in [paralysis]”.
Well, the question is simple: Why is the minister letting the Ring of Fire fail?
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we welcome Ontario's interest in the Ring of Fire. Until recently, it had not been identified as a clear priority by the Ontario government.
We have been clear. If the province identifies the Ring of Fire as a priority, economic action plan 2013 allocates significant infrastructure funding for this kind of legacy resource development. We will continue to demonstrate our commitment to responsible resource development that creates jobs and economic growth for northern Ontarians.
John Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, the Ring of Fire project is just one example of Conservatives failing Canadians in northern Ontario. Since the Conservatives have come to power, Canada has lost over 134,000 jobs in the forestry sector, 30,000 in northern Ontario alone. There is the Ring of Fire uncertainty, mill closures, wildly fluctuating gas and propane prices. I have a another simple question: When did the Conservatives stop caring about northern Ontario?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on community economic development, business growth, competitiveness, and innovation that creates jobs and long-term prosperity. We will continue to ensure that communities and businesses in northern Ontario have the tools they need to have a strong diversified economy. We are working with all levels of government, including first nations and other stakeholders, to ensure that we maximize the economic opportunities and long-term sustainability of northern Ontario.
EmploymentMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has had it wrong, on both sides of the temporary foreign worker program. Business owners in western Canada are facing incredible staffing challenges because of the government's incompetence. In essence what the government has done is to push back the entire House in order to tighten the clothesline. Western Canadian businesses are being penalized for a crime they did not commit.
When will the government swallow its pride, admit it is lost on the program, and ask a House committee to fix this broken program?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, it was in fact the Liberals who introduced the low-wage temporary foreign worker program. We are the ones who actually fixed it, by putting in tough sanctions to ensure that employers who engage in this system have to obey the rules and put Canadians in front before they hire a temporary foreign worker. We made significant changes in June of this year that make sure employers will always put Canadians first.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, the member was half right. We did introduce this program, but it was the minister's predecessor who took the shackles off of it. She nearly separated her shoulder patting herself on the back because it was going to be no problem getting temporary foreign workers.
Conservatives are trying to clean up their own mess, but they did not even include the youth reciprocal program. There is no labour assessment needed for the youth reciprocal program. How do we know that Canadian students are not being pushed aside because of this program and the lack of controls over this specific part of it?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the Liberal Party would attack youth who are trying to come to Canada to enjoy this tremendous country and all we can offer to people who come here to get job experience, in exchange for our youth going to other countries and getting that same experience. We want to encourage our young people to travel internationally. That is what we are doing, and we are getting the job done.
The EnvironmentMr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans go on Google. She will not find any scientific advice there, but she will find the Superior Court's decision. She will learn that, on multiple occasions, her department refused to cooperate with the Government of Quebec, which was asking for scientific advice from experts on marine mammals at Fisheries and Oceans Canada's science branch. She will see why the Superior Court had to suspend drilling in Cacouna, and she will see that this mess is the result of her poor management.
Why did she muzzle her scientists, and will she finally let her department's marine mammal experts talk?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
It needs to be very clear that there were two reviews taking place here, one by DFO, and one by the Province of Quebec. The Quebec court decision has nothing to do with the review conducted by DFO; Quebec conducts its own reviews under its own laws.
 DFO conducted its review and delivered an authorization based on scientific expertise and under the strictest conditions. It did provide the results of that review to the Province of Quebec, but the province is responsible for conducting its own review and defending its results.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is wrong. Part of the Superior Court's decision had to do with the lack of documentation from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. For the seismic surveys in Cacouna last spring, there was a real study from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, drafted by six experts on marine mammals. What this government is trying to pass off as scientific advice about drilling in Cacouna is a two-and-a-half-page opinion drafted by a single scientist, a single biologist, which looked at a period in the summer, when the drilling is taking place in the fall.
Why is the parliamentary secretary trying to pass off a study—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I think I have been clear that the Province of Quebec had its own responsibilities, under its own laws, to conduct a review and reach a conclusion. We did our own review, and we are quite prepared to defend it based on scientific evidence.
The NDP knows this, but chooses to muddy the water, if I can use that expression, because it suits its anti-development ideology.
Foreign AffairsHarold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, ISIL continues to terrorize the people of Iraq and Syria, particularly those who reject ISIL's twisted interpretation of Islam. Religious minorities remain at risk, such as Christians, Yazidis, Shia, and the Syrians. In July, ISIL destroyed Jonah's tomb, a venerated site of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Earlier this week, we learned that ISIL had struck again, this time destroying an Armenian church in Syria and a memorial to the Armenian genocide.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs  please comment on this developing situation?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, our government deplores ISIL's destruction of the Armenian Holy Martyrs church, in Deir ez-Zor, Syria, as well as the Museum of the Holy Martyrs. This is yet another example of ISIL's contempt for religious freedom and human dignity. ISIL attacks are indiscriminate, targeting Christians, Shia, Yazidis, Sunni Muslims, and their places of worship. Canada continues to condemn this terrorist group, which has a distorted and warped message of Islam and has murdered thousands of innocents.
Veterans AffairsMr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to a question on the order paper, the Department of Justice revealed that the government has spent over half a million dollars on legal fees defending the Equitas lawsuit. This is over half a million dollars that has been spent denying that a social covenant exists with Canadian veterans, which is a stark contrast to the covenant that the Conservatives signed with NATO just last month when they acknowledged that it does exist.
The Conservatives have spent over a half a million dollars to date. Will they tell us how much more they will spend denying the social covenant, or will they finally drop their defence of the lawsuit?
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Equitas lawsuit wants to throw out the new veterans charter completely, which is not something that a single reputable veterans group has called for. Furthermore, these costs reflect employee salaries of the Department of Justice spread across all departments.
I would encourage the member opposite and the Liberal Party to stop playing politics when it comes to Canada's veterans and to start supporting the initiatives put forward by our government.
HealthMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 50% of people in the Lower Laurentians do not have access to a family doctor.
I took part in several meetings in the region to talk about underfunding in the health sector. All of the participants agreed that by cutting the $36 billion federal transfer, the Conservative government will just make things worse.
Do the Conservatives realize that their short-sighted cuts will make it harder for the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles to get the health care they are entitled to?
Eve Adams: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that every Canadian family has a family doctor.
We have been making immense investments in Canada's health care system; in fact, they have reached historic high. Most notably I am very pleased to announce that Canada's has the highest number of physicians working than ever before. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, last year Canada had the most physicians per capita in our history, with over 77,000.
Doctors educated abroad represent over 25% of the doctors who entered the workforce in Canada in 2013. The word is out: Canada is one of the top destinations to practise medicine.
JusticeMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers were outraged to discover that Guy Turcotte was released pending his second trial.
In 2011, he was found not criminally responsible for stabbing his two children in cold blood. In response to that verdict, our government passed the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act to protect law-abiding citizens and our communities.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what the government is doing to make sure that criminals get the punishment they deserve?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with Ms. Gaston at this difficult time.
To remedy the Liberals' legacy of injustice, our government is currently reviewing the bail-granting system. We will continue to take action to protect Canadians. We have already eliminated house arrest for serious crimes such as sexual assault and kidnapping.
We have brought in tougher penalties for the importation, production and sale of the date rape drug, and we have eliminated the faint hope clause, which allowed murderers to get parole. Our government is making sure that criminals stay in jail.
International TradeMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, while Canada and the European Union are holding a summit to celebrate the fact that negotiations have come to a close, Quebec's cheesemakers are not celebrating.
Every time the cheesemakers raise legitimate concerns, the government says it is holding consultations. However, everyone knows that milk producers will lose $300 million a year because of this agreement.
Will the government finally take action instead of holding consultations and acknowledge that milk producers and cheesemakers will lose income? That is what it did with the fishers in Newfoundland a year ago and with the auto sector in Ontario before the free trade agreement with South Korea was even settled.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system, and with this agreement, we are continuing to do so.
The three pillars of our national supply management system remain intact. We will monitor the potential impact of this historic agreement on dairy producers' income, and if the level of production is adversely affected, we will help the producers financially.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act promised that more grain would be moved and that backlogs would be eliminated.
However, CN has been fined $100,000 per week, proving that in actuality the punitive measures are not moving more grain, only raising revenue for the government.
When will the Minister of Transport acknowledge that the problems with the supply chain are much more complicated than simply blaming the railroads?
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can note that not only did we announce that act, we brought it into place in order to ensure that on an emergency basis we are moving grain, the incredible crop that we had last year. We are moving it as quickly as we possibly can through the rail system.
At the same time, I announced a review of the Canada Transportation Act. That is exactly what we are attempting to do. Through the group of people led by David Emerson, it will look at future opportunities and challenges, have lots of stakeholder interaction, and make sure we have the appropriate policy framework moving forward.
Public SafetyMrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, in March 2012, the Conservative government increased the fees for record suspension applications from $150 to $631, with the proviso that applications would be processed in less than a year.
Oddly, the $631 applications are being processed in less than a year, but a number of applications made before this fee increase still have not been processed despite the 20 or so additional employees who were hired to clear the backlog. Some cases, including a few in my riding, have been dragging on for more than four years. That is unacceptable.
How much longer will Canadians who paid $150, the rate in effect when they filed their applications, be treated as second class?
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. These cases are assessed on an individual basis through two mechanisms.
For the formerly used mechanism, which is subject to delays, it is possible to go online to look up the status of the case. Also, if people want faster service, they can use the new system in place, where the timeframes are prescribed by law.
Points of OrderMr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to unconditionally and unreservedly apologize to the House for my behaviour the other day. Clearly, I allowed the passion and the anger with something I read get in the way of appropriately answering the question by the Leader of the Opposition. For that I apologize to you, to the entire House, and to my constituents. I am fairly certain there will be other opportunities in the House where I will be answering other questions that you do not appreciate. I do not think it will be the last time that I will get up and answer a question that does not effectively respond to the question.
Despite what people think about kids in short pants, this was my response and I take full responsibility. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all my colleagues.

Routine Proceedings
Committees of the HouseMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the subcommittee on private members' business met to consider the order of the second reading of Senate public bills and recommends that the items listed therein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the report is deemed adopted.
PetitionsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, first I want to acknowledge the apology by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and thank him for doing that.
I have a petition from constituents and people from right across the country who are very seized with the issue of the missing and abducted Nigerian girls. They are calling on the government, and in fact the whole global community, to sustain the political attention to this very important issue.
They are calling on the Government of Canada to increase its investment in safe, quality education for all children in order to see that schools everywhere are free from violence and intimidation.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians who recognize that the Supreme Court struck down certain laws with respect to prostitution.
The petitioners do not want our country to be lawless with respect to prostitution and human trafficking and are calling on the House of Commons to legislate that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man or child.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to present petitions signed by many of my constituents, particularly in Flin Flon and Thompson, who are opposing the cuts to our postal service, particularly the plan to eliminate home-to-home delivery.
Home-to-home delivery is a critical service for all Canadians. It is especially important in our northern and remote communities where the climate is often unforgiving. We know it will have a particular impact on seniors, young families, and people with disabilities.
The petitioners are asking on behalf of their communities for Canada Post to reconsider its decision and to keep home-to-home delivery and save our Canada Post.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition that represents thousands of people from British Columbia.
The petition highlights that sadly, Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called Families For Justice, believe that the current impaired driving laws are much too lenient in Canada. They are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted for impaired driving causing death.
Frank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, across the country, Canadians are disappointed with the government's decision to ignore the social covenant we hold with our Canadian Forces members and veterans.
 In recognition of the sacred obligation owed to all Canadian men and women brave enough to accept the ultimate liability in the service of our country, they call on us here to urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs to reopen the nine regional centres he closed; immediately implement the recommendations of the Veterans Ombudsman which are now a year old; fill all open positions for mental health professionals; and finally, act on investigations into military suicides.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Malpeque had three minutes remaining in his debate.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, before question period, I outlined the government's attempt to push forward Bill C-36 on the basis of optics rather than the reality of the world.
I outlined as well the fact that the government has failed to listen to evidence provided at committee on the safety and security of those involved in the sex trade, and on the constitutionality of the bill. I feel the new law will end up where the old law did, and that is, it will likely be tossed out. 
Let me quote what a couple of other people said. 
John Ivison in the National Post wrote that the member for Central Nova's role:
 —as Attorney General of Canada requires him to be the guardian of the rule of law. He is mandated to protect the personal liberties of Canadians and advise Cabinet to ensure its actions are legal and constitutional. 
 By introducing a new law on prostitution that is all but certain to be struck down by the courts, he has failed on all counts.... 
 This bill is likely to make life even more unsafe for many prostitutes. If they can’t advertise their services to persuade the johns to come to them, many more are likely to take to the streets in search of business. 
What he is speaking to is the safety and security of citizens. We cannot judge morally, but the fact of the matter is that it is responsibility of government to protect the safety and security of individuals. This bill does not do that. It makes it worse.
The other statement is by Michael Den Tandt for Postmedia News. He said:
 Because C-36, in its effect, will be no different than the laws it is intended to replace, it is bound to wind up back at the Supreme Court – where it will quite likely be tossed, just as the old laws were tossed. So, why bring it forward? 
He went on to say:
 Calculated for political gain it may be; that doesn’t make it right. Until it is overturned, C-36 can only put prostitutes at greater risk. It is irrational, misguided and recidivist social policy, in a country that has gotten used to better. 
There are several other quotes that came up at committee. I would refer members and Canadians to look at some of the statements made at committee with respect to the constitutionality of this legislation. There was an analysis provided at the committee on constitutional concerns. Individuals should look at that.
This law is not doing what it should do. It is very problematic. I ask the government to reconsider it. Let us just do it right.
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments by the hon. member for Malpeque.
I wonder if the member shares my concern that this legislation is likely to be thrown out by the Supreme Court. It is going to make sex work more dangerous, and there will be a whole bunch of harm done in the period of time of maybe two to four years before this question is back before the Supreme Court.
Does the member share that concern?
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I work with this particular member on the public safety and national security committee, and I will admit that over time I have begun to realize that we do share many of the same concerns. 
He is absolutely right in this case. I do not know if the Department of Justice or the ministers or the government backbenchers on the other side just did not allow themselves to meet with people who are in the sex trade because they are opposed to it—and it is acceptable to be opposed to it, for sure—but these individuals in the sex trade are fearful of what this bill would do. It would drive prostitution, the sex trade, underground, make it much more risky for those individuals involved, and certainly risk their public safety.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of the analysis that took place during committee. I was wondering if he could provide more detail on that analysis and on what was provided, especially regarding any pending judgments by the Supreme Court on this particular piece of legislation.
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I will quote from the analysis:
 The concern of the Charter and the Court is not whether prostitution is good or moral, the concern is the right to safety of all Canadians, which the Charter enshrines. C-36 also creates some new issues of constitutional validity. 
 At the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, legal experts suggested that there are a number of charter issues. They relate to life, liberty, and security of the person; they relate to equality rights; they relate to freedom of expression; they relate to the presumption of innocence; and they relate to cruel and unusual punishment. Legal people have all identified those areas as concerns with regard to constitutionality.
I would like to make one other point. One of the members from Manitoba spoke on human smuggling and the fact that some people are forced into the sex trade. That is absolutely true, and that is repulsive. 
I did a study on human smuggling and individuals who get forced into the trade. The problem is that be as it may, this bill would not prevent that from happening. In fact, the bill would worsen the safety of those individuals, and that is what we have to be concerned about.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on what my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca talked about in terms of the constitutional provisions, or lack thereof, in this bill.
We have asked the Minister of Justice a number of times in the House of Commons to provide Canadians with any evidence that this measure has been through a constitutional check. For those watching, the reason this is so important is that the current government has become very good at writing laws that are unconstitutional. We go through the whole exercise of drafting these bills and going through the committee process, where the Conservatives ignore the witnesses and ram the bill through anyway. Then, lo and behold, it gets a constitutional challenge, a charter challenge, and it fails. 
If the minister is so concerned about all the victims of this particular crime, then we would think he would want to have legislation that would improve their lives and their lot in life. That means they need legislation that actually becomes law and maintains itself as a law.
This question is for my friend. Did the committee at any point see evidence from the Government of Canada, the Conservative Party, that shows that this bill would in fact survive a constitutional check and actually become law in this country, and remain there?
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, no, I certainly have not been made aware of that constitutionality reference or check. 
The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is absolutely right. That constitutional reference would have ensured that this House of Commons would pass a measure that is likely not to be turned down by the courts and do it right, a measure that would not, as the member said earlier, put the safety of individuals in greater jeopardy for several years. 
I would actually make the accusation of the government that it is doing this for political purposes, because it sounds good. The Conservatives are doing it for political optics, and in the process they are risking the safety and security of individuals, people whom they may not like but who are Canadians regardless.
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to the House on Bill C-36, which, as members of the House know, is the government's response to what is known as the Bedford decision. That is a decision of the Supreme Court from last December that struck down several Criminal Code provisions related to prostitution, such as solicitation and living off of the avails.
It seems that my friends in the House, rather than looking at the substance of this bill, started looking at future charter challenges. They should look at what the Supreme Court did. In fact, it invited Parliament to step in and fill the void caused by its striking down of some of these provisions under the charter. It gave Parliament one year to come up with adequate rules to address the social harms that are caused by prostitution.
All members of the House would agree that when it comes to human trafficking and exploitation, there are vast and immense risks for Canadians within prostitution and the sex trade. It is important for Parliament to make sure that the public good and public safety are protected. 
What happened was the creation of the Canadian model. After consultations within the department, with stakeholder groups, and with people who have worked with women who have left the sex trade, the Canadian model was our government's response to the invitation from the Supreme Court of Canada to make laws to protect vulnerable Canadians.
I will take a few moments to talk about the main pillars of Bill C-36, which is our response. 
First, it would criminalize demand. This is recognizing that in the vast majority of cases, the prostitutes—mainly women, but some young men as well—are victims. Law enforcement resources and criminal justice resources should not be focused on them but on exploitation, so the first pillar is to try to stem demand by focusing on the johns and criminalizing that activity.
The second is to criminalize exploitation in prostitution. We have heard some members of Parliament talk about human trafficking, the traditional pimps, and the people who lure young women into this trade and entrap them in it.
The third is a restriction on advertising sexual services and their sale. An important distinction in the Canadian model is the criminalization of communication in public places for the purposes of prostitution when children could reasonably be expected to be in those public places. This bill would ensure that certain public areas would not see the sex trade on a daily basis.
There are increased penalties for child prostitution. I am sure that all members of the House agree with that provision of Bill C-36.
There is a clear message in the bill to immunize prostitutes and sex workers themselves, recognizing, as I said earlier, that most often they are victims in this trade.
Finally and, perhaps, most importantly, the seventh pillar that I take from Bill C-36 is direct aid. There would be $20 million to begin with to help with transitional work for some of the vulnerable people who feel that there is no way out of the trade that they might have been lured or exploited into. Some of the exceptional Canadians, volunteers, and groups working with them would receive this money to help people transition.
My friend from Malpeque said that this bill does not see the reality of the world. Some of the MPs in the NDP seem to think that this measure is bound to be struck down at a future date by a court because it is a Conservative ploy or some political ploy. If those members of the opposition actually looked at the substance of Bill C-36, they would see that Canada is not really out of step in trying to deal with the harms of prostitution. 
In many ways, the Canadian model builds on the Nordic model, which was introduced in Sweden in 1999 and followed subsequently by Norway and Iceland. These are European countries we have strong relationships with, free and democratic societies that have tried to address the social harms of prostitution through a model that criminalizes the demand and goes after the exploiters, not the women. 
In 2014, the EU and the Council of Europe actually recommended the Nordic model, on which our model in Bill C-36 is clearly heavily based, to all member countries, so I would suggest that the NDP and Liberals are the ones who need to hit the reality of the world when it comes to how to address the evils and the harms caused within the sex trade.
The bill is supported by leading figures among those who try to deal with human trafficking and exploitation. It is supported by many people who work as advocates in abuse centres and rehabilitation shelters. The Canadian Police Association firmly supports it.
Members of Parliament have been reaching out and talking to stakeholders. I met with sex workers to hear their perspective. They were very earnest in their presentations to me, and I appreciated that. I also listened to law enforcement and researched the Nordic model, as every MP should.
I would like to thank a constituent of mine from Newcastle, Tony Ryta. I have had several exchanges with Tony, a 32-year veteran with the Toronto Police Service who for decades worked with vulnerable women on the streets in Toronto. He sees the Canadian model that we are bringing in response to the Bedford decision as a way that will reduce harm. That should be all parliamentarians' goal in this place. I would like to thank Tony, law enforcement workers from across the country, and people working in shelters and with abused women for their work in getting vulnerable Canadians out of this trade.
Finally, this topic goes to the root of parliamentarians as Canadians. I am the MP for Durham, but I am also a proud father of an eight-year-old girl, who is the apple of my eye. I cannot stand in the House and say that there is any public good in creating and promoting a legalized sex trade. In fact, it is abhorrent to suggest to young women that the sex trade should be an industry that is worth consideration. I want my young daughter to sit in the House one day, perhaps on the front bench, to go further than her old man.
Young women can do anything in this country, and supporting the normalization of sex work is not in the public good.
It reminds me of philosopher John Stuart Mill, who said, “No person is an entirely isolated being”. Ms. Bedford and a few sex workers who may feel that they are empowered and that there are no social harms from their participation in the sex trade do not speak for homeless aboriginal youth in Winnipeg. They do not speak for abused women who have been forced into sex work by pimps, in some cases by ex-boyfriends. They do not speak for the vulnerable, and the vulnerable are the vast majority of people drawn into prostitution.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty to ensure that our response to the Supreme Court decision in Bedford is a response that reduces harm and that discourages people from going into a practice that has drugs and crime at its centre. I once again say that I do not think our response as a Parliament should be to normalize the sex trade as an option for many of our young people and young women. That is certainly not why I ran for Parliament.
Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have what I consider to be a rather pertinent question for my colleague.
From his speech, we can see that he truly believes that criminalization will actually help eliminate prostitution. I personally do not believe that to be true. There are many things that are against the law but are done anyway in our society. I do not think the bill will fix things. In my opinion, the only thing it will do is make people working in prostitution even more vulnerable. How are we going to protect these people?
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, our laws are there for a variety of reasons. We have laws on the books that are broken, Violent offences, like murder and manslaughter, still take place, but what laws represent is, in many ways, an attempt to discourage these activities, to show society's condemnation of some conduct. In this case, we are trying to show condemnation of exploitation around prostitution.
 Will it root out every case? Absolutely not. I would be foolhardy to even suggest that.
However, this approach, the Canadian model, looks at the successes and the approach that many countries with similar economies, similar populations, like Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and others, have tried to take to reduce the social harm.
Will it eradicate it? No, but I think it is a responsible response from this government to the Bedford decision.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite a question about the fact that approximately a year ago, France's national assembly passed identical legislation. When the bill, which criminalizes the purchase of sexual services, went to the upper house—the French senate—it rejected the key provision, criminalization, and sent the bill back to the national assembly.
The member said that other countries similar to Canada have legislation or are going in the same direction as this legislation. However, the French senate recently looked at the key provision and realized that it was absurd and should be withdrawn from the legislation.
Can the member explain to us how Canada's approach is the same as the one being used by other countries that have similar problems?
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I think the member's discussion of France and the French experience shows that each country is trying to address the harms inherent in prostitution in a variety of ways.
This model, Bill C-36, is very similar to what Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and some others have tried. As I said in my remarks, the Council of Europe actually recommended it for its wider 47 members, as an attempt to reduce harm and to get at exploitation, specifically. It is not a perfect solution, but it is one that has been studied carefully to try to minimize the demand for services that has led to exploitation.
I would also add that we have made it a critical part of Bill C-36 that transitional funding, $20 million, would be there to help people to transition out of sex work. This is a critical part of this discussion. We have to show the vulnerable that there are alternatives and we have to support groups who are already helping people make that transition.
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today about the government's response to the Bedford decision and its amendments to sections of the Criminal Code concerning prostitution.
The summary of Bill C-36 says the following:
 This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, (a) create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose; 
As I said earlier when I asked my colleague a question, there will always be things that are against the law but are done anyway in our society. This bill does not necessarily provide a solution because this is not how we are going to get rid of prostitution. That will never happen.
I think that in this type of situation, it might make more sense to take a harm reduction approach instead of a repressive approach like the one the government has proposed.
In addition, this bill flies in the face of the Supreme Court decision and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court asked the minister to go back to the drawing board and find a real solution. Based on my reading of this bill, I can see that the minister did not do that. In fact, he even said that he expects this bill to be challenged in court. This is really messed up. I do not understand how we even got to this point considering the number of options that could have been explored and the number of things that could have been done. There have been so many discussions about all of this that I just do not understand how we got to this point.
Many legal experts were consulted, along with stakeholder groups, sex workers, and authorities with an interest in this bill. Over 75 witnesses appeared before the committee. How did we even get to this point when most of the witnesses said that they do not believe in this bill?
When it comes to this bill and to many of the bills that have been introduced in the past three years, I have to wonder why the government is not listening to the experts. Why is it not listening to the people who are actually in the situation? I do not understand, and as an MP, I take issue with this. The minister should have gotten the information he needed and consulted people. That would have been to his credit. It is easy to consult people, to sit down with them and listen to them, but what is the point if the government does not really listen and just pushes the agenda it had from the start? It is easy to say that people were consulted, but nothing was done as a result.
We on this side of the House are pretty unanimous. We all agree that the measures announced by the Conservatives to help prostitutes get out of prostitution are grossly inadequate. They do not address the real problem. As I was saying earlier, this new bill creates new offences related to prostitution, specifically purchasing sexual services, receiving a material benefit, advertising sexual services and communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services in a public place. In my opinion, the real problem is that people who work in the sex industry are being more and more marginalized.
As I said earlier, there are many illegal things that are done in our society in any case. We cannot get around that by simply criminalizing everything. This reminds me of the prohibition period in the United States. In the 1930s, there was a huge spike in smuggling and alcohol-related problems. As soon as prohibition was lifted, the problems died down. In the end, people realized that the law was unnecessary. The situation we are in right now is similar, for the Conservatives want to marginalize men and women who really could use a helping hand. We also need to remember that some people are in it by choice. I think we need to respect that.
One of the measures announced was a $20 million investment to help prostitutes get out of the sex industry, but that is not enough to solve everything. Concrete action is needed. We need to properly consult the people involved. What do these people really need? Do they want to get out or are they there by choice? Where are we headed? This bill does not address these questions at all.
We also need to commit significant resources: income support, education and training, poverty alleviation, which I can never stress enough in this House, and substance abuse treatment for those in this group.
Rather than taking an approach that further marginalizes people who are already vulnerable, the government should instead work in partnership with those people to bring in a strategy to protect and support the men and women who are in this situation.
What we need is a nationwide discussion and genuine consultation on prostitution, on women's safety and on the fight against organized crime. That is what needs to be tackled.
According to Statistics Canada, 156 prostitutes have been murdered since 1991. That is 156 too many. If the practice were a bit more regulated, this type of crime could likely be prevented or at least reduced.
It is much more difficult to obtain recent statistics on other crimes related to prostitution, such as assault and rape, because the people involved are marginalized. It is like trying to collect statistics on homelessness. It is more difficult because these people do not always fill out a census form.
However, John Lowman, a professor at Simon Fraser University and expert on prostitution, has indicated that the data on crime against prostitutes are overwhelming. This type of crime is the problem that we need to deal with.
Forcing these women deeper into the shadows will put them in even more danger and these numbers will grow. That is not what we want. The government needs to protect its citizens, particularly the most vulnerable among them, as is the case here.
Prostitution has always existed and it will continue to exist, whether we are for or against it. We therefore need to regulate it and protect the health and safety of these workers.
In my opinion, Bill C-36 fails to do that and puts many lives in danger.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way and she is focused on sex trade workers being marginalized. There are different models around the world and some have been somewhat successful, like the Nordic model. Canada's proposal is similar to the Nordic model, in that it focuses on the johns and the pimps as opposed to the prostitutes. It is one of the few models that actually work, in that it makes it much safer. It still is a very high-risk vocation. As the member pointed out, it likely would never disappear.
However, I have heard from a number of my constituents who support the Nordic model and have encouraged Canada to consider the Nordic model. Our government has a made-in-Canada model, but it is very similar. Would the member support the Nordic model and if not, why not?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I would not support such a model. As I said in my speech, I am much more in favour of harm reduction than repression. I do not believe that repression can work in a society, either from a safety perspective or from a perspective of preventing the marginalization of the most vulnerable individuals.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. I think that her conclusions are of particular interest. We often hear from the other side of the House that the bill before us is based on the Nordic model. Quite frankly, that is far from the truth. It is outright criminalization of prostitution. Unfortunately, the bill does not in any way respond to the Supreme Court ruling.
I was wondering whether my colleague could comment on the fact that the Conservatives are not listening to the Supreme Court. The NDP has said many times that we should respect Supreme Court rulings and rely on them in order to take the right approach when drafting our bills.
Does my colleague agree that the bill before us does not reflect the Supreme Court ruling and requires drastic changes to gain the support of Canadians?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. The bill needs to be greatly improved. As my colleague mentioned, it does not really follow the Nordic model. That model is not ideal either.
As I was saying, there has to be real consultation. We must listen to the people involved in this situation and consider what they say. That is very important. We must also work with the Supreme Court, which does a great job. As legislators, I find that we are really in no position to disregard the Supreme Court and say that we are going to move forward nonetheless. That is not the ideal way to go about this.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate with great interest. We know the Supreme Court has struck down our existing rules and we know we need new rules. We have come up with what we believe is a solution that would deal with this.
However, from what I hear from the New Democrats, is their position that we should legalize it? They speak very nice words and have very generic kinds of comments, but I have not heard what they believe we should do. Is the hon. member saying legalization?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, we need a regulated system and consultation. I have said this over and over again. I am almost tired of hearing myself say that. We must consult the people to know what they need, and we have to regulate this profession to protect the health and safety of the men and women who make their living from prostitution.
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the report stage debate in support of Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act.
Bill C-36 was studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in July 2014, and pre-studied by the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs in September.
The bill is well on its way toward enactment before the expiry of the Supreme Court of Canada's one-year suspension of its December 20, 2013 Bedford decision, which would otherwise result in decriminalization of most adult prostitution-related activities in Canada.
Bill C-36 places Canada among other like-minded jurisdictions that have taken, or are considering taking, an approach that treats prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation that targets the victims, primarily women and girls, including those disadvantaged by socio-economic factors, such as youth, poverty, drug addiction or a history of abuse. Such an approach aspires to abolish prostitution as a harmful gendered practice. It has been garnering widespread international support, and not just in those countries that have implemented it.
For example, in March 2014, an all-party parliamentary report in the United Kingdom recommended implementation of a version of this approach. Both the Council of Europe and the European parliament have endorsed it. This is not just because the approach has been effective in achieving its objectives, it is also because it avoids the negative effects of the alternative: decriminalization or legalization.
Research shows that decriminalization and legalization lead to growth of the sex industry. Demand increases in a decriminalized or legalized regime, as does the supply required to meet that demand, which is disproportionately drawn from vulnerable populations. The result is an increase in the exploitation of vulnerable groups.
 Facilitating prostitution for those who claim to freely choose it results in a greater number of those who do not freely choose it being subjected to prostitution. This is what would happen in Canada if we failed to respond to the Bedford decision.
Research also shows that decriminalization and legalization are linked to higher rates of human trafficking for sexual exploitation.
There is significant profit to be made from prostituting the disempowered who are so often unable to enforce their rights, and the unscrupulous stop at nothing to maximize their profits. They may tout themselves as a helper or legitimate bodyguard, but it is in their interest to encourage and even coerce the prostitution of those they claim to protect. This is another reason why a regime that treats sex work as a legitimate profession results in higher rates of exploitative conducts. Exploiters can hide behind a veneer of legitimacy.
Some who disagree with the approach of Bill C-36 have said that it is bad policy to work toward abolishing prostitution when some freely choose to sell their own sexual services and are content with that choice. The two committees that studied Bill C-36 heard from some individuals who said that they chose sex work as their profession and that they should not be prevented from earning a living in the manner of their choosing.
I accept that some support decriminalization and condone the trade in sexual services between consenting adults, but I do not accept that such a policy choice is better for everyone implicated in the prostitution industry, including the communities in which it is practised and society as large.
All agree that those subjected to prostitution disproportionately come from marginalized backgrounds, and all agree that high levels of violence and trauma are associated with involvement in prostitution. The disagreement lies in how the law should address these serious concerns.
Why does Bill C-36 reject decriminalization in favour of an approach that treats prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation? The research on jurisdictions that have decriminalized or legalized prostitution provides one answer to this question.
As I have already outlined, research shows that decriminalization is linked to growth in the sex industry and higher rates of human trafficking for sexual exploitation. That means an increase in vulnerable people being drawn into prostitution, an increase in abuse of those in positions of vulnerability, an increase in use of coercive practices to draw the vulnerable in and keep them in, and at the end of that continuum of exploitative conduct, an increase in human trafficking. Bill C-36 would prevent the harmful effects of decriminalization.
 Those individuals who claim to freely choose prostitution also say that they do not need its proposed prostitution offences. They say that offences such as human trafficking, forcible confinement, assault and sexual assault provide them with sufficient protection against abuse while involved in a trade that is well known for that abuse. That may be so for those who have some control over the sale of their own sexual services, but what about those who do not?
We know from the committee hearings that many do not choose prostitution. Many are subjected to it by force meted out by those who would profit from this trade or because of seriously constrained options from which to choose. Should we afford this group the law's protection only once someone has committed a violent offence against them and how do we ensure they are sufficiently empowered to report such abuse when it occurs?
It has been well recognized, including by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1992 Downey decision, that the fear of reprisal from exploitative third parties too often keeps the exploited silent. They are afraid, and understandably so. Exploiters have an obvious incentive to keep the vulnerable in prostitution and many do so through horrific forms of abuse.
How do we stop this trajectory? The answer is simple. We say “no” to prostitution by targeting those who fuel the demand for it and those who profit from the trade. Bill C-36 would do that. It prioritizes those who do not choose prostitution.
Prostitution targets the vulnerable, so Bill C-36 targets those who buy their sexual services and those who capitalize on the sale of those services. This means that law enforcement has the tools required to intervene before any member of that vulnerable group is assaulted, sexually assaulted, forcibly confined or trafficked and can prevent the more serious crimes associated with prostitution from happening in the first place.
These are the reasons why Bill C-36 says “no” to decriminalization. These are the reasons why Bill C-36 says “no” to prostitution. Put simply, there are too many risks associated with this practice. A burgeoning sex industry means: an increase in vulnerable persons selling their own sexual services because of lack of meaningful options, or through force; a corresponding increase in the violence and trauma caused by subjection to prostitution; an increase in associated crime, such as drug related offences and human trafficking; and the normalization of a gendered practice that implicates the equality rights of those vulnerable groups so at risk of subjection to it.
I stand with those survivors, some of whom courageously testified before both committees and detailed the horrific abuse they suffered in prostitution. They have told their stories again and again to ensure that this type of abuse stops. They also told the committee that Bill C-36 would send a message. The message is that we are all deserving of dignity, equality and respect. The law should not allow the powerful to use and abuse the less powerful.
I ask my colleagues to stand with me and the brave women who shared their stories of pain and suffering to improve Canadian society. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of Bill C-36.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. Of course, we have rather different views on the approach, but there is one thing we might agree on, and that is the support that could be given to the women who want to get out of this industry.
Does my colleague not believe that the proposal to allocate $20 million, which would have to be shared among 10 provinces and three territories, is completely ridiculous? That could well have been the cornerstone for a bill that would bring about real change.
[Interjection]
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, the $20 million in new funding to assist sellers of sexual services is in addition to other related federal initiatives, including the national action plan to combat human trafficking, the national crime prevention strategy, the victims' fund, the aboriginal justice strategy and funding to address the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women.
The provinces and territories, which are primarily responsible for the delivery of many of the services needed by persons seeking to exit prostitution, such as housing, social and medical services, occupational training and victim services, also provide significant resources.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the NDP highlighted that it wanted regulations and harm reduction regarding prostitution. It sounds to me that those members want legalization with harm reduction.
What has my colleague heard from her constituents and from Canadians, particularly with respect to consultation that went on prior to Bill C-36? I heard that Canadians do not want prostitution to be legalized. They want to follow the Nordic model. What has my colleague heard? What does she think of the NDP's position of legalization?
[Interjection]
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, the debate about the harmful effects of prostitution has been long-standing, long before the Bedford decision was handed down and the one-year suspension. I have heard from community organizations, individuals and communities. They are calling for a change to our prostitution laws as the awareness of their harmful effects continues to grow.
Bill C-36 would put Canada squarely among other jurisdictions that have taken, or are considering taking, an approach that would treat prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation that targets the victims, primarily women and girls, including those disadvantaged by socio-economic factors such as youth, poverty, drug addiction or a history of abuse. This approach aspires to abolish prostitution as a harmful gendered practice and avoids the negative effects of decriminalization or legalization.
 I call upon all members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party to support this important piece of legislation.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's views and concerns for those who are affected by prostitution. I take her on her word that she is concerned about these things. One would assume then that the bill that the government has brought forward would be a charter-proof bill, a bill that would pass a charter challenge, in order to come into law and then affect those that she is concerned about. We have sought evidence that the government knows and has good confidence that the bill would pass through a Supreme Court challenge. Otherwise, this is all for naught. All her words, all the gestures within the act are meaningless if the bill can never be enacted into law and maintained in law.
Would the member be able to provide the House with some evidence, some advice given to her by the justice department and counsel, that the bill is constitutional and thereby will change the lives of the people we are talking about today?
[Interjection]
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that Bill C-36 is a made-in-Canada approach that has two essential parts. The first part is criminal law reform. The second part addresses support for vulnerable persons to help them leave prostitution. This two-pronged approach aims to criminalize those who fuel and perpetuate the demand for prostitution through the purchase of sexual services and to protect those who sell their own sexual services, vulnerable persons and communities from the harm associated with prostitution.
The legislation is our government's comprehensive approach toward addressing prostitution. I encourage that member to support it.
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak against Bill C-36 at report stage. I am really glad to have an opportunity to do so despite the Conservatives' use of time allocation once again.
I remain opposed to the government's rush to recriminalize sex work in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in the Bedford case. Once again with Bill C-36, the government has refused to listen to the Supreme Court, which sent a clear message in the Bedford decision that sex workers have the right to safety and should not have their situation made more dangerous by having new prescriptions put in the Criminal Code.
Like most Canadians, I could not tune in to all this summer's justice committee hearings, but I did hear and see a great deal of testimony, and I read much more of it. I was struck by two things. The first was the selective nature of the government's witnesses, most of whom had experienced a great tragedy concerning a family member who had been involved in sex work or who themselves had been victims of crime while involved in sex work.
Each of these stories, for me, had a common theme. I do not in any way wish to diminish the extent of the harm suffered by those individuals who testified. In each of these cases, the harm done was the result of a criminal act that was and would remain a criminal act whether or not there are restrictions placed on sex work in the Criminal Code. Murder remains illegal. Assault remains illegal. Human trafficking and coercion remain illegal.
 I draw a different conclusion from these tragic stories than members of the government side. What these stories tell me is that we ought to do everything we can to make sure that sex work is safer. That is the theme of the Bedford decision from the Supreme Court.
The second theme I noticed coming from both government witnesses and from government members themselves was the tendency to label all sex workers as victims, to see them as poor, unfortunate people who need to be saved.
Most of the sex workers, themselves, who testified rejected this label of victim. Many asserted that they chose sex work, some entirely freely and some as a result of the limited choices they had in front of them, but the vast majority of sex workers emphasized their own choice, their own autonomy, their own control over their lives, and they have been very clear that they wish to retain or enhance that freedom to choose for themselves.
Just this week, we had an important research study released, which had been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Researchers interviewed 218 sex workers in six communities across the country, plus 1,252 clients and 80 police officers. This is actual evidence with regard to sex work. The researchers found that sex workers, in general, overwhelmingly rejected this characterization as victims, with more than 80% of both sex workers and clients saying that sex workers control the terms of these transactions.
There was one other thing I noted in these hearings, though perhaps even more in the Senate pre-study hearings. I must say at times I felt that sex workers who appeared were shown an astonishing lack of respect by Conservative committee members. This has been communicated back to me as a member of Parliament directly by more than one witness who appeared.
As I said in debate at second reading, I have long had contact with sex workers in my riding, stretching back to my days as a city councillor. In my community, we are fortunate to have a sex worker-run self-help organization called PEERS. PEERS is an acronym that probably still means something formal but in our community it has simply come to mean an organization that cares for and helps those involved in sex work.
PEERS has offered everything from bad date lists to a drop-in centre to education and housing assistance. Unfortunately, like many valuable organizations in the community, PEERS is now struggling with severe funding issues. The amount the government has allocated, $20 million, will do little to help out these organizations in their very important work.
As a result of my contact with PEERS, I have had several opportunities to meet with sex workers to discuss the Bedford decision, both before it came out and then after it came down, as well as this legislation before it came to second reading. Before speaking today, I was fortunate to be able to participate, last Friday, in a community forum organized by PEERS, called “Decriminalizing the Sex Industry: Beyond the Myths and Misconceptions”. The format was a diverse panel of eight members responding to audience questions after some brief opening statements. The panel was moderated by Jody Paterson, one of the founding sisters of PEERS, and someone I much admire for taking her journalism and turning it into advocacy for sex workers.
I have to say I was surprised to find more than 120 people in attendance at a panel on a very sunny Friday afternoon. I was privileged to be one of the panel members as it gave me a chance to interact with seven real experts on sex work, and to learn from their experience. There were three sex workers, or former sex workers, on the panel: Catherine Healy, the national coordinator of the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective; Natasha Potvin, a PEERS board member; and Lisa Ordell, a Métis woman and registered massage therapist. The panel also included Staff Sergeant Todd Wellman, head of the Victoria Police Department's special victims unit; and Gillian Calder, a professor of family and constitutional law at the University of Victoria.
It also included two scientific researchers on sex work: Dr. Sarah Hunt, a Kwagiulth researcher who has done work with first nations women involved in sex work for more than 20 years; and Chris Atchison from the University of Victoria Department of Sociology, one of the researchers on the study that was published this week.
I spent a lot of time describing this panel in the House today because this panel, and indeed virtually every person attending the forum, agreed on some common themes and a common conclusion. Their conclusion was that Bill C-36 would make the lives of sex workers even more dangerous.
 Professor Calder made it clear that the Supreme Court sent us in the House a clear message that it was our responsibility not to re-criminalize sex work, but to legislate it in a way that makes sex work safer and provides greater protection for the rights of sex workers.
 I have already spoken of Chris Atchison's study and its rejection of the argument that sex workers are ipso facto victims. He also spoke eloquently of the direct connection between sex workers being able to communicate openly with their clients and the safety of their work. His research shows how criminalizing johns would make that communication inevitably more furtive, more hurried and therefore make sex work more dangerous.
Staff Sergeant Wellman spoke eloquently from his perspective as a 27-year veteran police officer and his five years as the head of a special victims unit. He identified the importance of sex workers feeling able to communicate freely with police. If that is not the case, he stressed, investigating things like violence and exploitation of sex workers becomes even more difficult for the police; and preventing the kinds of tragedies that many government witnesses spoke about becomes nearly impossible. Clearly those provisions in Bill C-36 that criminalize sex workers would make police work harder.
Dr. Sarah Hunt challenged us to ask those national first nations organizations that have expressed support for this bill to demonstrate that they have actually spoken to first nations women involved in sex work or in sex work research and support roles. She challenged their right to speak for first nations without doing this work. The very presence of two first nations women on this panel spoke volumes about whether those claims to speak for all first nations women should be accepted.
 Catherine Healy, in turn, challenged us to ask those who cite New Zealand as a negative example of the impacts of legalizing sex work to present their evidence. She clearly showed that the evidence in fact shows a reduction in violence against women in the sex industry in New Zealand. She challenged the assertions made before us in this House that there has been an increase in underage women in sex work in New Zealand or an increase in trafficking of women to New Zealand as entirely without foundation, as simply false.
Let me begin to close by citing just two more things from the forum. One was the importance of a safe space it created for sex workers, like Natasha Potvin and Lisa Ordell and members of the audience, to tell their stories. There was moving testimony in the form of Lisa Ordell's mother simply showing up and identifying herself as “Lisa's mother” in order to support her daughter. There was moving testimony from audience members about the stigma attached to being a sex worker, and the resulting social isolation, making their struggles to escape alcoholism, addiction and violence even more difficult.
My conclusion is that our decision on Bill C-36 should not be about whether any of us like or do not like sex work. Instead, it should be based on what would make these women, men and transgendered Canadians who are already involved in sex work safer, whatever their story, however they arrived there.
I want to close with some questions we must ask ourselves as members of Parliament before we vote on this bill.
 As a result of Bill C-36, would sex workers be able to conduct negotiations with potential clients in ways that allow them to be sure of who they are dealing with and in ways that help them avoid bad dates? This would help keep them safe.
 As a result of Bill C-36, would sex workers be able to communicate openly with police when they need protection against violence, coercion and exploitation? This would help keep them safe.
 As a result of Bill C-36, would sex workers be able to participate in society without the stigma attached to their work denying them access to services and rights that the rest of us enjoy without a thought? This would help keep them safe.
 As a result of Bill C-36, would there be less violence against women in Canada? 
For me, Bill C-36 clearly fails on all these counts. I am sorry that this bill will pass this Parliament. I am even sorrier for the harm that will result in the time it will take to challenge it in court, and the time it will take for the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional, just as the Criminal Code provisions that preceded it were invalidated in the Bedford decision.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an 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 Motion No. 1, and a vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 52.
 Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Monday, September 29 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 52.
The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at my watch. If you look at your watch, I think that the time is now 1:30 p.m., if you agree.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The parliamentary secretary moves that the clock be seen as 1:30 p.m. Does he have unanimous consent for this?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Reducing the effects of urban heat islands ActPaulina Ayala:  moved that Bill C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to my bill, Bill C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians. To begin, let me explain what a heat island is.
The term “heat island” refers to an urban area that is hotter than the surrounding areas. In urban environments, the infrastructure tends to absorb large amounts of solar radiation during summer heat waves and release it in the form of heat, thus creating heat islands. In the most serious cases, temperature differences can reach 12 degrees Celsius at night.
I would like to make my colleagues aware of the public health risk that this represents. To do that I will simply tell my colleagues how I became interested in this growing problem. I will explain how health professionals in my riding, Honoré-Mercier, brought this to my attention; how we drafted the bill in response to the needs expressed by the community; how the work was done in collaboration with organizations that are already committed to finding tangible solutions in urban communities; and how for the past few months, we have been receiving a wave of support for this bill, which everyone sees as a simple, yet fundamental contribution by the federal government.
I sincerely believe that when members of the House find out about the impact of heat islands on Canadians' health, they will not hesitate to support my bill. That is what I hope.
I would like to give hon. members a bit of background. On May 7, 2011, in the days following the May 2 election, I attended an event in Pointe-de-l'Île. It was a meeting with the mayor of Rivière-des-Prairies and public health officers from the health and social services centres, better known as the CSSS. This issue spoke to me. They started talking about heat islands. I learned that Honoré-Mercier has one of the largest heat islands in Quebec during heatwaves. I want to emphasize that point.
At home in eastern Montreal, it was the worrisome number of asthmatic children that first alerted the public health authority. In searching for the cause of these health problems the health authority discovered the scope of the adverse effect of high temperatures on people who live in areas that become heat islands during heat waves. This phenomenon's adverse effect on health has an impact on all Canadians who live in cities because high temperatures increase pollution. We know that more than 80% of Canadians live in urban centres. That is reason enough to address the problem. We might also say that dealing with health problems will result in significant savings for the provinces.
We can add to that list those who live in the most densely populated urban areas, areas filled with concrete buildings and paved parking lots. It is often seniors or the poorest and least mobile individuals who cluster around local services. The most vulnerable Canadians are therefore the first to feel the negative impacts of heat islands. We are talking about seniors, children and pregnant women. Members will therefore understand my haste in asking the government to take stronger action on this issue.
I would like to give my colleagues a brief overview of the research that my team and I have done since I became aware of this issue in order to help them understand the symptoms associated with the urban heat island effect. As I said, a heat island is an urban area where the air and ground temperatures are higher than in surrounding areas. This is usually a difference of about 5°C or 6°C, but it can reach up to 12°C at its worst. If we think about a summer day in Montreal when it is 35°C, the humidity can bring this up to 37°C; an extra five degrees can therefore make a big difference.
I am thinking here about neighbourhoods where residents experience sweltering heat. Imagine the effect on their health. Heat islands occur in densely populated urban areas—as I already mentioned—and in areas where the ground is covered in concrete. The asphalt absorbs the heat and prevents any water from infiltrating the soil. It is therefore useless to water the asphalt. As I already mentioned, this promotes smog. More smog is produced because of the heat, and so, in the end, everyone is affected.
Let me now give you a specific scenario. Imagine we are in the middle of a heat wave. Your car is not working, and people are saying, on the radio, that you should go to a shopping centre, where you can cool off thanks to the air conditioning. So you end up walking to the shopping centre and you cross the parking lot, all the while pushing the baby's stroller. It is hot. You feel terrible. You finally get there, but you are tired. The baby is even more tired because he cannot express his discomfort. You finally step into the cool, comfortable shopping centre. Imagine now that you have taken off your shoes and are walking barefoot on the asphalt. How many seconds could you stand the heat without crying out?
As I said earlier, this material soaks up heat during the day, then releases it at night. Indeed, if you open a window, the air will still be warm. This adds to the continuous impact of the phenomenon. Furthermore, people living in these urban areas tend to use more air conditioning, which in turn makes the surrounding air warmer. This makes things worse for their neighbours without air conditioning. As is often the case, this vicious circle affects the most vulnerable—seniors, children, those who are sick— who cannot escape this oppressive heat and are left to suffer.
During the day, the only refuges are shopping malls, since they offer a cool environment. However, once the malls close, people return to their apartments, which are so hot that they can make people sick. It is even worse for small children or anyone with heart problems or blood pressure issues.
I truly believe that this is definitely a health issue. Montreal's public health department said that on hot days, the mortality rate was on average 20% higher for people living in heat islands.
Health Canada has found that 8,000 deaths between 1979 and 2003 were caused exclusively by exposure to high or extreme heat. In Europe, 70,000 people died during the 2003 heat wave. We all saw this on TV.
Many people suffer in silence. The symptoms are weakness; fatigue; cramps; heart failure; breathing difficulties; and aggravation of chronic, cardiovascular, neurological or renal diseases.
There are some solutions. If people who are already sick or on medication are not careful to keep themselves hydrated on hot days, they are putting their lives at risk. When I learned that most seniors living alone suffered more than they had to, since they didn't know how the environment could affect their health, I decided that this was unacceptable. People all over suffer as well.
What happens in the riding of Honoré-Mercier also goes on in Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and many other Canadian cities. That is why I gave specific documents to some of my colleagues. I was pleased to be able to share with them information on heat islands.
 I introduced this bill because I am calling on Health Canada to establish a national strategy to reduce the effects of urban heat islands, in consultation with the Minister of the Environment, provincial ministers, health representatives and municipal representatives.
I believe it is important to draw from the experiences of communities and the private industry, which have already committed to fighting the effects of heat islands by tackling the sources of the problem.
There are companies in Canada that have figured out how to make white roads. On a plane to Edmonton, I met a company president who told me that he had imported technology from Europe to do it here in Canada, which would create jobs. The best argument I can offer the House in favour of this bill is that solutions exist.
The purpose of this bill is to raise awareness among decision-makers and individuals, but it also offers hope. My hope is that this bill will help harmonize measures at the national level. Some provinces and municipalities have made a little progress, but if we all work together to solve the problem, I believe the health care savings will be huge, we will create jobs, and we will have the quality of life we deserve.
We have to carry out positive experiments in a community so that they can benefit all Canadians. Inspiring solutions exist, and all community stakeholders can get involved, including companies that are thinking more about the impact of their infrastructure on air quality, municipalities that are trying to green their urban environments and regulate the use of certain materials in building construction and renovation, provincial governments that are figuring out how to locate and measure heat islands, and, of course, organizations involved in raising public awareness and greening problematic urban areas. Everyone needs to get involved in combating the negative effects of heat islands. The federal government must do its part too.
The bill does not provide all the solutions. I propose that we go looking for those solutions together. I need the help of all the members from all parties represented in the House. I need to raise awareness. I can provide some information to help my colleagues who represent ridings dealing with the issue of heat islands. I believe that nationwide collaboration on this type of strategy would maximize the efforts of the communities fighting the harm caused by heat islands on the health of Canadians.
We need to remember one thing: other countries are looking to Canada. We can play a leadership role. Canada can be a country like those that are already addressing the issue, including Germany. Many other countries and large cities in the world have already developed strategies to prevent the problem. Germany's building code and federal nature conservation legislation require municipalities to support sustainable development and protect natural landscapes. In the United States, the federal government provides the states with financial and technical assistance to implement urban forestry plans and encourage research on the role of the canopy as a means of mitigating the effects of urban heat islands. Chicago, Illinois, is a leader in the United States for its green roofing projects. Over the past century, the temperature in Tokyo has increased five times faster than the global average. To fight the effects of urban heat islands, Tokyo requires all new buildings to cover at least 20% of the roof area with vegetation.
We have good reason to take action to protect the health of Canadians. We can do more. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Together, we can do better.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Honoré-Mercier not only for her edifying speech but also for having introduced such a pertinent bill. As we all know, environmental legislation certainly does not emanate from the other side. Thankfully, the NDP is here to ensure that future generations will be able to live in an environment as healthy as ours, or even healthier if possible.
My colleague's bill certainly fits with the environmental vision that compels us to act locally but think globally and come up with global solutions. By local, we mean within a riding, a municipality, a province and, of course, Canada.
I am apprehensive of the answer, but will Canada once again be the only OECD country without a policy on this?
[Interjection]
Paulina Ayala: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but we can still catch up. I certainly hope we will be able to do more. We will reach the same level as other countries and worry about the health of Canadians. We must always remain hopeful.
Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for her wonderful speech.
I lived in the riding of Honoré—Mercier for several years and so I know that heat islands cause real problems near refineries and highways.
Does my colleague think that it would be a good idea for the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities to work together to resolve this problem as set out in her bill?
[Interjection]
Paulina Ayala: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
That is precisely the purpose of the bill: for the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities to work together. This would save money and improve people's quality of life.
We all need to work together because we are all part of the same country.
[Interjection]
François Pilon: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members can see, this is something that is very important to me.
Can the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier tell us whether addressing the problem of heat islands would also help the provinces save money on health care?
[Interjection]
Paulina Ayala: Mr. Speaker, we already know that emergency health services are very expensive.
It costs less to make an appointment at the doctor's office, even though you might have to wait a few months to get in. However, sometimes people have to go to the emergency department to bring in a child suffering from an asthma attack or a senior who has to stay in hospital for a few days.
By addressing the root of the problem, we will certainly save money on these hospitalizations. This represents a savings for the provinces and therefore for our country. That is good economics. This is not theory. This is something tangible that will allow the municipalities, the provinces and the country to save money.
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, our government's position on this is plain and simple: Bill C-579, an act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians, is not the right approach for Canada.
Indeed, our government is already taking action to help Canadians adapt to the changes in climate and mitigate health risks related to extreme heat. Our approach has been to recognize that urban communities across Canada have different priorities, characteristics, and capacities to address local health issues related to a changing climate.
We have sought to work with Canadians in ways that respect these variances and which are not prescriptive. I would like to highlight a few of these examples.
Since 2008, Health Canada has worked with federal, provincial, and municipal partners to enhance the resiliency of communities and individual Canadians to the health impacts of extreme heat. In fact, I served for many years on the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation authority.
A key component of our initiative has been the development of heat alert and response systems in communities across the country, and raising awareness of heat health risks among individuals, health professionals, and communities. We have provided information to help communities decide when to issue heat alerts; assisted in developing messaging for vulnerable populations, such as seniors and children; and informed public health authorities and emergency management officials of measures that can be put in place to reduce heat-related illnesses and deaths in their communities.
We have been successful because we have relied on a collaborative approach across different levels of government to build capacity, not a one-size-fits-all framework, as is proposed in the bill.
Indeed the ability of this government to work with varied jurisdictions is leading towards the implementation of province-wide heat alert and response systems in Manitoba, Alberta, and Ontario. Even something as simple as addressing air pollution can help to mitigate some health impacts of extreme heat.
Health Canada officials have worked with officials from Environment Canada to roll out the air quality health index across the country. On a daily basis, I am sure many Canadians are familiar with this index. It provides Canadians with air quality forecasts and health messages that seek to provide Canadians with balanced information regarding the benefits of maintaining an active lifestyle versus the risks associated with prolonged outdoor exposure to air pollution.
Again, our approach has been to provide Canadians and communities with the tools to help them make informed decisions and take meaningful actions to reduce health risks for themselves and their families.
Our government set the Canadian ambient air quality standards, in 2013. These new health-based Canadian ambient air quality standards set the bar, so to speak, for managing the two key components of smog: fine particulate matter, and ground level ozone.
Over the last decade, under the clean air regulatory agenda, this government has enacted a series of regulations to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. This initiative for improved air quality overall translates into reduced health risks, particularly during heat events.
Finally, allow me to highlight how we are working with Canadians to help them adapt to a changing climate. In 2010-11, Health Canada held a series of workshops, in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, Winnipeg, and Vancouver, just to discuss how to bring health authorities and community planners together to address health and the built environment.
Research on extreme heat and air quality is being conducted across Canada to inform policy decisions at the local level. The findings are being shared at all levels of government, so that communities can develop approaches that fit their particular needs within their own timeframe.
For example, the City of Windsor has developed urban recommendations that were submitted to their city council as part of its broader climate change adaptation strategy. The city is presently working with Health Canada on improving thermal comfort in its urban parks and playgrounds to improve healthy and active living. Similar success stories are occurring in other partner communities all across Ontario.
 Results from community projects will be disseminated to stakeholders across Canada in presentations and case studies to help raise awareness and to support action at the local level.
In additions, Health Canada has in place a webinar series called “Cool Communities”, which is helping to share the results and lessons learned from community-based initiatives with a national and international audience.
Through this effort we are linking public health officials, landscape architects, planners, local, provincial and federal government employees, and academics so that they can share best practices.
 Indeed, since 2007 our government has invested over $2 billion towards 1,400 green infrastructure projects across Canada through a number of targeted programs as part of building Canada and Canada's economic action plan.
Now that I have outlined the benefits and early successes of our current collaborative approach with provinces and municipalities, I would like to tell members why this government will not be supporting Bill C-579, and why we will instead continue to support ongoing collaborative efforts.
Bill C-579 would duplicate co-operative federal efforts that the government has already put in place with the provinces and municipalities to adapt changes in climate and mitigate health risks. The bill would also create jurisdictional overlaps with provinces, which could have a negative impact on current co-operative efforts under way with several municipalities. The jurisdictional overlaps created by the bill would also make the government accountable for activities over which it has no control.
The NDP simply need to realize that the solution to everything is not a new national strategy and broad spending promises. The legislation should not be wholly surprising to this House given that its genesis is from a party that is proposing a $20 billion carbon tax.
Even laying aside the lopsided approach proposed in the bill, we simply cannot support legislation that so clearly infringes on provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions.
Our government has already established effective programming through the clean air agenda without the need for Bill C-579. The work we are already undertaking with respect to the air quality health index allows Canadians to limit their exposure to air pollution while our health-based Canadian ambient air quality standards will improve air quality, thus reducing health risks during heat waves.
More importantly, through our heat resiliency initiative and the successful implementation of heat alert and response systems, we are creating awareness of the dangers to one's health from extreme heat events.
A 2010 report of the Office of the Auditor General highlighted the successes of the heat resiliency initiative in generating and sharing information for use. Most importantly, the audit report stated that this government is creating awareness that extreme heat is a health concern and is making that information available and understandable to Canadians.
By continuing to work with willing communities and targeting funding to address local concerns related to air quality and extreme heat, this government is taking concrete actions to protect and promote the health of Canadians.
To reiterate and to conclude, Bill C-579 is not required to protect Canadians from the health impacts associated with extreme heat.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians, sponsored by my colleague from Honoré-Mercier. The purpose of the bill is to address the effects of higher temperatures on large urban areas. I too live in a large urban area, in Montreal.
This is how Bill C-579 defines “urban heat island”:
 “urban heat island” means a built-up area in an urban environment in which the average air temperature is markedly greater—as much as 12 degrees Celsius hotter—than that in nearby rural areas. 
As I said, my own riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie, which is heavily urbanized, is a good example of a region that is affected adversely by this phenomenon.
As the city of Montreal grew, forested areas and vegetation were cut down to create office buildings, parking lots, and residential complexes. These kinds of structures absorb heat much more readily and result in localized rises in temperature.
Heat islands are forming on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere. On hot summer days, the temperature on the outer surface of buildings, in parking lots and on roadways can often be between 27 and 50 degrees Celsius higher than the air temperature. In the evening, this accumulation of heat in urban infrastructure is released, thereby keeping the air temperature elevated. The higher temperatures of urban heat islands, particularly in the summer, can have a definite impact on the environment and the quality of life of a community.
Urban heat islands have a number of effects, including increased energy consumption, higher levels of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, negative impacts on human health and increased discomfort, and degradation of water quality. The average number of premature deaths in Toronto due solely to extreme heat is estimated at 120. That number could be a lot higher, because mortality rates increase sharply during extremely hot summers.
High daytime temperatures can seriously compromise people's health when the mercury does not drop enough in the evening and when air pollution levels are high. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, extreme heat can cause respiratory difficulties, heat cramps and exhaustion, non-fatal heat stroke and heat-related mortality.
An assessment rendered from the 2010 urban heat island summit in Toronto, which was attended by local decision-makers, heat researchers and industry representatives, concluded that the issue could not be tackled by a single measure or by a single municipal department. This is why it is important to have federal government leadership.
The bill has several objectives.
 First, the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment must establish a national strategy to reduce the effects of urban heat islands that includes the following elements: (a) create a public awareness campaign on air quality and heat islands; (b) develop an inventory, prioritizing heat islands; (c) develop action plans that must address: (i) the management of urban biodiversity; (ii) the promotion of community green projects; (iii) the protection of natural areas; (iv) the establishment of greening areas to be developed; and (v) the promotion of public transit and sustainable transportation.
Within 90 days of this act coming into force, the minister must convene a national conference establishing this strategy.
This bill focuses on the health and safety of Canadians, as well as the health of the environment. It aims to make the Canadian government a world leader by urging it to work with the provinces, territories, municipalities and specialists to come up with an action plan.
I know it might seem terrible for this government to have to work in partnership with the provinces and scientists, or to have to play a leadership role when it comes to the environment, but one can always hope that the government might actually change its position on something.
Many municipalities have begun tackling the problem of heat islands, but their efforts have been scattered and are not nearly substantial enough to produce real results. Some measures taken involve increasing the amount of vegetation and the number of trees, creating more parks, building green rooftops and rooftop gardens, installing cool roofs and using cool pavement.
Luckily, there are potential solutions that can help mitigate the effects of urban heat islands.
As Dorothy Maguire, a Ph.D student in natural resources sciences at McGill University in my riding, wrote in a recent article:
 ...researchers have found that the effects of heat islands can be reduced through innovative urban planning and design that increases the amount of urban green space! Vegetation in the city cools surface temperatures by increasing the amount of heat reflected back into the atmosphere (called the albedo effect). The same way that we sweat to cool our bodies, vegetation reflects sunlight and releases water into the atmosphere to cool the city down. Trees also provide shade, reducing the exposure of heat-absorbing surfaces to sunlight and giving us city-dwellers a cool place to relax. We need to encourage strategies to reduce the urban heat island effect in Montreal, like developing green roofs, preserving existing natural areas and reforesting degraded ones. 
Measures similar to those proposed in this bill were implemented in the early 2000s and have been quite successful. There is no doubt that the phenomenon of urban heat islands is a problem in urban centres. The targeted interventions set out in the bill should help improve public health, environmental quality and energy efficiency in urban areas, as well as in surrounding suburbs and rural areas.
We need to deal with this issue, which affects environmental health, in order to help our society move toward more sustainable and effective solutions.
Studies have all shown the same thing: the presence of urban heat islands has harmful effects. For example, they negatively affect water quality, increase atmospheric pollution, increase heat stress and create an environment that is conducive to the spread of vector-borne diseases.
As I mentioned earlier, there are many documented examples that show how effective green projects are in reducing the effects of urban heat islands, increasing energy efficiency and improving public health and general environmental conditions in cities.
This is an important bill that focuses on both the environment and health, two issues that are important to me and my constituents.
I would like to thank the member for introducing this bill, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
François Pilon: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-579, introduced by my colleague and friend, the excellent NDP member for Honoré-Mercier.
Her bill would reduce the harmful effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians. The environment is an issue that I have been particularly interested in since I was elected in 2011. I work with a number of local organizations that promote and protect the environment, including the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval and the Association pour la protection du boisé Sainte-Dorothée. I find the issue of heat islands to be very worrisome, and as parliamentarians, we have to tackle this issue as quickly as possible for the good of the people.
Let us begin with a definition of a heat island. According to Health Canada a heat island is an urban area that is hotter than nearby areas. Depending on the population density, the temperature can vary by up to 12°C from one neighbourhood to the next. These heat islands are directly caused by human activity in urban areas, whether it is urbanization, transportation, the pollution it causes, or the lack of vegetation. There is no doubt that heat islands have a direct effect on the health of Canadians.
Montreal's public health authority noted that on hot days, the mortality rate was 20% higher than average for people who live in heat islands. It goes without saying that heat islands affect the health of Canadians because of higher temperatures, which create heat waves and increase air pollution.
Between 1973 and 2003, nearly 8,000 people died in Canada alone because of heat waves, and many of these deaths occurred in heat islands. Therefore, this is a problem that we must tackle as parliamentarians, not just because it is a public health issue, but also because it is a wake up call about the disastrous consequences of the environmental decisions, or rather non-decisions, by successive Liberal and Conservative governments over the years.
Although we have been aware of the existence and effects of heat islands for many years, no government—Liberal or Conservative—has bothered to address this issue. No national strategy has been put in place to reduce the effects of heat islands on the health of Canadians. The provincial, municipal and federal governments are not working together on this issue. We need some leadership here, as we do on many other issues. The NDP is the party that is showing leadership by addressing the urgent problems facing our society.
I am proud of the leadership my colleague from Honoré-Mercier has shown on this crucial issue. I am also proud of the leadership shown by our leader, the leader of the official opposition and future Prime Minister of Canada, who has put environmental protection ahead of lobby groups' interests throughout his career. That is the kind of leadership Canadians deserve. As a result of this same leadership, we were able to hear from a number of experts on wetlands and urban agriculture when I was on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. They told us about the dangers of deforestation in urban areas and the negative effects of wetland destruction.
I want to take this opportunity to say hello to Guy Garand and Marie-Christine Bellemare from the Conseil régional de l'environnement in my riding of Laval—Les Îles. They came to testify in committee to explain the direct causal links between wetland destruction in my region and the creation of heat islands.
Heat is not the only consequence of heat islands. The effects can come in many forms, including higher smog levels in major urban centres and lower air quality, which can create breeding grounds for bacteria, mites and mould. These effects also increase demand for energy to cool indoor air and increase demand for and consumption of drinking water.
We must act now because Canadians' health is at stake. Our children, grandchildren and seniors are among those most affected by heat islands.
The Conservative government has washed its hands of the whole thing. It eliminated energy efficiency programs. It has done nothing to help major Canadian cities that have this problem share knowledge and take coordinated action. It is leaving municipalities to their own devices yet again. It has never taken action or implemented any kind of strategy to tackle this problem. 
The NDP does not pass the buck and hope that problems will magically solve themselves. The health of Canadians is a priority, and we want the current government to support Health Canada in its mission to reduce the harmful effects of heat islands. We want to support the provinces and municipalities in their efforts to locate and assess the hottest urban areas. We want to facilitate information sharing among the provinces and municipalities. We want to raise public awareness about the pressing problem of heat islands.
We also believe that it is the federal government's role to support the work of organizations that are offering tangible, low-cost solutions for dealing with or reducing the effects of heat islands. One solution is planting trees, which also improves Canadians' quality of life.
The federal government has an obligation to show leadership and coordinate all these efforts. The NDP is asking for leadership on this bill, among other things.
I can already hear the members opposite saying that it will cost too much and that our heads are in the clouds. That is not true. According to a 2013 study by the Université de Sherbrooke, planting trees provides a return on investment that is 5.8 times higher than the cost of the trees themselves. The University of California, Berkeley, demonstrated that developing a strategy to counter the effects of heat islands reduces energy consumption by 3% to 5%. That is in addition to the money saved on emergency and health care services and on the cost of hospital stays when communities effectively address the problem of heat islands.
To conclude, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier clearly shows that the successive Liberal and Conservative governments were faced with this challenge and, as usual, did nothing.
Canadians will be able to count on real leadership by electing an NDP government in 2015.
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate on the bill so far and I could not agree more with the position detailed earlier today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. Bill C-579 is simply not the right approach for Canadians. Indeed, our government is already taking action to help Canadians adapt to changes in climate and mitigate health risks related to extreme heat. Our approach has been to recognize that urban communities across Canada have different priorities, characteristics and capacities to address local health issues related to a changing climate.
I would like to focus my speech on our government's activities working with other orders of government on this issue of extreme heat, rather than acceding to NDP calls for yet another national strategy. I intend to complement the picture painted by the parliamentary secretary and provide members of the House with further assurance that the government takes the protection of Canadians' health and the environment very seriously, but at the same time, recognizes that the solution to every issue is not a new national strategy.
The bill before us today would require the Minister of Health to consult with the Minister of the Environment, provincial ministers responsible for health, and representatives of municipalities on the issue it speaks to. Within 90 days of the coming into force of the bill, the Minister of Health would also have to convene a national conference aimed at implementing a work plan designed to achieve the objectives of the strategy.
 I have some news for the members of the NDP. Our government is already working with provincial and municipal governments and actively supporting initiatives aimed at addressing the effects of extreme heat. In fact, we work with different levels of government all the time.
Some of these initiatives are focused on reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, both of which can contribute to extreme heat. Perhaps more importantly, our government has recently announced that it will be stepping up its efforts to conserve our environment. Indeed, the Prime Minister recently announced a national conservation plan that includes a long-term vision for conservation in Canada. New investments of $252 million over five years will be directed by the government to conserve Canada's lands and waters, enhance biodiversity, restore degraded ecosystems, protect recovering species and promote Canadians' connection to nature.
Our government has also committed to work toward the creation of a national urban park in the Toronto area. The Rouge Park is set to become Canada's first national urban park under the stewardship of Parks Canada. The creation of the park will also offer nearly 20% of the country's population the opportunity to connect with nature close to home.
The government also promotes community green projects that help mitigate extreme heat. Environment Canada's eco-action community funding program has provided financial support to community-based, non-profit organizations for projects that will protect, rehabilitate or enhance the natural environment. Since 2011, over 100 eco-action projects related to nature, clean air, clean water and climate change have been put in place throughout the provinces and our territories.
Some examples of projects funded include the Treekeepers initiative, which aims to increase the tree canopy in Vancouver, reducing energy use, providing habitat for species, and improving local air quality. Another will create a 400-square-metre green roof and green walls in the Lachine area of Montreal. Eco-action also funds projects that promote the vegetation of empty lots, the installation of native shrubs and trees, and the use of alternative transportation. All of these projects speak to our government's commitment to the environment and reducing the effects of extreme heat.
Health Canada also has a webinar series called “Cool Communities”, which is sharing the results and lessons learned from community-based initiatives with a national and international audience. Through this series we are linking public health officials, landscape architects, planners, local, provincial and federal government employees, and academics so they can share best practices.
Since 2007, our government has invested over $2 billion toward 1,400 green infrastructure projects across Canada through a number of targeted programs, as part of Building Canada and Canada's economic action plan.
The government's approach to the protection of biodiversity and promotion of green spaces in urban areas through initiatives such as the national conservation plan, the Rouge National Park, and the eco-action funding program has the merit of building on existing co-operative work with provinces and municipalities.
 In addition to urban conservation initiatives, our government is taking action to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, both of which can contribute to urban heat island effects.
Through the clean air regulatory agenda, our government is reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants that threaten the health of Canadians. They degrade the environment, they contribute to smog, and ultimately they adversely affect the economy. The government regulates smog-forming emissions from on-road vehicles; off-road compression ignition engines, such as those found in tractors; off-road spark ignition engines, such as those found in lawn mowers; off-road recreational vehicles; and marine spark ignition engines.
In addition to air pollutant regulations, our government is also implementing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in collaboration with provinces, territories, and stakeholders.
In 2010, the government released regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2011 to 2016.
In 2012, we introduced proposed amendments to also regulate model years 2017 and beyond.
Last year, we produced regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles, such as buses and dump trucks. In 2012, our government also put in place regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the coal-fired electricity sector. With these regulations, Canada became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generating units.
The facts are clear for all of us to see. Our government is already taking decisive action in working with provinces, territories, and municipalities to combat the effects of extreme heat and protect our environment. Only the NDP could view the concrete actions that the parliamentary secretary and I have referenced here today as insufficient save for one thing: the branding of yet another “national strategy”.
All that is missing from this legislation is a rehash of the NDP's commitment to impose a $21 billion carbon tax on Canadians. It is not enough for them that our government is working with communities in a respectful and constructive manner, not at all. According to New Democrats, we need to raise taxes on Canadian families and roll out national strategy after national strategy, and it will be these grand socialist schemes that will save Canadians from every ill.
This bill is not needed, it is not wanted, and it will do no more to protect our environment than our government is already doing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has eight minutes remaining.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I mean no offence, but hearing that my time has been cut short comes as bad news; however, I will try to make the best of a bad situation.
The one consolation I have after this bad news is the fact that, as the Quebec caucus chair, I have had the good fortune of visiting many regions of my province. Every time, I have noticed that the bond of trust between the people and the New Democratic Party is always strong when it comes to the environment. This is no doubt directly related to the fact that our leader, the member for Outremont, not all that long ago, was probably one of the best environment ministers that Quebec has ever had.
It therefore comes as no surprise that most of the environmental measures proposed in this Parliament are introduced by NDP members, like the bill introduced this afternoon by my colleague from Honoré-Mercier. The bill introduces legislative provisions to develop a national strategy. If there is one expression we have been hearing a lot over the past year, it is just that: “national strategy”. We hear it so much these days because Canada has never been more disorganized than it is now, ever since the Conservatives came to power. We are probably seen as the laggards or as a laughing stock, take your pick. Among the OECD countries, we are always pulling up the rear and rarely a model. This is definitely true when it comes to the environment, and especially regarding protection measures against heat islands or, what would be even better, measures to eliminate them.
What exactly do we mean when we talk about heat islands? As Camus said, “to call things by incorrect names is to add to the world’s misery”. I will take just a few moments for those who are watching and might not be familiar with the reality we are talking about to explain what we mean by heat island. It is an urban area where the average temperature is higher than that in nearby areas. It is a simple definition that makes it fairly easy to understand the concept. In rural areas, heat islands do not really exist.
Two factors contribute to the temperature rise: (1) urban density, in other words the number of inhabitants per square foot and the number of urban facilities; and (2) urbanism itself. I am drawing the attention of my colleagues to these two key factors to point out that it is human activity that essentially creates heat islands.
Montreal's public health branch released a devastating report on the adverse effects of these heat islands. During the dog days of summer, for example, the branch claims that the death rate is 20%, not 2% or 0.2%, higher than average among people living in heat islands. Of course, that is not all. As you can imagine, heat islands are quite often found in the poorer neighbourhoods of urban areas. These are people who often do not have access to air conditioning, or groups of people who are more sensitive to these climate conditions, such as people with a history of heart disease or seniors. There is a statistic there that needs to be taken into account, even though the numbers are not the only things that matter.
I am running out of time, so I will skip some very interesting statistics and talk about my own riding. These statistics will probably come up in the second hour. The population of Trois-Rivières is 134,000 to 135,000. It is neither a megacity nor a metropolis. There has been a significant amount of urban development, and the city must now deal with heat islands. It is tackling this issue head-on. My riding is not immune to this phenomenon. The temperature in heat islands can be 5 to 10 degrees higher than in the surrounding areas. A study conducted by the Conseil régional de l'environnement de la Mauricie identified the main heat islands in the region.
The city immediately planted about 100 trees in some of the larger heat islands, on boulevard des Récollets, between boulevard des Forges and boulevard Laviolette, and also in the area between the Salon de jeux and boulevard des Forges. These street names probably mean nothing to my colleagues, but the people watching know exactly what I am talking about.
We put down asphalt and say that it is a good thing, but I think those days are gone. Not only do we want projects to be green, but we want them to be sustainable and consist of more than just some grass. The City of Trois-Rivières plans to bring in bylaws so that it will be more difficult for developers to put wall-to-wall asphalt in their development plans.
Organizations in my riding such as Fondation Trois-Rivières pour un développement durable are educating young people about the importance of vegetation in urban areas. The ultimate goal of these initiatives is to urge the people of Trois-Rivières to incorporate sustainable development into their way of life.
Nevertheless, not everything can be done at the local level. I certainly commend the municipal council for all of the measures it is taking. However, Health Canada also has a responsibility to take a leadership role in improving public health for Canadians. Despite their efforts, community organizations and municipal and provincial authorities do not have the means necessary to effectively combat the spread of heat islands. That is why my colleague's bill is so important.
It will be especially difficult to address this issue since by 2051, at least one in four Canadians will be 65 or older, which increases the proportion of people exposed to this risk. It is therefore urgent to pass such a bill. There is work to be done once a bill is passed before heat islands can be eradicated.
This bill offers a way out of the suffocating atmosphere that has developed under the Conservatives. There are many ways to take action when it comes to the environment. It is extremely urgent that we study this bill in committee, since public health knows no political boundaries.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): 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 2:16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)