2014-03-28

Government Orders
Food and Drugs ActHon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):  moved that Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the Parliament of Canada today to endorse Vanessa's law, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. 
I am honoured to be a member of the first Canadian government ever to tackle the insidious and largely hidden problem of the injuries and deaths routinely caused by prescription and over-the-counter drugs. I thank two consecutive ministers of health and the Prime Minister, who acted boldly to make Canadians safer, directly taking on the most influential industry in the world, big pharma, and the status quo in the practice of medicine, which has been corrupted by that industry.
Today is a milestone for me and the Young family as well as for the Government of Canada. I stand here today due to a tragedy in my family that took place exactly 14 years ago last week, on Saturday, March 18, 2000. Without warning, our 15-year-old daughter Vanessa, for whom this act is named, fell down dead in front of me, her heart stopped by the Johnson &amp; Johnson blockbuster prescription drug Prepulsid, a drug we later discovered she should have never been given. Despite emergency ambulance services and the valiant efforts of doctors at two hospitals, Vanessa never regained consciousness and died the next day. We never had a chance to say goodbye.
On March 20, 2000, I began the journey that led me to the House of Commons this morning. The facts of this tragedy shock every layperson who hears them, yet I was to quickly discover that the insiders, the doctors, researchers, and people of big pharma, were never shocked. They knew all along that potentially life-threatening drugs were being pushed on patients with non-life-threatening conditions, as the drug business had become all about Wall Street, and they were benefiting financially big time.
Our doctors are groomed through highly sophisticated big pharma relationship marketing programs. They get their first free lunch the first week of medical school. They then go on to naively accept up to $4 billion a year in North America in gifts, lunches, dinners, event tickets, and free trips from drug companies, imagining that those debts of gratitude do not change their prescribing behaviour. Sometimes I would ask them, “Do you think a drug company takes a bunch of doctors to Bahamas out of kindness?” They also accept and hand out, without any prescription, $3 billion a year worth of free samples of new prescription drugs, creating debts of gratitude in their own patients. It is a dangerous practice, because patients get no safety warnings.
In November 2010, 18-year-old Brennan McCartney, of Bolton, Ontario, took a free sample of the anti-depressant Cipralex, with no safety warning about suicide, which is written right on its label. He went out and hanged himself from a tree in a public park.
Four doctors knew that Vanessa was taking Prepulsid for bloating and a mild form of bulimia, yet neither Vanessa nor we, her parents, were given any warning that the drug was already responsible for 80 deaths. Why? How could this happen to the beautiful, innocent child her doctor described as the picture of perfect health? How could four doctors, people we totally trusted, allow Vanessa to continue to take a drug that could stop her heart?
I began the next day to find out how Vanessa died and why, and I have uncovered many dark secrets. Prescription drugs, taken as prescribed, the right way, are the fourth leading cause of death in North America. There are over 106,000 deaths a year just in hospitals and another 100,000 outside hospitals. That is about 20,000 deaths a year in Canada and 200,000 serious drug injuries.
The drug industry representatives who infest Parliament Hill love to talk about when doctors make errors or when patients use the wrong drug or take too much of a drug. What they never talk about is when a drug used the right way kills or injures a patient, causing 10,000 deaths a year in Canada. In fact, one in nine patients in Canada who goes into hospital will suffer a serious adverse drug reaction in hospital.
All drugs are poisons. Any drug can be toxic; it is just a matter of dose. All drugs cause adverse effects. Some people think over-the-counter drugs are totally safe, yet ordinary Tylenol, acetaminophen, causes hundreds of deaths every year and more cases of acute liver failure than all other medications combined. Too much taken with alcohol can destroy one's liver. Has anyone's doctor ever mentioned that?
Ordinary aspirin and ibuprofen cause thousands of deaths every year across North America, mostly from internal bleeding, yet most patients have never heard this. Why not? There is only one reason. It is because the people who market the drugs, big pharma, do not want patients to know the truth. That would reduce sales.
What happened to Vanessa and Brennan McCartney could happen to anyone who takes drugs without proper safety warnings. Nothing significant has changed since 2000 except the current introduction of plain language labelling for drugs and this bill.
Vanessa's law will empower the Minister of Health to compel drug companies to change their labels to clearly reflect the true risk to patients from their drugs. Patients would be empowered to make informed decisions to take the drugs or not. Patients could then take drugs only when they are relatively safe.
Twenty-seven drugs have been pulled from the Canadian market since 1997 for injuring and killing patients. Prepulsid is one. Another, the painkiller Vioxx, killed 55,000 to 65,000 people worldwide in four years on the market. Why do most Canadians not know that? It is because the drug companies never admit that their drugs have harmed anyone. They spend months and months investigating serious reactions, and then they attempt to blame the patient. They conclude that patients must have taken too much, that they must have had a previously undiagnosed and unknown conditions, or that it must have been a combination of the company's great drug with the patients' other drugs. They then contraindicate their drug with the other drug and change the print on a 50-page label, which most doctors and few patients ever read. Then they carry on promoting it, including for off-label use, meaning for conditions for which it was never proven safe or effective.
Doctors can prescribe any drug at any time for any condition for any patient, even if it is never proven safe for such use. In fact, 70% of doctors prescribe off-label at least some of the time. Modern medicine can be the wild west.
That is what the Johnson and Johnson detail reps did to Vanessa's doctors. They whispered to them that Prepulsid was effective for teens who threw up after meals, yet it was contraindicated and dangerous for anyone throwing up. That was the official warning, but they did not whisper that in her doctors' ears, because Prepulsid was heading for blockbuster status. It was a golden calf, with $1 billion a year in sales.
Just before Health Canada is about to take action to expose risks, the drug companies will pull drugs off the market voluntarily. That way they can keep selling them in over 100 other countries in the world, because they have never admitted that the drug could cause anyone harm. That is the drug business.
Vanessa's law will give the Minister of Health the power to order drugs that present as serious or imminent risk of injury or death off the market without delay. Had this been done with Prepulsid, instead of negotiating over weeks with Janssen-Ortho, Prepulsid would have been recalled. Vanessa would be alive today, along with many others.
Drug companies refuse to provide the true number of serious adverse drug reactions to Health Canada. They report what they hear about, but what does not appear on their label is this crucial fact: only 1% of serious adverse drug reactions are ever reported by doctors. Whatever the number is on the label can usually be multiplied by 100 to get the true number, which the drug companies never do.
Most doctors never report adverse drug reactions. Outside of the doctors I have worked with in prescription drug safety, I have never met a doctor who has reported one.
Despite my advocacy for over 14 years that reporting adverse drug reactions saves lives by providing a widely based early warning system for dangerous drugs, the Canadian Medical Association and the Ontario Medical Association, to this day, do not support making adverse drug reaction reporting a standard practice or mandatory. Doctors are fooled by their own negligence in not reporting life-saving information. Patients die as a result. 
On October 9, 2011, 18-year-old Allison Borges of Oakville was found in a stairwell of her residence at Queen's University, dead, having suffered a pulmonary embolism caused by Apri 28, a birth control pill that her doctor told her was safe. She received no warning that the newer birth control pills are more likely to cause deadly blood clots than the older ones.
 No woman should be given a birth control pill without a clear warning about deadly blood clots, yet it happens all the time. Sadly, 18 year old Marit McKenzie of Calgary suffered the same fate in January 2013. Had Vanessa's law been in place and implemented, both deaths would have been prevented.
 Vanessa's law will impose, for the first time, a duty on health care institutions to report all serious adverse drug reactions, which will capture any adverse drug reaction that causes patients to end up in a hospital or clinic. That will hopefully capture the majority of serious adverse drug reactions so that officials can be alerted to dangerous drugs faster. This will help get them off the market faster and save lives. We must rely on the provinces to persuade doctors themselves to stop covering up adverse drug reactions caused by their prescriptions.
Over half the serious side effects of new drugs will not be revealed during testing. In fact, in the first two years on the U.S. market, one in five, or 20% of new drugs, will be pulled off the market for injuring or killing patients or will be assigned the highest level of warning, a black box warning, to be handed to each patient with the prescription. It is a more effective warning than Canada has ever had and that, under Vanessa's law, it will have.
In May 2007, 18-year-old Sara Carlin of Oakville stopped taking her prescription anti-depressant Paxil abruptly. Then she doubled up, to catch up, two days later. She had no warning that Paxil could cause suicidal ideation and akathesia in those circumstances. Her father found her the next day, hanging by her own hand, in the basement of their home. Neither Sara nor her family had heard about the five “Dear Doctor” letter warnings Health Canada had sent out about Paxil.
Vanessa's law will for the first time allow the minister to order assessments of a drug, including conducting tests or studies and reporting them to Health Canada, and to change the drug labels to better reflect the newly identified risks. Proposed regulations for drug labelling will empower Health Canada to order drug companies to issue labels and patient information leaflets that are written in plain language, with the rare but dangerous potential side effects listed up front, on page one, where patients need to see them. Patient can then decide if they want to accept those dangers or not.
In 2003, Dr. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline, the world's second largest pharmaceutical company, made this statement at a scientific meeting, thinking there were no journalists present: “The vast majority of drugs—more than 90 per cent—only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people”.
What this means is that with a worldwide market of about $800 billion for prescription drugs, as much as $400 billion a year is not only wasted but millions of patients are exposed to dangers with no chance of benefiting. 
According to the Canadian Pharmacists Association, between $2 billion and $9 billion a year is wasted in our drug system. This means that as patients increasingly reject the drug industry's pill for every ill, our health care system would save billions of dollars, hopefully to be invested in preventive care.
Seventy percent of adverse drug reactions are preventable. They are caused by the aggressive over-marketing of drugs, misleading sales pitches, and the covering up of harms that victimize patients. 
How could any moral corporate executive push a drug that could stop a child's heart to treat bloating? That is exactly what the executives at Johnson and Johnson's drug arm Janssen-Ortho did, and they broke the law in doing it. It is quite normal in the drug business.
Drug safety is about one thing: does the potential risk of this drug outweigh the potential benefits for me? Yet the big pharma companies do everything they can to make sure that patients have no way to answer that question. They exaggerate the benefits and they hide the risks.
I know that this sounds outrageous. It sounds like a father who lost his daughter and then lost his objectivity, so let me give a few factual examples of where big pharma companies have openly admitted to crimes to increase sales of their drugs.
In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline, the people who made our H1N1 vaccine, paid a fine of $3 billion, the highest in history, to U.S. governments for illegally marketing three drugs: Paxil, an anti-depressant, which causes suicides; Avandia, a diabetes drug that causes heart attacks and strokes; and Wellbutrin, another anti-depressant with similar adverse effects. Yet GlaxoSmithKline had grossed $26 billion in sales for these three drugs in the previous six years. With markups on drugs at more than 100% and 1000%, a $3 billion fine is really just the cost of doing business for GlaxoSmithKline. It is kind of like a speeding ticket.
Shortly after Vanessa died, I asked adverse drug reaction expert Dr. Neil Shear, in Toronto, why drug companies do not take dangerous drugs like Prepulsid off the market. Here is what he replied: “In the drug industry, killing people is not bad for business. As long as it's not too many”. Nothing has changed since that time. Big pharma companies put the legal costs for injuries and deaths right in their business plans. 
Here are some more examples of big pharma corporate criminals. I will read a short list from a list that could be pages long.
Merck has paid $1.6 billion in settlements since 2008, in part for paying illegal kickbacks to health care providers. Ely Lilly paid $1.3 billion in 2009 for illegally promoting Zyprexa, leading to the deaths of many seniors. Novartis paid $422 million in 2010 for off-label promotion of Trileptal. Forest Labs paid $313 million in 2010 for off-label promotion of Celexa and Levothroid. Allergan paid $825 million in 2010 for off-label promotion of Botox. AstraZeneca paid $520 million in 2010 for misleading doctors and patients about the safety of Seroquel. The list goes on, and these are just since 2008. 
The question is, how do the big pharma companies get away with this?
They have power and influence. They are some of the wealthiest companies in the world and have no loyalty to any country, but, above all else, despite the thousands of deaths, no big pharma executive has ever gone to jail.
Imagine if murderers, rapists, or extortionists could simply negotiate payments with some government official to keep out of jail and to keep on doing what they are doing. The only way these companies will ever stop their corrupt practices is: one, if the practices become unprofitable; and, two, if those responsible face real jail time. Vanessa's law, for the first time, would impose tough new penalties for unsafe products, increasing fines from $5,000 a day to $5 million a day and including jail time for up to two years. That is the only way to actually get their attention and change their ways. And if these serious violations are caused intentionally, court-imposed fines could be unlimited.
My hope is that when life-threatening dangers are intentionally covered up, judges will fine offenders the entire amount of their sales of their blockbuster drug, or more, because nothing else will change their practices.
Vanessa's law would be the beginning of the end for the unscrupulous and corrupt marketing practices in big pharma companies in Canada. It would no doubt reduce drug injuries and deaths in Canada by thousands. It is much needed and it is long overdue. We can never have Vanessa back, in this life, or Sara Carlin, or Allison Borges, or Brennan McCartney, or Marit McKenzie, but we can change things moving forward. We can do what governments are supposed to do: protect vulnerable people.
Vanessa's law represents the highest calling of a government, in my view. When the death of an innocent child can lead to definitive action by the Government of Canada to help prevent others from the same fate, our democracy is at its best.
Every school day, across Canada, millions of children sing: 
  From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.  
However, that promise has to be a two-way street.
Vanessa Young would be proud to see that with Bill C-17, Canada is standing on guard for its school children, its seniors, and its other vulnerable patients. 
Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member for Oakville and I go back to 2008. We were elected together. I know his passion for this subject. I have read his book. I have had personal conversations with him. I have to say it was pretty thrilling to hear that speech. We do not agree on many things, he and I, but we agree wholeheartedly on this. In many ways, I wish that I had the courage to give a speech like that. It was incredibly powerful. I want to stand here and publicly give him my support and tell him that it takes a lot of courage to say things like that in this place. Everything he said was the truth.
He talked about uncovering dark secrets and, boy, has he ever, and that big pharma does not want patients to know the risks and, boy, does it ever not want that to happen.
 I want to talk about next steps. One step that I see coming after this legislation would be to include mandatory registration of clinical trials and public disclosure of those findings. I recognize that is not in the bill right now. I recognize that the bill is a great first step, but I want to keep going on this. He said it is the beginning of the end.
What are his thoughts on next steps? Would that be one of them?
[Interjection]
Terence Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her kind words and for her support on this issue, over a long time.
I agree with the member. The transparency in research and clinical trial research is a critical part of improving the data the drug companies use to get drugs approved in the first place. 
They are very secretive about it. They refer to it as “commercial rights” or “trade secrets”, or whatever, but I do not believe it is.
When a pharmaceutical company hires someone to do a clinical trial, they normally ask the researcher to sign a contract, which is basically a gag order that says the company can stop the trial at any time and he or she must never talk about it again. If the trial is not going well for the drug, that is what they do. No one knows the trial was even started. If the trial shows the drug might be harming patients, they stop the trial and the researcher can never talk about it again, or never get work again as a researcher. They could do a number of trials like that on a drug until they finally find a researcher who gets them the positive result they want.
 I agree with registering all trials, that it should be done, and that even if the trial is stopped early, all the data should be published.
 I see the CMHA has requested or suggested that this go into Vanessa's law. I can only say that the Minister of Health is willing to consider amendments to Vanessa's law and I would be very pleased if that were put into the bill.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to applaud the member for Oakville. There is no doubt that due to his efforts and great amount of courage, we actually have this bill before us today, and it speaks volumes in what determination and the love of a relationship can bring. Ultimately, as we go through this bill, we want it to go to committee.
One of the questions that came to my mind is on the Government of Canada’s ability to compel manufacturers to recall. Can the member provide some insight on that particular issue?
[Interjection]
Terence Young: Mr. Speaker, the issue there is that the pharmaceutical industry, when it starts to get reports of serious adverse drug reactions, generally investigates them and drags them out and tries to blame them on the patients and on another drug. Or, if the company admits that its drug combined with another drug caused a serious adverse drug reaction, it then changes the label, which is a 50-page document that most doctors never read and patients never see. Then it continues marketing the drug.
In the case of Propulsid, the drug that caused Vanessa's death, the manufacturer did that over 10 years. It changed the label five times, knowing that no one ever reads the fine print on a label, and it added certain contraindications. It contraindicated it with erythromycin and clarithromycin over the years. Finally, just a few weeks before Vanessa died of heart arrhythmia from Propulsid, the manufacturer sent out a letter to all doctors, which the pharmaceutical companies can easily do and do all the time. The letter said not to prescribe Propulsid or give it to patients unless they have done an EKG first. That was the first warning that really meant anything to doctors because even a doctor who is in a big hurry with a room full of patients will look at that warning and wonder why doctors would give an EKG to a patient for a drug. Vanessa's doctor did not see that. He was in Florida on a holiday, and he came back and we know the result. 
Dragging out the negotiations of changing the wording on the labels is one of the tricks pharmaceutical companies do to keep the drug on the market and keep the sales going, and it causes injuries and deaths. With the new powers under Vanessa's law, the minister would be able to examine the situation, and if that is what is going on and there is an imminent danger, she could order the companies to take the drug not only off the market but also right out of the supply chain.
Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his eloquent speech.
Obviously one of the worst nightmares for a parent or for any individual is an allergic reaction or an adverse drug reaction. Even as recently as last week, while I was in my other official capacity, a parent phoned me at home at 11:30 at night to say, “I have called 9-1-1; I am heading to the hospital myself, but can I meet you there because I am so concerned about my child's reaction to a drug they have just taken”. Obviously this is something that hits close to home, and parents become anxious every time they have to move forward to ensure they are taking care of their child under the right circumstances and that the drugs they are using to ensure their child becomes healthier are actually safe.
My question for the member is this. With respect to this serious issue of adverse drug reactions, what would be the reporting mechanism and how would that be enforced, to ensure that children across the country are safe?
[Interjection]
Terence Young: Mr. Speaker, currently Health Canada has a reporting mechanism on its website. Any doctor, health care professional, or individual citizen can report an adverse drug reaction. As I mentioned in my speech, only about 1% do get reported. Doctors are reluctant, for a whole range of reasons.
However, using the standards of practice for hospitals, Vanessa's law would insist that people working in health care institutions, clinics, and hospitals, report adverse drug reactions. It is something they are already doing in the institutions. They already have the information and they already keep it somewhere. I do not think it is particularly onerous. We would simply ask them to send the information to Health Canada so that it can look for patterns and for an early warning on drugs that may be risky or drugs that are being used in the wrong way.
Exactly how that is going to work is to be determined, but we would catch most of the serious adverse drug reactions because they are the ones that end up in hospital. If we can get the provinces to convince doctors, in some way, to start reporting out of their office on their own computers a suspected adverse drug reaction and create a really robust database from across Canada, we could even reduce more injuries and deaths.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his tremendous speech. I remember a speech like that a while ago from Mr. Chuck Cadman, when he was here, after the loss of his son. I take to heart the member's speech. I can assure him that nobody on this side of the House would ever accuse him of bias with respect to a bill that would have the potential to save thousands of lives now and in the future.
My question to the member is this. Because these drug companies are all big multinational or international companies and we have trade deals, for example, with NAFTA and others, does he foresee any problems with respect to the bill being challenged on a legal front through areas like Chapter 11 of NAFTA? 
Can he also say what other countries, like France, Germany, Britain, Holland, Australia, or the United States, would do in terms of Vanessa's law? Is there anything similar out there that we can mirror as well? It would be interesting to know of his research on what other countries are doing concerning this very important issue.
[Interjection]
Terence Young: Mr. Speaker, the United States has generally had a more robust warning system for patients and doctors. I mentioned the black box warnings it has for the 200 drugs considered to be the most risky. By law, that warning is supposed to be handed to patients when they pick up their prescription.
The European Medicines Agency is ahead of us in some ways. It will often take a drug off the market before it is taken off the market in the U.S. or Canada. I mentioned Avandia, a diabetes drug that causes heart attacks and strokes. It was taken off the market in Europe in 2009. It is still on the market in the United States and Canada, with beefed-up warnings, but Europe seems to be a little more progressive.
Health Canada has recently begun communicating more with the best regulators in the world, which would include the FDA, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the U.K., and the European Medicines Agency, and sharing practices. Through them, it has gotten a lot of ideas on ways to handle these issues for Vanessa's law. I think if the House agrees to pass the bill, it will put Canada in the forefront and will increase communications with these other bodies, so that the drug companies cannot keep a drug on the market in one country, take it off in another, and pull the wool over the eyes of doctors and patients.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. I am pleased that the bill is in the House. 
As I said in my questions to the member for Oakville, that speech took a lot of courage. I do not think my speech will be quite as courageous. The words that the member for Oakville said are exactly the words I wish I had said in this place.
The bill is long overdue and I am glad it is here. I am not going to criticize the delay, because it is here. I do think it needs to go a bit further, but it is a great first step.
When I was the health critic a few years ago, I knew nothing about the pharmaceutical industry. As a critic, people started giving me books and articles and I started talking to experts. I went around Canada and talked to all kinds of folks working on this issue. When we start peeling back the layers of the onion, we realize what a messy, dark world that is. The power and control that pharmaceutical companies have is quite amazing, as is the trust we give them. We hand over our lives in this way because we think they know what is best.
One example I often used when I was talking to people was the therapeutics initiative in British Columbia, which is an arm's-length body, not a government body. There are experts on that panel who make recommendations about what drugs will be covered under British Columbia's pharmacare program. One might wonder why we would have to do that. Can one not just look at the label? Can one not just find out if a drug is worth covering or not? 
We are not always told the truth. Drug companies will go to great lengths to ensure that their drugs are on those pharmacare lists because they have a lot of money to make from it. Sometimes they will take a drug and change one molecule and say it is a new breakthrough drug when it is just one molecule different from the old drug that works. Maybe they are not making enough money off it. That one molecule change can do a lot when it comes to having an impact on the people’s health.
I am reminded that I need to seek unanimous consent to split my time. I hope the chamber will allow me that.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share her time with a colleague?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan.
Vioxx was touted as an incredible breakthrough in pain relief. Why do we need a breakthrough in pain relief? We have ibuprofen and acetaminophen. Some of these drugs do a bit of wear and tear on our stomachs and can cause internal bleeding, and some people have died even from something as simple as ibuprofen.
The big breakthrough drug, Vioxx, which goes under many other names, but that is probably the most common name, was touted as being a pain reliever that would not cause bleed-outs. It was approved by Health Canada, so people put a lot of faith in that approval. The thing was that there were no published clinical trial reports about this drug. We did not know if it did not cause bleed-outs or if it was a better pain reliever, and yet Health Canada approved it. 
When Therapeutics Initiative did an analysis of this new drug, it said it would not recommend it to be covered by B.C.'s pharmacare. Since the clinical data was not published, it was a bit suspicious about what was going on, and it said no. Then the lobbying began, heavy-duty lobbying to government to get the drug on the pharmacare list because a lot of money was at stake. 
We have heard of grassroots organizations that are in our communities and work together. In dealing with pharmaceutical industries these groups are termed astroturf groups. Astroturf groups are not grassroots. They seem to be grassroots, but they are actually funded by the drug companies. These astroturf organizations are funded by drug companies, but they are made up of just regular folks, and a lot of them probably really believe what they are being told. For example, if I have constituents calling me and saying they would like to talk about a drug that is not covered, I do not know that they are getting funding to do this from a pharmaceutical company. These groups pop up and, as politicians, we know it is hard to say no to constituents. A lot of pressure was being put to get Vioxx on the list.
Therapeutics Initiative did the right thing, because eventually Vioxx had to be pulled off the market, because it was killing people. It was not any better than ibuprofen or acetaminophen for a headache, and while it may not necessarily have caused internal bleeding, it did cause heart attacks. If I have the choice of living with a migraine for a few days or having a heart attack, I am going to live with the migraine. Many people have come forward and said that because of Therapeutics Initiative, hundreds of lives were saved in British Columbia.
All Canadians deserve these kinds of safety standards, not just British Columbians, because at the very least our federal government is here to protect us, to make sure we are safe, to make sure we are not being sold a drug that is actually going to do more harm than good.
Partway through his speech, the member for Oakville said that he saw today as the beginning of the end for drug companies and the hold they have on us. I hope he is right. I am standing here with my hands clasped and I hope he is right, because they are so big and they make so much money.
The global pharmaceutical industry is one the most profitable industries in the world, if not the most. The industry is worth about $300 billion U.S. a year, and that is expected to rise to $400 billion in the next three years. Only ten drug companies cover one-third of the market; six are in the U.S. and four are in Europe. It is predicted that North America, South America, Europe, and Japan will continue to account for a full 85% of the global pharmaceuticals market well into the 21st century. 
The World Health Organization has spoken out about this. It has said there is such pressure to maintain sales that now there is, in its words:
 ...an inherent conflict of interest between the legitimate business goals of manufacturers and the social, medical and economic needs of providers and the public to select and use drugs in the most rational way. 
There is this tension between sales and our lives, our health, and our safety. This is particularly true—and it is the same with the World Health Organization—when we think about where we are getting our information about these drugs. We are getting that information from the companies. They are telling us which drugs are most effective. 
We rely on our doctors, but they are busy folks. They are courted by the pharmaceutical companies. They are given pages and pages of information, in which everything is embedded; then there is a little quick piece that says to try Vioxx because it is great for headaches. We do not get the proper information because it is coming from the companies themselves.
This bill is a good step in the right direction, because there are some key things in it. It would allow the minister to order a recall on drugs. That is a really important thing we need to see. It would allow the minister to order a manufacturer or importer to modify the label of a drug to update it on side effects or health risks associated with it. It would allow the minister to order a review of a drug and require that a copy be given to him or her.
It would do some good things. It needs to go further. The House heard my question to the member for Oakville about publishing clinical trial data. That is incredibly important.
I will sum up by saying that, if there is one thing that the federal government is here for, it is to protect us and keep us safe. We need the federal government to fulfill that role. I am encouraged to hear that the minister is open to some amendments. I would also be encouraged to hear if the minister were open to more legislation, because this is incredible, and if we are going to see this as the first step in tackling the pharmaceutical industry, there logically has to be a next step. I look forward to that next step as well.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we recognize how important it is to improve patient safety. There is no doubt about it; this is a bill we want to see go to committee. We heard the presenter talk about the possibility of amendments, which would be great to see brought into place.
However, it is more than just legislation. One could argue that we need to ensure there are resources in place to ensure we are able to enforce the new measures. This is not something we should be taking lightly.
For a great deal of time now, my colleague, the Liberal Party critic for health care, has talked a lot about the health care accord and the importance of getting and achieving a health care accord, which in essence would ensure money into the future for our provinces. Different stakeholders need to be brought to the table because of the whole jurisdictional issue.
I wonder if the member might want to provide some comment on the importance of resources and the different stakeholders making sure we are able to implement legislation of this nature?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, of course resources are needed that go hand in hand when it comes to drug safety. I will say, though, that I am really going to fight for changes in legislation here. 
I was doing media commentary in 2012, about Alysena 28, the birth control pill. There were about two or three rows of sugar pills in this birth control package, so women were at risk of pregnancy. For some women, it is a very serious medical issue if they get pregnant. People make all kinds of decisions about why they are taking birth control.
I did media for the NDP when that was happening. I was so frustrated because it was actually a pharmacist who disclosed that this was happening; it was not even the government. I wondered where the government was and why it was not doing something about this. The government actually could not say to the company that it had to recall it.
There are some legislative places where we need to give powers to the minister. Of course, then, the next step is making sure there are resources, so the minister has the ability to enforce them. We do need to make those changes to legislation.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Halifax for her very passionate response to an equally passionate and powerful presentation by the member for Oakville.
In the member for Oakville's speech, he referred to the fact that GlaxoSmithKline, as just one example, paid a fine of $3 billion, having made $26 billion in the period of time at issue. However, what I see in this bill before us, if I understand it properly, is that the maximum is $5 million and imprisonment, I am pleased to see. As the member for Oakville pointed out, no big pharma rep has ever been to jail.
As you talk about the amendments you would be seeking in this legislation, would you support a larger fine beyond the $5 million that is currently in the bill, in order to address the huge discrepancy that the member for Oakville brought to our attention?
The Speaker: I would just remind the hon. member for Victoria to address his questions to the Chair, not directly to the member for Halifax. 
The hon. member for Halifax.
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I would really look forward to a discussion at committee about just that, hearing from some experts like Joel Lexchin, for example, from York University. That is because the point of fines in this case would be to deter. Companies are making unfathomable amounts of money, so if the fine is not high enough, it is just the cost of doing business. It is much like the cost of doing business is sending their pharmaceutical reps for a cruise after they score a good contract, or down to the south with their families for a couple of weeks. This really happens. It is a gravy train, if one gets a job as a pharmaceutical rep. 
Therefore, if a fine is just the cost of doing business and they are still going to make tonnes of money because they have changed one molecule in a drug, then it is not serving the purpose, is it? We will have to ask that at committee. 
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to be speaking to Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
Before I begin, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oakville for the courage and determination he has shown in having this bill introduced in the House and in supporting it, as it touches him personally.
It is very important that we debate such a sensitive and important bill. The federal government must shoulder its responsibilities regarding the Food and Drugs Act. It is good that we are debating this today. I would like to assure the hon. member opposite, the member for Oakville, that the official opposition will be supporting the bill.
I understand that the minister would be open to amendments. We would be more than pleased to participate in the debate and put forward amendments to Bill C-17 so that it can be improved and so that we create the best legislation possible. In that way, we can keep cases like Vanessa's and so many others from happening in Canada.
The NDP will be supporting Bill C-17, which makes several key improvements to drug safety laws.
First, it allows the government to recall drugs or order the distributor to take corrective action to remedy the problem with the drug. That is an extremely important element, one that I will come back to later on in my speech.
Second, it allows the health minister to order a manufacturer or importer to modify the label of a drug to update the side effects or health risks associated with it. The minister can also order a review of the drug and require that a copy of the review be given to the department. In addition, the minister can require manufacturers to update Canadian information about the risks associated with their drug even if the safety risks were discovered in other countries
This bill is a good first step in establishing a comprehensive drug plan and in setting the course for our society on this issue. After calls from many health care professionals and advocates, this bill will finally grant the health minister the necessary power to pull unsafe drugs from the market and ensure better labelling of possible adverse effects of drugs.
We support this legislative measure and we hope that even more practical measures will follow. We support this bill, but there is still much to be done to improve drug safety measures. We will therefore propose amendments to improve this bill in committee.
We hope that our efforts will lead to a comprehensive piece of legislation that will include follow-up by Health Canada on adverse drug reactions, increased transparency with regard to the assessment of prescription drugs and a better system for communicating the risks associated with drugs to health care professionals and patients, in particular.
As I mentioned, this bill will make it possible for the government to compel manufacturers to recall drugs and order distributors to take corrective action to resolve problems with their products. In this regard, at the end of her speech, my colleague from Halifax gave the example of a mistake that was made in 2011 by the manufacturer of Alesse 28.
Alesse 28 is a type of birth control pill that generally works on a 28-day cycle. Women take the product for the first 21 days and then they take a placebo for the remaining seven days. The placebos are often just sugar pills. The problem that occurred had to do with the content of the pills. Rather than containing 21 birth control pills, a package of the product contained two weeks' worth of placebo pills.
Obviously, this can have a rather serious impact on a woman's menstrual cycle. I do not necessarily want to get into the details of how the menstrual cycle works, but having good birth control that works is really very important.
Since 1969, the year in which woman were given access to oral contraceptives, thousands of women in Canada and throughout the world have been using this method of birth control. I have used it myself, as many other female members of the House likely have, and many Canadian women use it.
It is an extremely important part of our family planning, for all sorts of reasons. There are various reasons why women use birth control. A drug that does not have the anticipated effect can have an extremely harmful impact on the health of women and on family planning.
These thousands of women trust in the system, in our health care system and in the drug manufacturers. The women affected by this problem experienced low hormone levels, which caused a number of problems. The main purpose of the product is to prevent ovulation. The placebos prevent that prevention, so to speak, and allow the woman to ovulate. That can have a serious impact on family planning.
Bill C-17 could do something about this. How did people find out about this mistake? Pharmaceutical companies were certainly not forthcoming about it. Pharmacists were the ones who sounded the alarm after noticing that there was a problem with the drugs they were selling. If the pharmacists had not spoken up and told people about the situation, the pharmaceutical companies surely would not have told anyone. There is no telling how far the situation might have gone.
It is good to know that with Bill C-17, new provisions will enable the federal government to do something. Currently, it cannot do anything about situations like that. The government has no power to act. It is very important to create legislation to address these situations. I am speaking on behalf of many women who believe that the federal government should have a say in the matter. We have to make sure that women have access to the best possible drugs, the best possible oral contraceptives.
Once again, I would like to thank the member for Oakville for introducing this measure in his bill.
As I said, we will support this bill at second reading, and we will probably put forward a number of amendments in committee just to make it better. That said, we do think that it is a step in the right direction.
We would like to see several more things in this bill. I know that I will not be able to go into detail because my time is almost up, but the bill ought to include a number of measures, such as optimal prescribing practices to ensure that Canadians are being prescribed the most appropriate drugs. Public disclosure of clinical trial results is also important because, in Canada, the results of numerous clinical trials are never published or made available to the public. We are also asking the government to strengthen the common drug review. 
In closing, I would like to say that Bill C-17 is a step in the right direction and that the federal government has to step up to its responsibility with respect to the Food and Drugs Act. I am also pleased that the government is so open to amendments that might be put forward. I am very happy that we are talking about this bill in the House. I can assure the member for Oakville that we will vote in favour of the bill and that we will make sure it is the best it can be.
Terence Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members for their contributions to the debate and their kind words today.
The member for Victoria raised an issue, and I guess he did not hear what I said in my speech. I mentioned that for situations of criminal negligence, where a pharmaceutical company covers up the risk of one of their drugs and it leads to serious harm to patients, there is authority for unlimited fines.
 If a judge saw fit, he or she could fine the drug company, for example, the total amount of sales for that drug for the period it was on the market. That would be the absolute best way, and I would suggest the only way, to stop these corrupt practices.
The key problem with the pharmaceutical industry and why Vanessa's law is so important is that CEOs of pharmaceutical companies, like all companies that sell shares on the market, have to by law increase shareholder value. On the other hand, there is no law against putting a risky drug on the market because all drugs cause adverse effects. 
It is the level of the risk that has to be monitored. That is why Vanessa's law is necessary.
The Speaker: We have time for a brief response before we move on to members' statements.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Oakville for his comments. I must say, I am very happy that the bill contains provisions to change the current system.
As I already mentioned, the NDP will vote in favour of Bill C-17, and we look forward to discussing it in committee in order to make some changes that are even more significant. I appreciate the comments from the member for Oakville.
The Speaker: There will be approximately three minutes left for questions and comments after question period.
Right now we will move on to statements by members.

Statements By Members
Charlie YoungMr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Charlie Young, a local music and Rotary Club legend, who passed away earlier this month at the age of 94. 
Born in the U.K., Charlie joined his first music group at the age of 14, playing the clarinet and saxophone. He continued to perform for the next 80 years, with his last gig at a luncheon at the Rotary Club of Chilliwack just five days before he died. 
Charlie joined the World War II effort and brought comfort to Allied troops all over Europe with his music. It was during the war that he met and married his beloved Mary, also a musician. They made beautiful music together.
They moved to Canada in 1955 and soon afterward formed the Copper Room Orchestra, performing at the Harrison Hot Springs hotel. Their award-winning music was the backdrop for many a memorable evening on that dance floor. 
Charlie's memorial service was fittingly a musical celebration, with his last band, The Rotations, doing their best to play on even though their heart and soul had passed on. 
Forever young, Charlie Young left a lasting legacy. He will be missed.
Government DecisionsMr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about what I have been hearing from the people of Jeanne-Le Ber. 
People talk to me about how they are struggling to make ends meet and about the need to make life more affordable. They have pointed out the importance of social housing, and I received several hundred responses about maintaining door-to-door mail delivery.
The government talks about its mandate and having consulted with Canadians, but who are the Canadians that the government is consulting with? Is it Canadians who were asked to consult on bill C-23? I think not. Maybe it is the Canadians who demand rail safety, or maybe it is Canadians who will no longer be receiving home delivery. No, I think not.
From train derailments to the insipid attacks on the Canadian elections process, the citizens of Jeanne-Le Ber know that their representative and the NDP are there to listen and to hold the government to account when they cannot—until 2015.
AutismMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I applaud the town of Gibsons, B.C., for officially proclaiming World Autism Awareness Day on April 2 and for the official kick-off of the International Naturally Autistic People Awards Convention and Festival. This is the only convention of its kind in the world, and it is rooted right here in Canada on B.C.'s Sunshine Coast. 
On its fifth anniversary, the participation has grown from four to 22 countries. For the first time in its history, it will kick off simultaneously in five different countries, with a Canadian delegation attending the Edinburgh conference. Yesterday, the Centers for Disease Control announced that autism affects one in 68 children in the U.S.
The MP for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont is a real role model for all of us parliamentarians in how he integrates his role as dad and MP. As he said, “Children with autism become adults with autism and eventually will become senior citizens with autism.” I commend my colleague and the Autistic People's Federation for their dedication to raising awareness about autism, supporting the autistic community, and helping all of us strive for the creation of a society in which autistic people can evolve and grow beyond any limits.
Rouge ParkHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week was the 24th anniversary of the announcement of the Rouge Park by the Government of Ontario. The creation of the park was the result of the tireless efforts by numerous organizations, community groups, and local volunteers united in their desire to protect critical habitat and a priceless heritage for the people of Canada. 
These groups included Save the Rouge, the WWF, the COSCA, and the thousands of other people who wrote letters and attended meetings. The Friends of the Rouge have been clear in their desire to see the park at 100 square kilometres, which is the minimum necessary to support a sustainable and healthy ecosystem. Sadly, it seems that the government is considering a much smaller area to designate as the national park, which would put in jeopardy the ecological health of the park and all the hard work of local residents and citizens. Worse, the government has failed to even consult with these citizens. 
On behalf of the thousands of Canadians who care about preserving our natural heritage, I urge the government to have meaningful consultations and commit to the creation of a park large enough to sustain a thriving ecosystem. To do any less would be a betrayal of all of those citizens. 
Birthday CongratulationsMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my sons, both of whom I am so proud of. I thank Kevin and Brandyn for their support on my campaign and their belief in my abilities. I thank them for taking their education seriously and for the trust they place in mom and me to ask for our advice. 
I thank them for the poker games with their friends, for our great outings on the golf course, and for our constant text messages. I thank them for the love, support, equality, and respect they show their beautiful gals, Chantal and Emily. I thank them for being best friends to each other, but above all else, I thank them for the love and caring they show to their mother as she loves them more than, as men, we will ever understand. 
They have turned into superb young men. I admire them, look up to them, respect them, and love them both for who they are. God has so blessed us as a family. It is so cool to be their dad, and I want to say from the bottom of my heart that I am sorry for turning them into Maple Leafs fans. I love these guys.
Happy birthday, Brandyn.
Neighbourhood and Family Outreach Centres in Alfred-PellanRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to acknowledge the exceptional work of the employees and volunteers at the neighbourhood and family outreach centres in my riding.
In Alfred-Pellan, we are lucky to have a number of agencies that work hard to make our community more welcoming and dynamic. The Vimont neighbourhood centre, and the Saint François and Auteuil family outreach centres are a few of the agencies that support thousands of people in Laval every year.
I want to commend the Saint François family outreach centre in particular for its new community initiative, a community newspaper called La Voix de St-François. Everyone in Saint François was delighted to receive this publication in their mailbox and we are already looking forward to reading the next issue.
To all the employees and volunteers at these agencies that are so important to our communities, thank you very much. Your devotion and hard work are essential to the well-being of the people of Laval.
Brampton BatmanMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us. 
A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a little boy's shoulders. Brampton has that hero: the Brampton Batman.
Stephen Lawrence is more than just a man. He has devoted himself to an ideal and become something else entirely. For over two years, he has been a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a dark knight who has walked the streets of Brampton at night helping others.
 He has changed tires, helped people cross the street, and even saved a life by performing CPR. The Brampton Batman is always happy to take pictures or lend a helping hand. He even has his own Batmobile, and yes, it comes in black.
Brampton is full of people ready to believe in good, and the Brampton Batman helps us believe. He is a hero Brampton deserves.
Rural Economic Summit of OntarioMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the Rural Economic Summit of Ontario, an excellent event that will be taking place in my riding.
As the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, some of my main objectives are to strengthen the local economies in my riding, encourage innovation and promote entrepreneurship.
Having owned a small business before becoming an MP, I can understand the desire of rural businesses to grow and prosper. That is why I support the Rural Economic Summit of Ontario, which will be held from April 30 to May 2, in Clarence-Rockland, in my riding. 
The rural economic summit will bring together rural business owners from all over Ontario and will tackle a number of important themes, such as agri-food industry challenges, best practices, networking, and entrepreneurial initiatives.
I am very honoured to be attending this year along with our Minister of State for Finance.
Small and medium-sized businesses are the job creators within our communities, and they are critical to stimulating economic growth and stability within our local economies.
I hope to see all Ontario businesses there at the summit.
Air Passengers' RightsMr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Bill C-459 on air passengers' rights in Canada was defeated in this place by the members opposite. Unlike Canada, most developed countries in the world have adopted laws on the rights of air passengers. As a result of the Conservatives' inexplicable decision, thousands of Canadians across the country have already been affected and will continue to be affected by this legislative void.
Some of these passengers are seniors, people with disabilities, students and people with limited financial resources. These travellers have been penalized because airlines have humiliated them by not recognizing their right to legitimate compensation.
We wonder why this government refuses to defend consumers. The actions of this Conservative government and its usual and systematic negligence must be condemned and give us further incentive to restore Canadians' dignity and well-being in 2015.
Offshore Health and SafetyMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we debated Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act, at third reading.
While NDP members said they supported the bill, they continued to bring forward proposals that would further delay the passage of this important legislation. Offshore workers deserve better.
This legislation is widely supported by industry, offshore workers, the offshore regulatory boards, and key stakeholders, including Justice Robert Wells.
The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Nova Scotia have already given royal assent to their respective bills and now wait on our Parliament for the law to come into force. 
NDP members failed Canadian workers yesterday when they filibustered Bill C-5 and refused to allow Parliament to give offshore workers what they have been asking for.
When will the NDP stop its delay tactics and pass this bill?
Quebec Organization for ImmigrantsMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this year is the 15th anniversary of Quebec's action week against racism, which is known as Semaine d'actions contre le racisme. Discrimination, racism and exclusion hold our country back, and we benefit from diversity in a world that is becoming increasingly complex.
I want to highlight the exceptional work done by Chantier d'Afrique Canada. This organization helps Quebeckers of African origin successfully integrate by providing a place where they can find information, consult each other and work together.
The organization's CEPFI program, which provides professional support to immigrant women, is particularly close to my heart. The CEPFI program offers training, networking and internships to provide meaningful ways to help women get involved and to promote cultural diversity.
I want to personally thank the entire team at Chantier d'Afrique Canada, and particularly Henriette Kandula, the executive director, for helping immigrants with their socio-professional development. 
PensionsMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal leader, who wants to raise taxes on seniors so he can spend, spend, spend, our Conservative government believes that seniors deserve to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. That is why we have taken unprecedented action to put more money back in the pockets of seniors and all other Canadians. 
We cut the GST, introduced pension income splitting and created a tax-free savings account that has allowed more than nine million Canadians to save tax free. However, we did not stop there. We introduced pooled registered pension plans to help small businesses and the self-employed to save for their retirement. 
Yesterday a new report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Certified General Accountants of Ontario endorsed pooled registered pension plans as a solution for Ontario. A whopping 86% of employers surveyed support introducing PRPPs. We are pleased to see such strong support for our government's action. It is too bad the opposition voted against it. 
We encourage all provinces to move forward with PRPPs. We continue to stand up for seniors and retirees in Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, and all of Canada, by building our world-renowned retirement income system while keeping taxes low. 
Democratic ReformMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee, while studying the unfair elections act, we welcomed Mr. Harry Neufeld, the former elections chief of British Columbia. He recently wrote a report on the election of 2011. Because the minister likes to quote from his report, here is what Mr. Neufeld had to say: 
 ...it is important to me that my report is properly understood. Having listened carefully to what the Minister has said, it is my opinion that he has not interpreted my report correctly. 
He went on to say: 
 However, over the course of my study, I heard of no candidate scrutineers, voters, or media representatives ever raising an issue with respect to vouching fraud. 
That is the very system the minister now wishes to eliminate. 
 With regard to the minister's quoting of his report, Mr. Neufeld also said that the minister has been “selectively reading and quoting from my report.”
Finally, he said this: 
 ...I believe it is clear that parts of Bill C-23 require careful reconsideration. 
Finally, The Globe and Mail said—
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
The EconomyMr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when one is the Liberal leader, no tough choices, discipline, or savings are required. Someone who thinks budgets balance themselves should never be trusted with jobs and the economy. 
Our government knows that good economic management requires tough decisions and sound judgment. Our government remains steadfast in our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians. 
Canada has had a strong economic performance during the global crisis and recovery. Our overall job growth since the depth of the recession is among the best of the G7 countries, with over one million net new jobs. 
KPMG has just ranked Canada as the most cost-competitive mature market country in the world for business. 
Today, our government will introduce economic action plan 2014 no. 1, marking the next chapter in keeping our commitment to Canadians. We remain focused on our key priorities: supporting families and communities, creating jobs and opportunities, and returning to a balanced budget in 2015.
Job MarketMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we knew that the Conservatives had a bad habit of basing their decisions on their ideology or on good old reform prejudice, but this week, we found out that when it comes to making decisions about the job market, the Conservatives rely not on experts or Statistics Canada, but on Kijiji. Yes, the same site where people buy a sofa bed for their teenager who just moved out.
Across Canada, Canadians who no longer have access to employment insurance are looking for jobs. The government's response is to check on Kijiji between an ad for winter tires and another for a garage sale in Mont-Joli.
I never thought I would have to say this, but Kijiji is not a reliable source for managing the job market of a G7 country. Canadians deserve better than a government that makes it up as it goes along. In 2015, the NDP will put an end to the “Kijiji economy”. We will provide real jobs to Canadians.
Truth National TourMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NDP tried to distance itself from the national truth tour, denying its affiliation with the truther cause and its belief that 9/11 was an inside job.
It should be mentioned, too, that the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Vancouver East also had links and exchanges with the truther cause, with the member for Vancouver East delivering a truther petition in 2008. The petition states:
 We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001. 
It also says:
 ...scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. 
The NDP can say what it wants, but the real truth is that there is a disturbing pattern among its members, including the NDP leader and his deputy leader, the member for Halifax, of supporting and sustaining ideas of conspiracy—
The Speaker: Order, please. 
Oral questions, the hon. member for Halifax.

Oral Questions
Democratic ReformMegan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform keeps using the word “fraud” when talking about the Neufeld report. Yesterday, Mr. Neufeld stated very clearly that he did not find any evidence of fraud.
When will the minister stop distorting what Mr. Neufeld said? Why did he not consult Harry Neufeld to find out what is really going on?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday and what I have been saying all along since I first introduced the fair elections act is that there are measures in place to prevent fraud linked to vouching. Not implementing those measures increases the risk of fraud. That is why the rules are in place. Those rules were broken some 50,000 times in the last election. That is unacceptable. That is one of the reasons why we expect people to bring a piece of identification to prove their identity when voting.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, again, he is selectively quoting to show he is not selectively quoting. Mr. Neufeld testified that our electoral system does need to be modernized, but he said there are ways to fix the problems with vouching. For example, there could be a declaration taken.
Why did the minister refuse to look at practical solutions like this? Why, instead, are the Conservatives choosing to eliminate vouching and therefore disenfranchising thousands of Canadians?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we are the taking the reasonable position that when someone shows up to vote that they present some identification to show who they are. That is a reasonable position that I think average Canadians would support.
They do not have to use photo ID, or even government-issued ID. They have 39 different forms of identification that they can use, everything from a utility bill to an OAS cheque stub to an employment insurance cheque stub, to dozens of others. Most Canadians would agree that is a reasonable approach to take.
EmploymentMegan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, moving on to another example of the government just making things up, Conservatives were pretty embarrassed this week when they were forced to admit that they used data from Kijiji instead of Statistics Canada to support their budget.
This information was used to justify regressive attacks on wages and collective bargaining.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. It is a Friday, and the sound seems to be carrying more than—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker:  Order, order. Several ministers seem to be very anxious to answer questions, and I would be happy to give them the floor when the member for Halifax is finished asking the question, but not until then. 
The hon. member for Halifax.
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the information was used to regressively attack wages and collective bargaining.
Why did the Conservatives try to trick Canadians by using data from Kijiji instead of data from their own Stats Canada?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, employers across Canada say that the biggest challenge they are facing is a lack of skilled workers.
This is particularly problematic in certain sectors and regions where thousands of jobs are going unfilled because not enough skilled workers are available to fill them.
That is why we are taking action, including with the Canada job grant, to ensure that skills training actually leads to permanent jobs and employers are investing more into equipping Canadians with the skills that the job market demands.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment has gone on and on for months about the so-called labour shortage. The problem is that the minister has no credible facts to back his claims. There is no labour shortage in Canada, unless you would rather believe Kijiji than the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Conference Board of Canada and Statistics Canada.
Will the minister go back to the drawing board and refrain from basing his responses on dubious information obtained from Kijiji?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we understand that there is no general labour shortage across the country, but there are sectoral and geographic labour shortages and skills deficits we need to deal with as a government to make sure that Canadians can gain employment, get jobs, and raise their families.
That is why we are implementing the Canada job grant, so that we can bring more employer investment into training, like most other countries in the world.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, the government's stubborn defence of Kijiji data is quite simply absurd. In 2009, economist Don Raymond participated in a panel that made dozens of recommendations to improve labour market data. We need reliable data in order to effectively curb unemployment and maximize the use of public funds.
Why did the government not implement those recommendations?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the PBO report is consistent with what we have been saying: “Aggregate numbers may obscure what is occurring in some regions and sectors across the country”. That is consistent with what employers are telling us across the country. For example, the construction sector says that we need 319,000 new workers in the next 10 years. The mining and industry sector says we will need 145,000 workers by 2020. The petroleum sector says we will need 130,000 workers by 2020.
We need to take steps, working with our provincial partners, to provide training so we can train the next generation of Canadian workers.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a result of its misleading research on Kijiji, the government seems to think that the Canadian economy's problem is a skills mismatch, whereas the real problem is simply a lack of jobs. In the last year, 95% of the jobs created have been part-time jobs. When will the Conservatives introduce a real plan for economic growth and job creation for the middle class? 
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, in fact over 80% of new jobs created in Canada over the last year were full-time jobs. Over 80% are also in the private sector. We have the best job growth in the G7, over one million net new jobs since the pit of the economic recession in July 2009. Those are the facts.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, those facts are all wrong. However, based on its misleading research on Kijiji, the government seems to think that Canada's economic challenge involves a mismatch of jobs, when the real problem is not enough jobs. We have 265,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians. Fully 95% of the jobs created over the past year were part-time. Both job quality and job quantity are down.
When will the Conservatives put forward a real plan for jobs and growth for middle-class Canadians?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear when we talk to employers across the country. In round table after round table, they continuously tell us that there is a skills shortage in different sectors within different geographic regions and we need to deal with this. That is exactly what we are doing by implementing the Canada job grant. Here are some facts. Skills Canada tells us we are going to need one-million skilled trades workers in Canada by 2020. Those are the facts.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada keeps telling us that all their facts are wrong. The finance department's own research shows that the best way to grow the economy and create jobs is through infrastructure investment, yet the government plans a nearly 90% cut to infrastructure next Tuesday. Given our terrible youth employment rate and the so-called recovery that is 95% part-time jobs, how can the government justify crushing its single most effective job creation tool? Why does it do that?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberal Party has it wrong. In fact, our government has made historic, unprecedented investments in infrastructure. That high-level investment in infrastructure will continue. Our application process opens this coming Monday, March 31. These infrastructure investments will enhance our quality of life, improve our productivity, and increase our economic competitiveness.
Agriculture and Agri-foodMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's new grain transportation bill has so many flaws that there is even a Conservative member who does not support it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already proposed some amendments less than 24 hours after the bill was introduced. This is consistent with the NDP's position regarding mandatory service level agreements.
Will the government finally listen to farmers, the NDP and even its own members and amend its bill, so that it serves the interests of the people involved?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, only two days ago, our government delivered important and decisive legislation on the side of farmers to move their grain to port: one million metric tonnes a week. It also establishes the minimum volume requirements for the transportation of grain. It strengthens contractual mechanisms between producers and shippers, and a lot more. I can assure the member across the floor that my colleague supports farmers and he supports this legislation. 
My question is, will the member stand in her place and vote for farmers and vote for this legislation when it comes to a vote in the House?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, we are standing up to fight for farmers. Conservative members are now agreeing with the NDP about serious problems with this new grain transportation bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs said it must be amended. He warned that it could make a bad situation even worse. Saskatchewan called the legislation “deficient”.
I visited western grain farmers. Their grain is sitting, stranded across the country. They are frustrated with the current government that refuses to take decisive action.
Will the minister finally listen, do the right thing, and agree to amend the bill?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I really do encourage the member to work more closely with farmers.
 I have a quote from the Canadian Canola Growers Association: 
 The measures announced in yesterday's Bill, along with other efforts recently implemented demonstrate that Government is listening to farmers concerns. 
The bill will be in front of the House this afternoon for debate. Then it will be moving to committee and we will be doing our work in committee.
However, when it comes back to the House, I would like to see the NDP stand on the side of farmers and support this move, support the bill that would move their grain to port.
Employment and Social DevelopmentMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is true that western grain farmers have been abandoned by these Conservatives, just like workers have been abandoned.
Governments should use sound data to develop sound labour market policies. Instead, the Conservatives use information from Kijiji. They ignored warnings that the data they used was not accurate. 
We actually have factual data from Statistics Canada and the PBO, and it is paid for by taxpayers.
Would they acknowledge that their data does not show what they claim and does not justify their regressive labour market policies that are only backed up by Kijiji?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the PBO report is not inconsistent with what we have been saying. We agree that there is no general labour shortage across the country. If there were, wages would be rising faster than inflation, and that is simply not the case.
What is happening is that we have sectoral and geographic problems with our labour market. We need to make sure that we take steps so that employers can find skilled employees to fill those positions when they become open, and we need training programs in place, like the Canada job grant, so that people will be trained to take those jobs when they are needed.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that they have lost 500,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector since they came to power. The Minister of Employment and Social Development admitted that he had no idea about the state of the labour market in Canada.
We are right to have serious concerns about the Minister of Finance's report on the labour market that was tabled at the same time as the 2014 budget. What information did the Minister of Finance use for his report? If the government has no idea what is going on, why should we trust it?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we have the best job growth of any country in the G7. Since July 2009, the pit of the economic recession, we have created over a million net new jobs.
I know the member is really concerned about manufacturing jobs in Ontario. Maybe he should have his NDP leader of the province stop supporting a Liberal leader who has the highest power rates in Ontario history.
Democratic ReformMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' only justification for their electoral reform has evaporated. The former British Columbia chief electoral officer, Harry Neufeld, who was being quoted indiscriminately, decided to set the record straight.
In 2011, 400,000 people used voter information cards to prove their address, and another 120,000 people had someone vouch for them so they could vote.
Does the minister agree that if he gets rid of vouching and voter information cards, 520,000 people could be disenfranchised?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that. The hon. member is taking it for granted that none of those people had one of the 39 forms of identification allowed by Elections Canada.
What we are proposing is that people be required to show ID with their name and address. That is reasonable. We are not saying that voters have to bring a photo, just one of the 39 forms of identification allowed.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps going on about the irregularities Mr. Neufeld observed during the 2011 election. That is exactly why Mr. Neufeld got irritated and decided to set the record straight. 
The irregularities identified in his report were the result of administrative errors. He never said that those irregularities had anything to do with electoral fraud or the voters themselves. Harry Neufeld made it abundantly clear that voters are not the problem. The minister has to stop misrepresenting what Mr. Neufeld said.
Instead of choosing not to trust voters, maybe the minister would be better off implementing the recommendations in the Neufeld report. When will he act on that?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I do not agree with Mr. Neufeld's recommendations. Everyone knows that. Everyone knew that before yesterday, and my position has not changed. However, Mr. Neufeld's report was very detailed. I quoted those details and facts accurately, and I will continue to do so.
Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister talks as if the only solution to eliminate fraud is to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. All he needs to do is to simplify the vouching paperwork. Mr. Maynard said it, Jean-Pierre Kingsley said it, and Mr. Neufeld said it.
When will the minister realize that voters are not the problem in our electoral system? When will he understand that blocking my constituents in Thunder Bay—Rainy River and thousands of other Canadians from voting will not solve anything?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that his constituents in Thunder Bay are capable of producing any of the 39 different pieces of acceptable ID. He should be clear with his constituents that they do not require photo ID or government ID to vote. They can choose from 39 pieces, including things like utility bills, OAS or employment insurance cheques, statements of attestation from aboriginal reserves, Indian status cards, and student cards. The list goes on and on.
There are 39 different options. We just think it is reasonable that people bring some form of ID when they show up to vote.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, so far, the total number of experts who say that this bill should be adopted in its current form is zero. Expert after expert is calling out the government for trying to ram through a bill that would give the Conservative Party an unfair advantage.
Everyone in Nickel Belt agrees that it must either be scrapped or rewritten. Will the minister now stop twisting the words of experts like Harry Neufeld to justify his reckless changes? Will he agree to fix this bill?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by pushing special interest groups to the sidelines and rule breakers out of business. It would close loopholes to big money. It would protect against the risks of fraudulent voting. It would crack down on rogue callers who impersonate either parties or Elections Canada. It would give the commissioner, the law enforcement watchdog, sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.
It is a good bill.
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. When there were problems with the vouching system, it was because of administrative errors. No voter fraud was reported. The minister has to stop treating honest citizens like criminals. He is using false pretenses to try to disenfranchise 120,000 people, including aboriginal people, homeless people, students, seniors and the poor.
Why are the Conservatives afraid of voters? Why do they want to take the right to vote away from society's most vulnerable people?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a list of the 39 different forms of identification that are accepted: a driver's license; health card; Canadian passport; certificate of Canadian citizenship; birth certificate; certificate of Indian status; social insurance number card; old age security card; student ID card; provincial or territorial identification card; liquor identification card; medical and hospital clinic card; credit or debit card; employee card; public transportation card; library card; Canadian Forces identity card; Veterans Affairs Canada health card; Canadian Blood Services card; the Canadian National Institute for the Blind card; the firearm possession and acquisition licence or possession only licence; a fishing, trapping and hunting license—
EmploymentMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is getting its statistics about available jobs from websites, which is skewing all the benchmark data. Without expert analysis, the statistics from these websites are not reliable and fluctuate wildly.
How can the government claim to have a coherent employment policy if it refuses to use sources that are recognized by all of the country's economic stakeholders?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the PBO report is clear and is not inconsistent with the position that we have taken. I will quote from page 13:
 ...the lack of evidence of a national labour shortage or skills mismatch in Canada does not rule out regional- and sector-specific labour shortages or skills mismatches. 
Why do they not support the PBO?
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's use of job numbers from Kijiji has shown Canadians yet again that the Conservatives prefer to pick and choose unreliable numbers to support their ideological policies. We witnessed this distaste for evidence with the elimination of the long form census, and are now seeing it again. 
When will the government finally understand that reliable statistics are key to delivering effective job programs? When will the government start basing its decisions on facts rather than rigid ideological bias?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the policies put in place by this government have led to the biggest job growth of any country in the G7 since the pit of the economic recession in July 2009, with over one million net new jobs. 
Every policy that we bring forward to help create jobs in this country, that member and party oppose. Why do those members not get onboard and help us create jobs and build growth in this country?
Agriculture and Agri-FoodHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last time legislation was put before the House to deal with the grain transportation issue, the government ignored all the good advice it got from farmers. It voted down every single amendment that farm groups proposed, and because of that it has this $8 billion grain crisis on its hands now.
When farmers, provincial governments, and even its own parliamentary secretary are saying that Bill C-30 is not good enough, is the government finally going to listen? Will it protect short lines and producer cars?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, Bill C-30 is important and very good legislation. This legislation would help to correct the problem that farmers are having moving their grain to port. It would impose transportation requirements of one million metric tonnes of grain moved to port each and every week by the two railroad companies. It would impose fines of $100,000 per day for non-compliance.
I have quotes here. The Manitoba minister of agriculture states, “The Manitoba government supports this move”. The Alberta minister of agriculture says, “We are pleased that the federal government has brought forward the fair rail for grain farmers act.”
I would ask that member and his party to support this key legislation.
Canada Revenue AgencyMurray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised that the minister is dismissing the revelations that the Canada Revenue Agency is compromising Canadians' privacy every year with its data breaches. More than 2,000 Canadians were exposed to identity theft through the minister's mismanagement of the agency.
Canadians expect the minister to take responsibility. When will that happen?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we do agree that Canadians should rightfully expect their personal information to be protected. The CRA has a close working relationship with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and acts on all of her recommendations.
I would clarify that 95% of the reported privacy issues are related to misdirected mail. The CRA handles nearly 150 million pieces of mail each year, and therefore these incidents represent 0.001% of all of the supposed breaches that the hon. member—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Victoria.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, that is cold comfort for over 2,000 Canadians.
Let us return to reality for a moment. The CRA's Montreal offices have been infiltrated by organized crime. The CRA is failing to collect untold billions of dollars in revenue from tax cheats and others who simply refuse to pay. Now we learn that it is exposing thousands of Canadians to identity theft through a lax approach to privacy.
The CRA experienced more data breaches last year than all other departments since 2006, so how can the minister say it is no problem?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the CRA takes privacy breaches with the utmost level of seriousness. We know this is a concern for Canadians. Canadians have a right to expect the CRA to look out for their privacy. We will continue to do that.
The member opposite knows this. He should recognize that it is irresponsible to misrepresent the facts and undermine the confidence that Canadians place in the CRA.
VeteransMs. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly two years since the Federal Court ruled in favour of veterans on the issue of pensions, yet they are still waiting to hear whether the government will compensate them retroactively. The ombudsman has been inundated with telephone calls from veterans who feel that the minister has stalled long enough. The ombudsman and the Royal Canadian Legion are calling for a decision.
Can the government tell us if it intends to compensate these veterans who have been unfairly treated? Yes or no?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that our government voluntarily increased benefits for veterans receiving the earnings loss benefit, the Canadian Forces income support, and the war veterans allowance. This meant thousands of dollars more for veterans in addition to added benefits to the veterans independence program.
If the member and her party cared about veterans, they would not have voted against the initiative we brought forward.
Peter Stoffer: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, it got lost in translation. 
My question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs is very clear. These disabled veterans were wrongfully clawed back on the earnings loss benefit from April of 2006 until November of 2012. Two veterans ministers previously said they would promise to fix this problem.
My question is quite clear. For two years now, we and other people have been asking when these disabled veterans will get the money they so rightfully deserve.
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, there is no other government in the history of our great nation that has done more for Canada's veterans than this government right here under the leadership of our Prime Minister. We have invested almost $5 billion in additional funding since coming to office.
The NDP and the Liberal Party have voted against virtually every single initiative we have brought forward. I would encourage the member opposite to please stop playing partisan games with our veterans and start supporting the initiatives.
The EconomyMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under the strong, stable leadership of our Prime Minister, our Conservative government has remained committed to strengthening the economy for all Canadians. Canada's overall job growth record since the depth of the recession is the best amongst all G7 countries, with over one million net new jobs created. Nearly 90% of those jobs are full time and more than 80% are in the private sector.
Despite a worldwide economic crisis, we have never wavered from seeing our plan through. 
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please tell the House what our newest step will be to create economic growth?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince George—Peace River for that excellent question.
Unlike the Liberal leader, who thinks that budgets balance themselves, we know good economic management requires tough decisions, a focus on priorities, and sound judgment. Under our government, Canada has enjoyed strong economic performance during both the global recession and the recovery.
 Today we will introduce economic action plan 2014, act one, marking the next chapter in keeping our commitment to Canadians. We remain focused on our key priorities, supporting families and communities, creating jobs and opportunities, and returning to balance in 2015.
PrivacyMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, according to a University of Toronto study, Internet service providers are sharing their clients' private information with Canadian surveillance agencies, without anyone knowing about it and without any transparency. The report also indicates that none of the foreign providers that manage Canadian Internet traffic shows any compliance with Canadian privacy laws. This is troubling and completely irresponsible.
Can the government tell us what it has done to protect the personal information of Canadians?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure all Canadians that our government takes the privacy of law-abiding Canadians seriously. At all times, law enforcement agencies comply with Canadian law regarding receiving any type of information. For the record, we will take no lessons from the NDP.
Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is about as vague an answer as one can get. 
 Just because sharing data without a warrant is a common practice does not make it the right practice. Canadian consumers deserve to know if their private information is being protected. Right now it is impossible to find out how often their data is being given to security agents without a warrant.
This is a simple request. Will the government come clean to Canadians about how often their information is collected by Internet service providers? Yes or no?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, again, the same answer is going to be provided for the same question.
Of course, the Canadian government is concerned about the privacy of all Canadians. We take it extremely seriously and, at all times, all law enforcement and security agencies within Canadian jurisdiction abide by the law in all respects.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, no wonder Canadians do not trust the Conservative government to protect their privacy. First, the Conservatives tried an Internet snooping bill, but that was killed by the minister's offensive comments. Now they have a bill that is supposed to stop cyberbullying, but the Conservatives cannot help themselves and are trying to sneak in unrelated measures that would let them take Canadians' personal information from telecom companies.
Is that why the Conservatives ended the debate early? Did they think no one would notice?
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act applies to any and all voluntary disclosure of information. Anyone who violates the act can face civil litigation.
We are giving the police the tools they need to crack down on all sorts of online crime, particularly cyberbullying and child pornography; and I look forward to this bill going to the justice committee where it can be studied fully.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am not surprised to see the Conservatives stooping so low, as they typically do, on an issue as serious as cyberbullying.
This bill has been before the House for months now. Canadians want transparency on how their personal information is being handled. They do not want political games or troubling provisions on electronic surveillance brought in through the back door in a bill on cyberbullying.
Why are the Conservatives afraid of debating their own provisions on surveillance in Bill C-13?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, same question, same answer, only this time in French. The member is absolutely wrong.
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act protects all Canadians and applies to any voluntary disclosure of information. Anyone who violates the act can face civil litigation. We are giving the police the tools they need to crack down on cyberbullying and child pornography, and I look forward to studying the bill more thoroughly. 
The EnvironmentJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, the IPCC released its latest report on climate change today. It shows that mitigation efforts are failing and that adaptation efforts have to begin in earnest. Simultaneously, the Minister of the Environment has cut her budget by 30%, eviscerated climate change programs by 77%, and gutted her department's capacity to do anything. 
Will the minister drop her usual nonsensical answers, take the IPCC report seriously, and engage her department in real mitigation and adaptation activities?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no government has done more on the environment than our government. 
We have invested record amounts, which include over $4 billion in science and technology at Environment Canada alone. We have invested a quarter of a billion dollars in Canada's weather services. We have given new tax support for clean energy generation. 
 Building on our record of protecting a historic amounts of land, budget 2014 is investing a significant amount of money to protect Canada's national parks and the environment; and right now we are providing almost $400 million to make even more improvements to our highways, bridges, and dams. Budget 2014 is also proposing to enhance incentives to encourage additional donations—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, it is true that no government and no minister has done more to destroy her budget, lay off her staff, gut her department's capability, and to deny climate change. 
The minister loves to take credit where none is due. The IPCC report is saying that a huge effort is needed, yet the minister buries her head in the sand. 
Instead of passive fatalism, will the minister restore her budget, end the war on science, and get back in the game?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, let me continue on.
Our government is also providing additional funding to support the Earth Rangers, which educates children about biodiversity and empowers them to become directly involved in protecting the environment. We have renewed funding for Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and implemented a world-class monitoring system for the oil sands. 
Our government has also increased the penalties for those found guilty of breaking our environmental laws and provided additional funding for the Nature Conservancy of Canada.
We have done this without introducing a carbon tax, which they would have done.
The Speaker: The noise level is creeping up again. I am going to ask members not to give assistance to their colleagues, either in asking or answering the questions. Especially during that last answer, there was quite a lot of help from the minister's colleagues. I am sure she does not need it.
National DefenceMs. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to use the army and soldiers in their photo ops, but do not seem to be bragging too much about the major cuts made to the Royal Canadian Army Cadets program.
Out of a total of 800 employees in charge of running the administrative program, no fewer than 400 will be laid off, even though 53,000 young people currently belong to the cadets.
How can the Minister of National Defence justify such a draconian cut to such a beneficial program for our young people? How does he hope to provide the same services to those young people with half the employees?
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to cadet organizations and their role in promoting good citizenship, leadership, community service, and physical fitness among young Canadians.
On October 2, the government announced a five-year renewal initiative to strengthen the cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger programs. The goal is to enhance program delivery to increase awareness and participation in the programs and to enhance partnerships and volunteerism.
The five-year renewal plan will increase participation in the cadets from 52,000 to 70,000 and increase the Junior Canadian Rangers from 135 to 153 patrols. Through internal savings and reinvestment, resources at the community level will be increased and supports grow.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, national defence headquarters keeps growing, but the number of people working on bases with cadets keeps shrinking. It is more tail, less teeth. The rear admiral in charge explained these layoffs saying that he needed to renew, update, and refresh.
Does the minister really think the people who help cadets and who are now losing their jobs are going to find this refreshing?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, this government has increased the defence budget by 27% since 2006. Funding for the cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger programs has increased for the last three fiscal years.
We are very satisfied on this side that the Canadian Armed Forces has embarked on a renewal of the cadet and the Junior Canadian Ranger programs that will see cuts to the administration but reinvestments into the programs for our youth.
This is yet another example of our government's commitment to providing equipment and services required by our men and women in uniform, while safeguarding the tax dollars of Canadians.
Foreign AffairsMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Government of the Philippines and its partner have signed a comprehensive agreement on Bangsamoro.
This agreement brings an end to the decades-long insurgency in the Philippines. This agreement is expected to bring increased opportunity and development in the autonomous region of Bangsamoro and, therefore, benefit all Filipinos.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs please share with this House the government's reaction to this development in the Philippines?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada warmly welcomes this very important agreement.
This agreement is a testament to the determination of both President Aquino and the Philippine people, who have for many years worked to bring peace to their country. They are putting conflict behind them and building a better country.
We congratulate them for that. Our government is very proud to have supported the crafting of the commission's recommendations on how to create a new civilian police force in Bangsamoro. Our government encourages both parties to the agreement and all Filipinos to continue to work together to bring a genuine and lasting peace and reconciliation to their country.
Democratic ReformMr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, says that the party who wins one election will get to choose the central poll supervisor for the next election.
Do Canadians want more partisans running elections? Before the Conservatives unfair elections act came along, the central poll supervisor was non-partisan, appointed by Elections Canada.
Why do honest, hard-working Canadians trying to take care of their families need one more thing stacked against them by the Conservative government?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the tradition of having political parties recommend names to serve in the local elections administration is long standing.
His party has, for example, been recommending positions for deputy returning officer and poll clerk for many years. That is the way it worked in the last election. That is the way it will work in the next election.
This process allows the various parties to hold each other accountable and make sure the system is fair, while the returning officer, the most senior official in each constituency, is appointed by Elections Canada as a result of changes we made in the Federal Accountability Act.
International TradeMr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on May 15, the annual report on the impact that the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement has had on the human rights situation in Colombia is due. Civil society groups and labour groups have been given only six days to provide input to that report. 
The Conservative government has clearly set an impossible deadline. Will the Conservatives now agree to extend this arbitrary deadline to ensure meaningful consultations can take place on this important report? Or, will they once again this year simply fail to take into consideration the very serious human rights situation in Colombia?
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, that trade agreement has a built-in review cycle to see the impact on human rights, and there has been no impact on human rights as a result of that agreement. I would also note that $161 million has been dedicated to that country as a result of our relationship and our economic diplomacy in the region, to build its institutions and to help our partners build up their own human rights records.
 It is sad that the New Democrats criticize trade and oppose every measure our government brings before this House to create more jobs in our exporting sector, which is already creating one in five jobs in Canada. I would ask that member to look past the rhetoric, get behind our job-creating—
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Oakville.
HealthTerence Young: Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago, my 15-year-old daughter Vanessa Young tragically died from a heart attack while on the prescription drug Prepulsid, which was later deemed not safe and was removed from the market.
Today, our government has taken an important step to improving drug safety for all Canadians. Can the Minister of Health inform this House what is being done to strengthen drug and patient safety in Canada to better protect all Canadians from the dangerous consequences of adverse drug reactions?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of our government's historic legislation, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, or Vanessa's law. This is the first major update to Canada's drug safety laws in decades, and it will help identify potentially dangerous drugs, ensure the quick recall of unsafe drugs, and require reporting of adverse drug reactions.
I thank the opposition members for their support. We will work hard to ensure we have the strongest possible safety systems in place so that we can keep Canadians safe. 
We can all agree that the member for Oakville deserves full credit for this.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Forestry IndustryMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the government to introduce another omnibus budget implementation bill. Forestry workers in Quebec know that they will not be getting their share.
While hundreds of millions of dollars will go to the fishers in Newfoundland, while half a billion dollars will go to the auto industry in Ontario, the forestry industry in Quebec will have to settle for crumbs, despite the challenges that remain. One might think that the forestry workers in Quebec are not worth as much to the Conservatives as other workers.
Is there a minister from Quebec who understands the importance of the forestry industry in Quebec and will ensure that it gets its fair share?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to the softwood lumber agreement. That agreement continues to enjoy strong support from industry across the country, and from provincial governments, for the predictability and stability that agreement has provided.
I would refer the member to a statement from Tembec, a Quebec-based forestry company. It stated:
 Thanks to the Softwood Lumber Agreement, lumber exports are free of export tax or quotas today and for the majority of the past year, resulting in a resurgence of exports from Ontario and notably Quebec. 
This is another example of our government standing behind job creation.
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, I have proof that the federal government has abandoned the forestry workers back home. Even though Quebec has changed its approach to allocating stumpage fees, the federal government still refuses to use the provision in the softwood lumber agreement that would exempt Quebec from the surcharges imposed by the Americans. Even though Quebec has a more open system than the maritime provinces, it is still being penalized by the federal government.
When will the minister dispense with the double standard and finally agree to the request from Quebec's forestry industry?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, at current market prices, all Canadian exports of softwood lumber have duty-free and quota-free access to the U.S. market as a result of our agreement. The agreement reflects a negotiated outcome to a complex trade dispute and does not discriminate against any province or region of the country. That member should recognize this. He should listen to voices from Quebec, like Tembec, and get behind this agreement.
Foreign InvestmentMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, Industry Canada has been warned for some time that a lack of clarity in the Investment Canada Act is going to threaten foreign investment in Canada. The net benefit test remains nebulous, and terms added on the fly, in 2012, such as “exceptional circumstances” and “strategic resources”, are wholly undefined. Predictably, foreign investment is declining. For example, Chinese investment fell from $21.5 billion in 2012, to a mere $220 million last year.
As $100 billion of capital is required for Alberta alone for the oil sands by 2019, when will the government provide clarity to the Investment Canada Act to stop repelling foreign investment?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government's first priority is creating high-quality jobs for Canadians and driving economic growth. Since 2005, when this government came to power, foreign direct investment is up in the following: agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, 46%; construction, 70%; manufacturing, 62%; retail trade, 96%; transportation and warehousing, 206%; finance and insurance, 52%; and, the hon. member might be interested to know, in mining, oil and gas, 86%.

Routine Proceedings
Special Economic Measures ActJohn Baird: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 7 of the Special Economic Measures Act, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, copies of the following regulations and orders made on March 17, March 19, and March 21, 2014.
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Hon. Peter Van Loan:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsJohn Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by many people in Northern Ontario who are trying to save the Algoma Central Railway. It is a very important part of Northern Ontario, particularly around Sault Ste. Marie. It is the sole point of access for many businesses, homes, and communities along the route. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to reinstate the federal funding that allowed for the operation of the Algoma Central Railway.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today. The first petition represents thousands of Canadians. It highlights that 22-year-old 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”, believes that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They are calling for new mandatory minimum sentences for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. 
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights that over 200 million girls have been lost through sex selective pregnancy termination, creating a global gender imbalance and causing girls to be trafficked into prostitution.
Petitioners are calling upon Parliament to condemn this worst form of discrimination against females. 
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition, representing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, in the Lower Mainland and beyond, who wish to make it very clear that the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal to ship U.S. thermal coal through B.C. communities poses serious and direct risks to both the residents and the environment along the proposed coal corridor. It includes White Rock, Surrey, Delta, New Westminster, Burnaby, Richmond, and Texada Island. 
The petitioners point out that coal dust causes respiratory illness such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and diesel particulates cause respiratory illness and are a carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization. Coal contains toxic heavy metals, and over 100 schools are within a distance that may pose possible health risks from coal dust or diesel particulates. Nine municipalities, representing more than 40% of British Columbia's population, have passed resolutions either opposing the Fraser Surrey Docks coal port or requesting an independent, third-party comprehensive health impact assessment. The chief medical officers of the region are also asking for such an assessment to be made. 
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members to try to keep their summaries very brief so we can get through petitions.
The hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these petitioners mark the fact that children ordinarily thrive the best when raised by both parents. Despite that, courts actually favour mostly sole-custody. Therefore, the petitioners are asking Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to require equal shared parenting to be treated as the rebuttable presumption in custody decisions, except, of course, in cases of proven neglect or abuse. 
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today. The first petition calls on the House of Commons to amend the Criminal Code to protect bus drivers. My father was a bus driver for 30 years, and I am very familiar with the dangers of this job.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, in my second petition, petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to reinstate the federal funding allowed for the operation of the Algoma Central Railway.
What is unique about this petition is that not only do I have names from Sault Ste. Marie, Bruce Mines, Sudbury, and Dowling, but I also have names from people from Chicago, Connecticut, and Ohio. Even the Americans are more concerned about our railroad system than the Conservative government is.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions today on the same topic. The petitioners want to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the high number of attacks every year on bus drivers who serve the public.
They are also calling on the House of Commons to amend the Criminal Code to create an offence for attacks committed against bus drivers while they are working and to set harsher penalties for the attackers. People from across the province are urging the government to act quickly.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions.
The first petition is in support of the bill I introduced in the House, Bill C-322, which would amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act to prohibit the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption and horse meat products for human consumption.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, petitioners from my community of Nelson are calling on the Government of Canada to work with provincial and territorial governments to increase pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans, and to implement a fully-funded plan to phase in such an increase without delay.
Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have presented a petition about Canada Post this winter. The petition was signed by many people in Brome—Missisquoi who are unhappy that Canada Post will no longer be offering home mail delivery and will be increasing rates. They condemn the fact that people will lose jobs, and they are concerned that Canada Post could be privatized. Lastly, they are urging the government to seek alternatives that will modernize the services provided by Canada Post and allow home delivery to continue.
Questions on the Order PaperKelly Block: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 301.
Ms. Libby Davies:  With regard to The Royal Society of Canada (RSC) Expert Panel on Safety Code 6: (a) which department and persons within the government were responsible for contracting RSC to conduct the expert panel; (b) what were the criteria for selecting an organization to conduct the expert panel; (c) what is the mandate of the expert panel; and (d) why was the sentence “certain members of the general public may be more susceptible to harm from microwave exposure” removed from the 2009 Safety Code 6 update and will it be included in this year’s update of Safety Code 6 following the conclusion of RSC Expert Panel on Safety Code 6? 
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Health Canada was the department responsible for the Royal Society of Canada, RSC, contract. The contracting authority is the director general, environmental and radiation health sciences directorate, on behalf of the Minister of Health.
 With regard to (b), Health Canada committed to obtaining an independent expert assessment of the review of Safety Code 6, SC6, through a formalized expert panel process. For reasons that included its well-known experience of over 130 years in convening expert panels to provide independent advice, notably to government on matters of public policy, the RSC was chosen to conduct the assessment of Health Canada’s review of SC6. The RSC is Canada’s national academy, which exists to promote Canadian research and scholarly accomplishment, and to advise governments, non-governmental organizations, and Canadians on matters of public interest. The RSC had, furthermore, previously assembled a panel to conduct such a review of SC6 in 1999. 
With regard to (c), the RSC was contracted to conduct an independent expert assessment of SC6 to ensure that the results of emerging research relating to the safety of radiofrequency, RF, energy on human health would be reflected appropriately in the revised SC6 as required. The RSC carries out this activity through a formalized expert panel process. 
With regard to (d), the 2009 version of SC6 introduced several editorial changes to improve clarity. Any amendments did not introduce a change in approach or policy, and the exposure limits remain comparable to all international science-based human RF exposure limits. Currently a draft of a revised Safety Code 6 is undergoing review by the Royal Society of Canada, RSC. Following receipt of the report from the RSC, Health Canada will consult further with Canadians prior to finalizing the revised Safety Code 6. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsKelly Block: Mr. Speaker, if Question Nos. 299 and 300 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Charlie Angus:  With regard to government funding, what is the total amount, by fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Claude Gravelle:  With regard to government funding, what is the total amount allocated for fiscal year 2012-2013 within the constituency of Nickel Belt, specifying each department, agency, initiative and amount?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Fair Rail for Grain Farmers ActRona Ambrose:  moved that Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today to speak to Bill C-30, Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act.
Today we debate this important bill that has the singular purpose of improving our supply chain and rail logistics in Canada. Since its introduction on Wednesday, the ministers of agriculture and transport have been out on the ground, meeting with stakeholders in that supply chain and working hard to ensure that this gets done properly and quickly.
The current transportation challenges affect all players in the supply chain, and it is essential that Canadian shippers remain competitive in domestic and international markets. Our government is focused on a way forward that will benefit all shippers, selling every commodity from grain to oil, and that will continue to grow our resource economy.
That is why we are taking immediate action to get all commodities moving faster, through legislation and regulations that are designed to increase supply chain transparency, strengthen contracts between producers and shippers, and help ensure the entire grain handling and transportation system is working at peak capacity. This legislation addresses the immediate needs of our economy and longer-term challenges because our economy needs a system that works today and tomorrow, with the capacity to move what is grown. 
Yes, we are counting on all sides of the House of Commons to do the right thing and help us to implement these critical measures as quickly as possible. Our economy depends on it. As we all know, farmers delivered a record crop last year, one-third higher than the previous year and 50% higher than average. As many have said, if this type of performance is expected to be the new normal, we must prepare for that. That is what this legislation is about.
Farmers have not been able to deliver their grain to port or to customers, meaning that they do not have cash to finance their operators or storage capacity for next year's crop. A record $5 billion worth of grain could be sitting in farmers' bins, heading into the next crop year.
That is why earlier this month, we brought forward an order in council under the Canada Transportation Act to stabilize the national transportation system and to get grain moving to port. The order in council requires the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways to move a minimum quantity of western regulated grain each week. We are now building upon that order in council.
We will amend the Canada Transportation Act so that it includes the power to regulate volume requirements, as necessary, and extend the interswitching distances to 160 km for all commodities in the Prairies. We will also amend the Canada Grain Act in order to regulate grain contract provisions; require other information to increase transparency of the performance of railways, ports and terminals; and create the regulatory authority to add greater specificity to service level agreements, as requested by all shippers. 
These concrete and comprehensive measures will take effect immediately after they are passed.
Under the bill, we will amend the Canada Transportation Act to set out minimum volumes of grain, in extraordinary circumstances, that railways are required to transport, at the joint recommendation of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This change would provide greater predictability for shippers and producers, supporting specific volume performance requirements and ensuring that the supply chain is prepared to respond to peak demand.
Second, our government is creating the regulatory authority to enable the Canadian Transportation Agency to extend interswitching distances to 160 kilometres from 30 kilometres for all commodities on the prairies. Interswitching is an operation performed by railway companies in which one carrier picks up cars from a shipper and drops off these cars to another carrier that performs the line haul.
Increasing the access that farmers and elevators have to the lines of competing railway companies will increase competition among railways for business and give shippers more transportation options. Up to 150 elevators would then have access to more than one railway, compared to only 14 right now. This will increase competition among railways as well as the grain elevators for farmers' business.
Third, we will amend the Canada Grain Act to strengthen contracts between producers and shippers. Regulatory provisions could be created to require that grain companies compensate producers if they do not honour their contracts.
Fourth, we are establishing regulatory power to add great specificity to service level agreements, as asked for by all shippers. We will do this by defining in regulations which operational requirements would be mandatory in these agreements.
These are the immediate measures we are taking in this legislation to get the grain moving now and over the coming months. But we are not stopping there.
We will also require the railways to deliver more timely and detailed data on grain movement. This will help in monitoring the performance of the supply chain. The Canadian Transportation Agency will also gather information from all grain supply chain partners on shipping capacities and plans prior to each new crop year.
This legislation will allow us to adopt clear and realistic solutions so that Canadian shippers have access to a world-class logistics system that will ensure predictable and timely shipping of Canada's agricultural and other products to markets.
Today we are also announcing that the government will expedite the review of the Canada Transportation Act, which will focus first on rail transportation.
This expedited review will evaluate solutions to the structural problems of the grain supply chain and determine how to amend the Canada Transportation Act in order to create a more flexible system.
Taken together, these measures would strengthen contracts between producers and shippers, improve performance by railways, and help ensure that the entire supply chain is working at full capacity.
As the minister of agriculture for Alberta said:
 We are pleased that the federal government has brought forward the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, which addresses some of our concerns and will help strengthen rail transportation system performance in the immediate- and long-term. 
The minister of agriculture for Manitoba said:
 The Manitoba government supports this move as it means trains will be able to travel longer distances along other rail companies’ tracks and will improve Manitoba’s access to the port in Churchill as well as important U.S. markets 
Finally, the Canadian Canola Growers Association said:
 The measures announced in yesterday’s Bill, along with other efforts recently implemented demonstrate that Government is listening to farmers concerns. 
This legislation is not the final step. Our government will continue to engage the full value chain and the provinces to look at the challenges of transporting this year's record harvest and identify all and any improvements moving forward. At the same time, our government will continue to build a stronger grain sector through an aggressive trade and innovation agenda.
We are looking forward to the debate in the House today. This legislation will be moving to committee as soon as possible. I do look to my colleagues in the other parties to support this important legislation before the House.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, we have been asking the government to take action for months and it is quite disappointing. The member quoted some people selectively, cherry-picking them. 
I would like to quote Saskatchewan minister Lyle Stewart, who said he thinks "the railways came out the big winners" in the legislation. He thinks the legislation does not go far enough and he does not agree with the sunset clause in two years. He also said that the legislation “...doesn’t give much of a sense of security to producers or shippers...”. 
I am just wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment, because everyone is not happy with this. Could he assure us that he would be willing to accept amendments to make the bill a better piece of legislation to prevent another grain crisis in the coming years?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier today, this is decisive legislation. It would impose a very ambitious but achievable and realistic target for the rail companies. They are going to be required to move one million metric tonnes of grain on the Prairies each and every week. That is more than double what they were moving a number of weeks ago.
In addition, this legislation would impose administrative monetary penalties of $100,000 a day for non-compliance.
The member is right that she and her NDP colleagues have been asking for action, and that is exactly what this legislation would deliver, after consultations with all of the key stakeholders. That is why the one million metric tonnes is so important. It is ambitious but achievable.
I ask my colleague this question. Will she support this legislation? Will she stand in her place and vote to move this legislation into law for the benefit of our grain farmers?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. parliamentary secretary would agree that the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan, Mr. Stewart, has the interests of farmers at heart, consistent with his long-standing reputation in the public life of Saskatchewan. He says there are serious defects with this legislation.
We have also heard concerns expressed by the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. A number of people have said this legislation is far from perfect.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could assure us simply that when this does go to committee—and there is, I think, a will in the House to move this through quickly today and get it before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food—that the affairs of the standing committee will be organized in such a way that every representative of farm organizations from western Canada who wants to be heard on this subject will have the opportunity to be heard, that none of their testimony will be curtailed, and that the government will at least have the flexibility to listen to the recommendations where improvements could be achieved?
Everyone here wants the same result. We want the grain to move effectively and in a timely way. Will the government show some flexibility and undertake to at least listen to those who have concerns?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, of course I can assure the member and all other members that the government will listen and does listen. This legislation is actually the product of our listening and consulting with stakeholders who are seized with this challenge of moving grain to port.
As the member mentioned, the legislation is in front of the House for debate this afternoon and will then be moving to committee. It is the work of committee to determine how many witnesses will realistically be able to come to be heard at committee with their points of view on the bill. The committee will definitely be listening. MPs from all parties who are members of the committee will certainly be listening to the witnesses who come to comment on the bill. This will follow the normal legislative process, except that it is a more accelerated process because this is a very pressing problem that needs to be addressed in the immediate future.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, two members of the opposition from two different parties asked a very straightforward question: is the government willing to accept amendments to a bill that is fundamentally flawed? My colleague from Regina is correct that everyone here wants the exact same thing, to get this valuable product to port in a timely fashion. It is not a very difficult question.
It is not time for arrogance or political gamesmanship. It is a simple question: is the government willing to accept amendments to improve this legislation, yes or no?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I answered the question. Perhaps the member was not listening when I answered. The bill is going to committee. When it goes to committee, it is the work of committee to have witnesses come to comment on the bill, and the committee will be paying very close attention to the witnesses. That is why it will be inviting witnesses to comment on the bill.
The member also mentioned that it is a shortsighted bill, but I would argue that there are organizations that support this bill and that considerable consultation has gone into putting together this legislation now in front of Parliament.
I will quote the Canadian Canola Growers Association, which said, “The measures announced in yesterday's Bill, along with other efforts recently implemented demonstrate that Government is listening to farmers concerns.” The Canadian Canola Growers Association said the government was listening to farmers, which is what the member is asking for. We are already doing it. We will continue to do it and the committee will be to continue to hear from witnesses on this important legislation.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I of course expect to be participating at committee and hearing from witnesses next week when this legislation gets to committee. It is important because we not only have the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food but also the Minister of Transport co-operating to bring this important legislation forward.
I think I heard earlier today that the Manitoba government, for example, has said some very supportive things. I wonder if the member could share some of the feedback that we are hearing from important stakeholders who have been consulted extensively in this process.
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous quotes and citations from stakeholders who support the legislation. They support the legislation because it is ambitious, but also realistic and achievable because of the excellent consultation between our Minister of Agriculture, our Minister of Transport, and the stakeholders in the supply chain management system. There is no sense setting goals that are completely unachievable, as they would serve no useful purpose. But we do want to set goals that are ambitious.
To respond very directly, the Manitoba minister of agriculture said:
 The Manitoba government supports this move as it means trains will be able to travel longer distances along other rail companies' tracks and will improve Manitoba's access to the port in the Churchill, as well as important U.S. markets. 
The Alberta minister of agriculture said:
 We are pleased that the federal government has brought forward the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act.... 
The support is there.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would give us the specific assurance that in any regulations that may be published under the legislation, the situation affecting producer cars and short-line railways would be taken into account and that they would be afforded the kind of priority in the system that farmers would expect them to have?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, these types of stakeholders are part of the consultation process. The legislation will be going in front of committee and witnesses will be asked to come to committee to comment on the legislation. I would not be surprised at all if these types of stakeholders do come in front of committee.
 I must say that the final decisions regarding witnesses and who will come to committee rest with the committee, but the committee will be making certain that it hears from key stakeholders that would be affected by the legislation.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures.
The new measures set out in this bill include the extension of inter-switching limits from 30 km to 160 km in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; shipping contract provisions, particularly with regard to the sanctions imposed when a contract is broken and dispute resolution; and the regulatory powers set out in the Canada Transportation Act with regard to foods that will be monitored to determine whether shippers are abiding by the agreements concerning the quantity of grain that must be shipped.
I am going to talk more about the content of this bill, but first I would like to provide some background information.
For a number of months now, grain farmers have been extremely frustrated with the problems they are having moving the grain they harvested last summer. These transportation difficulties are resulting in a drop in the quality of their grain and thus a drop in its price. They are worried that they will not be able to transport future harvests. Between $14.5 billion and $20 billion worth of grain is sitting in bins and cannot be moved. That is huge and unbelievable. It is estimated that the backlog is between 17 and 27 million metric tons.
This situation is all the more untenable since business partners are losing confidence. Not everyone is aware of this, but those who are dealing with consequences of the grain transportation backlog on a daily basis can tell you that this is a serious situation.
For a long time, Lynn Jacobson, President of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, has been asking shippers to increase their capacity to respond to the need. We have been asking the same thing for months. Like everyone, Canada's grain farmers have bills to pay and loans to repay, and the banks will not wait.
For months, we have been urging the government to take action in order to achieve tangible results for farmers. It is completely unacceptable for hard-working farmers to be unable to ship their grain. In my opinion, this bill does not go far enough.
Two weeks ago, I was in Saskatchewan and met with farmers who told me what effect this transportation crisis had on their bottom line. I had a chance to better understand the situation and how complex it is. One farmer I met with made a map for me. This map now hangs in my office and has come in quite handy. A few things have become clear to me thanks to his explanation, such as prices, for one. Producers are seeing a large gap between the farm gate price and what they are seeing at the port. The most recent numbers I have seen are from March 19. The price in Davidson was $5.75 per bushel, and the price at the port of Vancouver for the same period was $10.60 per bushel. That is half.
I am disappointed to see that given the crisis, which is costing $8.3 billion in lost sales, there is still no direct compensation for farmers. I would have liked to have seen measures in this bill that would have compensated farmers for their losses. 
When I met with farmers in Saskatchewan, one of them told me that he felt lucky, because his crop had been destroyed by a hail storm recently. He was lucky, because he had crop insurance, and he came out ahead of most farmers, despite that hail storm. This is not how farming should work. If our farmers produce a record bumper crop, they should be able to reap those rewards, not be penalized for years to come. 
Another farmer told me that he sold high-grade grain for feed, because he could get a higher price than he could shipping it. That might be good news for the hog industry. We might be seeing some very healthy hogs this year, but for the grain producers, this is completely unacceptable. 
The other thing I understand from the map is that transportation logistics is extremely complex in this country. Some of the farmers I met mentioned that there is no plan to replace the important work of the former iteration of the CWB. The NDP opposed the undemocratic and reckless gutting of the Canadian Wheat Board. We can see how important it is to have strong institutions representing our farmers and helping solve logistical issues in their interest.
I want to talk briefly about grain capacity. When the minister presented the order in council on March 7, farmers knew right away that it would not be enough. The minister is requiring that the rail companies move one million metric tonnes a week. That amount is what the railways always said they could do. Therefore, in the end, the government is forcing the railways to do something they were already going to do.
I will quote Lyle Stewart, the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan, who stated:
 ...at first blush...the legislation itself is deficient. 
 We made some substantial asks and they weren't numbers that we pulled out of the air. They were numbers that we got from industry and we knew that they were achievable. We believe that 13,000 cars a week of grain could be unloaded, for instance, without handicapping other commodities that need to flow from Western Canada and we thought that $250,000 a day penalties were not out of line for non-compliance. 
It is clear that the government could have required more from the railways.
It is time the government took action, but this bill does not go far enough. The minister is trying to clean up a mess that he should have predicted and prevented. The measures being imposed will expire in two years. This is not a long-term solution that will keep this from happening again.
The government lacks vision. Many agronomists and public servants at the agriculture department have said that harvests are only going to get bigger. The bill does not attempt to find long-term solutions for farmers. In addition, the majority of the measures proposed in the bill will be implemented at a later date, but the issue is all too real right now.
The fact that the measures will expire in two years demonstrates, yet again, that the Conservatives see this as a short-term issue. In reality, this is a structural issue that farmers are faced with. The problem could well resurface in just a few harvests.
The minister did not respond to requests from the hardest hit provinces. They wanted stiffer fines, compensation for grain farmers and higher minimum targets for grain cars. As I said earlier, we condemn the fact that farmers have not received any compensation. This crisis has cost farmers $8.3 billion since it began, yet there is still no direct compensation for them. The NDP would never do that to farmers.
We have long been calling for better arbitration and tougher penalties for breaking service agreements. The Conservatives refused to pass those amendments six months ago. Now that they are facing a crisis, they have started listening to us. They should also listen to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I would like to end my remarks on the bill by reflecting on the policy direction of the government. I would like to see the government have a comprehensive vision for agriculture in this country. Agriculture is so important. It represents one in eight jobs in this country. It is vital to our economy.
The minister is bringing in pieces of legislation that seem to be reacting to issues, rather than leading the way on ag issues. It seems that we only have a chance to debate agriculture-related bills in the House when something goes wrong. The latest grain transportation crisis is a good example of this. The government has waited months and months before acting. Then it has scrambled together a bill that could help farmers get their grain moving. This government only acts when it needs to, and it delays action as much as possible.
I wish we could work together. I am looking forward to having witnesses at committee. I am really hoping the government can agree to accept amendments and work together.
 I am looking forward to seeing this bill go to committee, where we can hear witnesses and make this a better bill that will actually support farmers, get grain moving, and prevent this problem from happening in the future.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks. I know that she has taken some time to travel to western Canada, specifically to Saskatchewan, to meet with farmers. I think that is a very good thing.
I wonder if the member could offer some opinions on what would have prompted the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take the rather extraordinary step of disagreeing with his own government about the content of this legislation. He has pointed out, in particular, the likelihood that under the present draft of the legislation, short-line rail operations would be treated unfairly.
I wonder if the member could elaborate a bit more on what that unfairness would be. Again, why are we experiencing the rather unusual situation here of having a parliamentary secretary criticizing his government's own legislation?
[Interjection]
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, I actually have an article here, and I would like to quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said:
 Without a consistent car supply, western Canadian shortlines and the loading facilities located on them are left in an extremely precarious position. 
He goes on to say that the long-term solution to the crisis lies in mandatory service level agreements between shippers and railways, with reciprocal penalties during times of poor service.
I think he is actually standing up because this has been going on for months. I know that both opposition parties have worked very hard. We have asked questions. Last year, when Bill C-52 came to committee, we worked very hard and had a lot of amendments to make sure that it had more teeth and was a good piece of legislation that would help.
People are standing up across the country and saying that this is not enough. Now we have some members getting up, shortly after the tabling of this bill, to say that it is not enough and that we should work together to make it a better piece of legislation.
I am really hoping that the government will work with us, because on committee we are outnumbered. I can do the math. I am hoping that there is more openness and that the government members will actually listen to witnesses and to us when we come forward with amendments to make this a bill that will actually work and prevent long-term problems.
Francine Raynault: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and her fine presentation.
I would like to know whether she is concerned about the fact that some producers have not delivered any of their 2013 grain harvest. With no delivery, there is no income, but those producers still have to pay for their expenses for 2013, when they sowed their fields. They are probably apprehensive about seeding their fields in spring 2014. I would like to know if the hon. member is concerned about the producers who might go bankrupt or who are on the verge of bankruptcy.
[Interjection]
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and for her hard work with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. It is always a pleasure to work with her.
During the recent two-week constituency break, I had the opportunity to visit Saskatchewan and Regina, where I met with many farmers, economists and stakeholders in the field, people who work on the ground. They are worried, frustrated and desperate. You can see in their eyes and hear in their voices that they are at the end of their rope. They have to borrow money, because the government is telling them to wait and to borrow money if they have a problem. This government's failure to act and its lack of vision are frustrating. How many months did it take for them to introduce this bill?
Now the Minister of Agriculture has a chance to save face. There is a lot of pressure from people who are angry and disappointed in the Minister of Agriculture regarding grain transportation and the crisis they are going through. They are also frustrated by the Conservatives in general, because they cannot trust the Conservatives. How can anyone trust a government that turns its back on farmers? They are desperate. That is why we are standing up for them.
When the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food examines this bill, I hope we have the opportunity to hear from many witnesses. We will also then have the opportunity to make some amendments to Bill C-30 in order to make it better.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague, who gave a great speech on the subject, to elaborate. It is not just the farmers who are going to have a devastating time on this one. It is all those other secondary producers, including the flour mills, the bakers, the restaurants, and the shops across the country and internationally who use those products for us and our daily sustenance on a regular basis. 
I would like the member to elaborate on the trickle-down effect of the damage this is going to have on aspects of that economy in all of Canada.
[Interjection]
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking that question, because there is a domino effect. We are having problems domestically transporting. Some businesses have been touched to the point that people work on shiftwork at bakeries. Some businesses have been close to not having that shipment, so they have been almost to the point where they have not been able to bake those buns. This has a domino effect across the country, but also internationally. Canada has a real black eye.
There was a ship that came from Japan that was not able to fill up, so it went to the States. We have a black eye internationally. This is not good domestically, and it is not good internationally.
It is very frustrating, and I am hoping that there is more collaboration among parties. We all agree that something needs to be done. We all want to get grain moving. We all want to make sure that there is security and that we can regain the confidence we have lost because of this grain crisis. Let us work together.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in answer to some questions earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture said that the agriculture committee will ultimately determine the witness list and the way the bill will be dealt with at the committee stage. With regard to all the witnesses who may want to be heard, I recall a year ago, when Bill C-52 was before the standing committee, that there was a long list. The committee had six or seven meetings to accommodate all the witnesses.
Between now and the Easter adjournment, there would likely be only four regular sittings of the agriculture committee to deal with this legislation. It needs to be dealt with surely before the House adjourns for Easter. I wonder if, from the NDP perspective, the hon. member would agree that if necessary, to accommodate the witnesses, we would all agree to extend the hours of the agriculture committee, have the committee meet around the clock if necessary, to ensure that every single farmer and representative of a farm organization who wants to be heard on this vital legislation has the opportunity to present to the committee.
[Interjection]
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that we have to get this moving and start working on it as soon as possible. 
The next meeting of the agriculture committee is on Monday. Personally, I am willing to work longer hours. I want to have as many witnesses as possible come and share their testimony. I know it is not much notice, but we could send out a request to people we want to have come to the committee.
 I am completely open to working longer hours and having more meetings. However, that is not my decision and I cannot say that will happen. I am open to it, but it all depends on whether the government is willing to work together with members so that Bill C-30 will become a better piece of legislation. It is a question that the government will have to answer, but we in the NDP are open to that idea. 
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say “here we go again”. The House is once more dealing with legislation to patch up the grain handling and transportation system in western Canada. Just about a year ago, we were doing exactly the same thing. 
Back then, it was called Bill C-52 and it was legislation to create service level agreements between shippers and railways. Just about everybody told the government at the time that Bill C-52, as originally presented, would not work, but the Conservatives refused to listen to any of that advice. They refused each and every amendment. They voted them down. They basically told farmers and others to get stuffed. They put on the whips and they voted against every single idea that was presented to the standing committee to try to make Bill C-52 useful. They forced it through with absolutely no change. 
Sure enough, as everybody predicted at the time, it failed. Not a single service level agreement was ever completed under the useless Bill C-52. 
That is one of the reasons the grain industry is now in such chaos. Grain shipments are months and months and millions of tonnes behind. Piles of crops are stranded on farms across the prairies. Some are now spoiling. Feed users and domestic processors cannot get the supplies they need. Terminals are half empty. Ships are waiting. Demurrage charges are horrendous. 
Many sales have been lost outright; others have been deferred, and the prairie price is now down by 35% or 40% compared to where it was last year. Good customers like the Japanese are simply going elsewhere to buy the grain that they would normally come to Canada to get. World grain conferences are talking incessantly about the “unreliable” Canadian grain system. Some farmers have not had any income since last year. They are rolling last year's debt into next year's debt. 
When all that is added together, and by the government's own calculations as specified in its March 7 order in council, the impact of this disaster is now in the range of some $8 billion in costs and losses. That is $8 billion scooped out of the prairie farm economy, most of it taken directly from the pockets of farmers.
The problem has been dragging on for very nearly six months now, and the best the government can forecast is that it will take another six long and painful months to clear the backlog that now exists.
Grain companies are going to have a banner year. The deductions that they are taking off farmers' cheques have never been higher. Railways are going to have a banner year. In fact, they have gone to New York and boasted to their shareholders that this year's grain problem is just a “modest” little thing. They tell their shareholders not to worry, because grain shippers are captive shippers anyway, and there is no other way to move the product. There are no serious financial penalties for not moving it, so eventually the railways will get paid in full.
The only ones here who are out of pocket for that $8 billion are the farmers. Crisis legislation is obviously necessary. Indeed, it is long overdue.
How did this mess arise? Everyone blames everyone else. They blame the weather and the big crop that came from the bumper harvest last year. It is always somebody else's fault. No one is responsible and no one is accountable for the failure and the damages.
However, let us think of the painfully damaging message this sends to prairie farmers. Of all of the participants in the grain system, the farmers are the ones who did their jobs very well last year. They produced maybe the best crop in history. Now the system is telling them not to dare do that again, because the rest of the system cannot handle anything more than just an average crop. Neither do we have the will to give grain any sense of priority, so the farmers are being told to just be content with mediocrity. 
That is what the system is saying to farmers through the massive failure this past year. 
That is simply not good enough.
The system failed farmers this past year. It failed badly. There is responsibility all around: for the railways, for the grain companies, and maybe even a bit for the cold winter. But if the system failed, then this is the question that must be asked: who designed the system? Who put it in place? Who set it up for failure? Who has imposed $8 billion in costs and losses on prairie farmers?
The unequivocal answer to that question is this: the current Government of Canada. This disastrous system, the one that has failed so badly, is the one that was designed and implemented over the past three years by the current government. That is where the buck has to stop.
So, we are faced will Bill C-30. 
I think one thing in the bill that almost everyone, except the railways, would applaud is the change with respect to inter-switching. That would, possibly, simulate competition at a great many more delivery points across the Prairies. That would be a good thing. I note that some of the farm organizations are welcoming this move. They are also describing it as a modest improvement. However, it is an improvement and we all hope that it will work.
The legislation would also re-legislate the order in council from March 7, the one that ordered the railways to move a certain volume of grain in a certain timeframe. Significantly, however, the legislation would not improve upon the order of March 7. The railways would not be asked to do significantly better than they would otherwise have done anyway, with the onset of spring.
The question is, why not? That is the question being asked so eloquently by the minister of agriculture in the Province of Saskatchewan. He is a very practical, business-like, down-to-earth minister. He is a no-nonsense kind of guy. He would not propose a volume or a penalty system that was outlandish, outrageous, or impossible to achieve.
The Province of Saskatchewan, through the minister, has asked for about an 18% increase in the volumes to be shipped, and for penalties to be at the rate of $250,000 a day instead of $100,000 a day. He has looked it, he has examined it carefully as someone who knows the system, and he is saying, “Why not?” That would help, too, if the government could have a positive answer for Minister Stewart.
The rest of Bill C-30 would largely enable legislation to authorize the creation of future regulations. There would be no immediate action. It would simply be a matter of future hypotheticals if regulations were ultimately to be forthcoming.
We ask the question: why are there no legislative guarantees for farmers? A regulation could be changed by the stroke of a pen in the middle of the night. Right now, no one knows what those regulations might say. It would be very helpful if the government would table the draft regulations before the standing committee so it would know what those regulations would likely do when they finally come in.
For example, would there be comprehensive monitoring from one end of the system to the other to measure, analyze, and report publicly on grain marketing transportation and handling and the outcomes the system is actually generating?
Would there be complete transparency? 
Would there be regulation on the basis calculations and the deductions that come off farmers' grain cheques and go into the pockets of grain companies? That basis spread, today, has never been wider in Canadian history, meaning that the grain companies are getting a lot of money and the farmers are getting less.
Would there be any sensible business-like coordination of grain handling and transportation logistics to replace the absolutely chaotic free-for-all that exists today? No one is out there directing traffic, so we have a snarled mess.
What about short lines? What about producer cars? These were the issues raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
What about servicing domestic customers, like the feed grain users in the Fraser Valley, and the cereal manufacturers in eastern Canada?
Would there be a full costing review to track all revenues and costs to follow the money in the grain system to see how the efficiency gains have been shared or not shared over the past 22 years when then there was the last costing review?
Would there be any new capacity or surge capacity in those service level agreements? Would there be any precise definition about what service the railways must provide? How would performance be measured, and would farmers get liquidated damages when the system fails? Penalties paid to the government do not help farmers. The damages need to be paid to the farmers who have incurred the losses.
Why has all of this been left out of Bill C-30? It has been left to be done by regulation, maybe sometime. Why were these specific amendments voted down when they were last considered by the government a year ago in the context of Bill C-52? When will farmers get to see any of those proposed draft regulations? I think it would be very wise for the government to make sure that farmers and all of us have a chance to review those regulations before the standing committee is called upon to vote on Bill C-30.
Finally, will the government accept common sense amendments to try to fix the mess in grain handling and transportation, in the interests of farmers who, I repeat, are the ones and the only ones who are picking up the tab for all of this disaster? 
Concerns about the inadequacy of Bill C-30 have obviously been expressed by many members of Parliament on all three sides of the House, and concern is coming from others as well: I mentioned the Minister of Agriculture in the Province of Saskatchewan; the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities has expressed concern; the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association; and of course, the parliamentary secretary.
As the bill goes speedily through second reading today, which I think it should, and into the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for detailed consideration, the government needs to ensure that all of those who have these concerns, all of those who are going to be vitally affected for better or for worse by the outcome of Bill C-30, have the opportunity to be heard.
There are only about four meetings of the committee normally scheduled between now and when the House would adjourn at Easter. This matter has to be resolved before the Easter break. It would be very important for us to hear from all parties today, saying explicitly that, whatever extra hours or extra meetings of the agriculture committee may be required to make sure all the witnesses are heard, those meetings and hours will be added to the committee's agenda, so we can have a full ventilation of this subject. No one will feel they have been shut down or cut off, and we can all be assured that, when the final decisions are taken, the full information was before the committee and the decision is taken with full knowledge of what the circumstances are.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I can say we are more than happy to have as many meetings as it takes to make sure everyone is heard. I think that is what I heard from the deputy agriculture critic for the NDP, and I hope the government would give us that assurance before the end of the afternoon, so we can all make sure that the agriculture committee does its job properly.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and say we are all on the same page here. I want to clarify that the NDP is ready to work as long as it takes on the agriculture committee to accommodate all the witnesses who would like to come before our committee. 
We recognize there is not much time to get this done. We have about two weeks, which means four meetings, but we are ready to work as long and as hard as permitted by the government. It will be up to the Conservatives to agree to how much we can dedicate to the witnesses coming before committee for Bill C-30.
I wonder if the member could comment on Saskatchewan's agriculture minister, who wanted targets set to 13,000 cars a week with daily fines of up to $250,000. Right now we have fines up to $100,000, but that is up to $100,000 and it is not paid to farmers who are being so heavily hit because they have done a great job. They have a bumper crop, but if they are not able to move it, they are not being paid. Could the member comment on some of the suggestions by the Saskatchewan agriculture minister? 
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the career of Minister Stewart in Saskatchewan quite closely. He is not given to hyperbole or overstatement. He is a very solid, practical, businesslike kind of guy. 
He knows the agriculture industry from top to bottom. When he makes a recommendation like that, it is undoubtedly rooted in good, solid factual analysis. I am sure that his department, the Department of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, would have worked out the arithmetic to analyze his position. 
Minister Stewart says quite clearly that the level the government has set for railways to move a certain volume of grain is too low. It is not a stretch. It is not a reach. It simply would require them, at the level set by the government, to move what they would have moved anyway over the course of the spring. 
Minister Stewart is saying, given that there is a backlog that has been accumulating for six months—literally millions of tonnes stranded on farms—that the government should up the ante with the railways and ask them if they could not do a bit more. He has suggested an increase from 11,000 to 13,000 cars. That is about an 18% increase, which does not strike me as outlandish or unreasonable, and it is obviously backed up by the analysis of the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture.
As for the penalties, quite frankly, $100,000 a day would sound like a pretty stern penalty for most individuals. For the railways of Canada, that is walking-around money; it is not something that is likely to influence their behaviour severely. 
Minister Stewart has a point that the penalties need to be higher than they are today, to be meaningful. I agree thoroughly. Those penalties should in some way go to the advantage of farmers and not just go into the coffers of the Minister of Finance.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We have heard some very interesting things in the House today.
About 80% of the riding that I represent is made up of farmers. The area has a lot of farmland. We do not grow a lot of grain, but I know quite a bit about the situation and about how important it is to discuss Bill C-30 and to hear from as many witnesses as possible in committee.
I do not know how the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food works. I know more about other committees. However, I do know that, unfortunately, over the course of this session, the Conservatives have not wanted to discuss issues. This is becoming customary. I would like the member to expand on that. 
Does the member really believe that the government will accept the amendments proposed? Does he think that the Conservative government will be able to accommodate the many witnesses who want to testify regarding Bill C-30?
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful on the last point, that the government will at least make the gesture of making it possible for all of the witnesses to be heard. It would be pretty unseemly if some farm organizations and farm groups from western Canada were shut down or shut out simply because there was not enough time, when it is obviously possible to make time if we have the political will to do that. Anybody who would be shut out would be constituents of the government in large measure, so I do not think the government would be inclined to do that. I hope we will see that kind of generosity and flexibility from the government.
In terms of the willingness to accept amendments, I hope the experience from last year will be instructive to the government. Last year, many of these same issues were before the House and before the standing committee in consideration of Bill C-52, the legislation dealing with service level agreements. The arguments were all made. The government brought in the whips and voted down all the amendments. Now it is clear that was the wrong thing to do. At least some of those amendments would have made a difference. Some of those amendments could have prevented the problems we are now having, or at least reduced the consequences of those problems.
Based on that experience, I hope the government will be more open to hearing what the farm organizations are truly saying and respond to that testimony with concrete changes to the legislation. The government did not do a good job last year. It has an opportunity now to fix it. With that experience so recently in mind, I hope the government will learn from the mistakes made a year ago.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very informative speech and also for all the hard work he has done on behalf of farmers over the years he has been in this House.
There has been a debate regarding the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board's single-desk status and this catastrophe we are facing today, as we have read in The Western Producer and other newspapers and heard in talking with farmers.
I would like the member's opinion. Is part of the reason for this catastrophe today the loss of the single-desk status of the Canadian Wheat Board?
I know the member has been on the ground talking to farmers, and I would like to get his opinion on this.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, quite a number of farmers would certainly make that case. 
The Canadian Wheat Board had a variety of functions in the system. Some of them were set out in legislation, such as the single-desk seller function. Some of its functions simply developed by way of the evolution of the grain system in western Canada. The Wheat Board was there, after all, for the better part of 60 years. It became, in a way, the quarterback in the system, helping to direct traffic and provide some overall coordination.
When the Conservatives made the decision to eliminate the single desk, it was their policy decision to make as government, and they took that decision. However, I do not think they contemplated the collateral damage, and some of the collateral damage was the total elimination of any coordinating function, any oversight function, and any ability to try to use limited assets in the most cost-effective businesslike fashion. 
This is what is missing in the system now. It is not an issue, at the moment, of single-desk selling or not, but an issue of absolute chaos in an uncoordinated system where no one is paying attention to the synchronization. 
It is a very complex system. It is a system where one has to get the right grain from the right delivery point to the right terminal onto the right boat to the right customer, all just in time. It is a very intricate, complex number of parts that all have to work together. 
At the moment, no one is trying to bring any coordination to that. No one is trying to make sure we use these obviously limited assets in the most cost-effective way, so we do not have a colossal screw-up but rather a smoothly functioning system that would get the most money for farmers, because the product is delivered to the right place, at the right time when the--
The Speaker: Order. I have to stop the member there, because we have run out of time for questions and comments. 
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.
Brent Rathgeber: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to add a few comments in the debate on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act. I certainly support the motivation behind this bill, and I am most mindful of the problem that exists in the prairie provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. However, I want to place a couple of concerns on the record and ask whether there may be some unintended consequences of the bill. I support the bill and will keep my comments short enough so that this bill can be moved expeditiously to committee before the end of the day.
This bill seems to be based on a premise that it is the railroads, and the railroads alone, that are responsible for the inability of farmers to get their grain to markets. Although there may be some truth to that statement or that moral blameworthiness, I think it is an oversimplification. 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture talked about the extensive consultation with the railroads before the implementation of the order in council approximately three or four weeks ago and the tabling of legislation. The railroads claim that there was a lack of consultation. CP president Hunter Harrison stated in the media that he was very concerned about the speed and the lack of consultation by the government in making such significant changes. Canadian National, which forms the southern boundary of my riding of Edmonton—St. Albert, has expressed similar concerns with respect to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt know, being a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, that this is a complicated supply chain. For grain to be moved to market, it requires the co-operation and coordination, as the member for Wascana just indicated, of multiple moving parts, including grain cars, elevators, and inland terminals. Of course, the railways are a big piece of the puzzle, but there are also ports, ships, and weather. All of these things have to work together if grain is going to be moved in an orderly manner from the field to the bin to the elevator to the railcar to the port and to markets.
We had a bit of a perfect storm last year, in a good way. There was a bumper crop. Crops have been estimated to be anywhere from 50% or higher than average yields, and that created a problem. The railroads have also had some weather experiences this winter, which was a very significant amount of snow and cold weather over the prairie provinces, and all over Canada as a whole. As a result, their ability to move grain was comprised. The government needs to be mindful of that.
I am always concerned when the government's solution to any problem is to bring in heavy-handed regulation, especially if the railroads are correct in their assessment that the regulations were brought in without adequate consultation. In fact, there is some suggestion in some editorials today that a solution like this may have unintended consequences that could cause more problems than it would solve. They may get grain moving; they may not. We always have to be mindful that there is not infinite capacity for the railroads to move product. There are only so many rails and so many cars. We also have to be mindful of other conditions, such as weather, and something that I do not think we have talked about today, which is safety. 
The year 2013 was horrific for rail accidents. The most tragic was the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, in July 2013. However, there were also derailments in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where products, including dangerous products, were derailed and caused fires, though thankfully nothing as catastrophic as was experienced in Quebec. 
Nonetheless, if we are going to put extra pressure on the railways to move more product, does that mean they are going to have to move trains faster? Does that mean they are going to have to use longer trains? Has anybody properly considered what that might mean for the safety of moving product by rail? There are those who live in communities that surround railroad tracks, like I do. I live less than two blocks from the Walker Yard, which is the main switching yard in western Canada for CN Rail. I hope the government takes into consideration that it is a complicated chain. 
Another problem with the weather this year, as I understand it, is with respect to the Great Lakes and moving product through Thunder Bay and that region. The ice is not allowing for the free flow of water, and perhaps the government needs to consider using icebreakers to help break up the ice so that more ships with grain can move through the Great Lakes.
The problem is much more complicated than simply blaming the railroads. There is no doubt they have major responsibility and are a major part of the supply chain, but the supply chain is larger than they are. 
I will resume my seat and take questions in a moment because I want to see the bill go to committee before the clock hits the bottom of the hour, but I would ask the government to consider what some of the unintended consequences of bringing in more regulations to the railways might be. 
The last thing I want to say is that rail is responsible for moving other products besides grain. There is potash. There is oil. If the railways are forced by threat of a $100,000-per-day fine to put priority on grain over other commodities, are we going to be standing up in the House three months or six months from now debating a potash fair transport act or an oil fair transport act? Those products are going to become compromised if grain becomes the only priority.
I support the intention of the bill. I am very sympathetic to the farmers who are unable to move their product and who have grain in their bins that could conceivably rot and spoil if left there too long, so I support moving the bill to committee today. However, I ask the government and the committee to consider some of the unintended consequences to the railroads as the bill moves forward to committee and back to the House. The railroads are only one part, albeit a big one, of the supply chain. 
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to enter into the debate, because obviously this piece of legislation is critical for folks who have been dealing with rail car shortages, and I have another reflection to add to this discussion. 
Friends of mine from the west coast and from forestry economies across Canada have particularly seen abuses from rail companies, which have often simply broken contracts. They had contracts for rail cars to be delivered so that they could move products to markets, particularly in B. C. on the coast. I am thinking about communities like Fort St. James, Burns Lake, and Houston, where they have had piles upon piles of wood ready to go, with buyers ready, and people going to work at the mill to produce that wood. The rail companies, in northern B. C. at least, and in too many other parts of the country, have a virtual monopoly. They either deal with the company or deal with the company. There are no other choices. 
Does my friend have any comment as to the broader effects of abuses that go on when governments allow unregulated monopolies to establish themselves and then cause so many grievances in the supply chain? As he mentioned in his speech, it affects not just the industry we are talking about today but many other industries as well, such as the forestry industry in British Columbia and other provinces. 
[Interjection]
Brent Rathgeber: Mr. Speaker, if railways are breaking contracts, the remedy is quite simple: litigation for breach of contract.
The bigger problem, as I think my friend indicated, is the lack of competition. Yes, we have a duopoly. There are only two major railroads running in our country, and that creates a problem. Interswitching may or may not help. It might actually hurt, if American railways start demanding use of other lines. The long-term solution would be more competition, and bringing in the heavy hand of regulation is unlikely to attract any further competition.
The Speaker:  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
[Interjection]
Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I seek agreement that we see the clock at 1:30.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-474, An Act respecting the promotion of financial transparency, improved accountability and long-term economic sustainability through the public reporting of payments made by mining, oil and gas corporations to foreign governments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by paying tribute to the bill's sponsor, my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood. He believes strongly in this topic and has been patient and tenacious over the years as he fights to get justice for people in developing countries where mining companies, many of which are from Canada, develop the subsurface resources that are so valuable to the global economy. He does not give up.
This is his second bill to hold mining companies accountable to the people who provide labour, without which mining would be impossible. His first attempt to hold this sector accountable, Bill C-300, narrowly missed being passed in the House.
I would also like to pay tribute to my constituents who come to see me or write to me regularly in order to ensure that I keep up to date on the latest developments in this matter. A number of them contact me after they have travelled abroad and visited mining areas to tell me about the situation in those areas.
I would like to mention the Reverend Shaun Fryday, who regularly visits some of the most violent and dangerous areas in the Philippines; Yvonne Bourque, who is with St. Thomas à Becket parish in Pierrefonds; Monica Lambton, from the Office of Justice of the Canadian English-speaking Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame; Father Ernie Schibli, pastor at St. Edward the Confessor Mission in Pointe-Claire; and the Reverend Ian Fraser, pastor of St. Columba by-the-Lake Presbyterian Church in Pointe-Claire. 
They all hold out hope, even when their efforts do not seem to have any impact immediately. They take the time to meet with MPs like me in order to raise awareness about this issue and the urgent need to take action. Through these contacts and meetings that are patiently organized, one at a time, these and other committed Canadians hope to establish a critical mass of MPs who will be more aware of the urgent need to take action.
They hope that one day either this government will finally wake up and take progressive action, as in the days of the Progressive Conservatives, or we will have a new government in Canada that will do what is right in this matter.
I sincerely believe that there are members opposite who would like to support this bill from the outset. I hope that they will do so for themselves and for the people overseas who rely on their support.
The measures in Bill C-474 are long overdue. The fact that the government has not already proposed and implemented these measures is in contradiction to the principles that Canada has repeatedly endorsed on the international stage. I will come to that in a moment.
As we all know, Canada is a world leader in mining, oil, and gas, with the latter two sectors also falling within the purview of this bill. If I am not mistaken, about half of the world's mining companies have their head offices in Canada and trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange, yet we lag behind in demanding, through law, greater transparency in the accounting practices of these companies.
This bill, which would compel Canadian-based extractive companies operating abroad to disclose to the Minister of Natural Resources any payment made to foreign governments, would level the playing field, just as the U.S. and the European Union have already taken steps to legislate on this issue. In other words, this bill would bring Canadian companies up to international standards.
In 2008, following the financial crisis in the United States, a provision was included within the Dodd-Frank financial bill, the Cardin-Lugar amendment. The amendment would require extractive companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange to publicly disclose all payments made to foreign governments. A number of a major Canadian companies cross-listed on the New York Stock Exchange have been caught under this new regulation.
A similar bill is also under consideration in the European Union and will require companies to comply with regulations similar to those in the Cardin-Lugar amendment and Bill C-474.
What is also important, as I mentioned earlier, is that we be consistent with principles we express we are in favour of on the international stage. The Canadian government has expressed an interest in revenue disclosure in the past through various international forums. The government has indicated its support for the extractive industries transparency initiative, which promotes the disclosure of payments made to governments.
Canada's sustainable economic growth strategy advocates increased transparency to aid in the promotion of international development. Canada has also ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which requires state parties to take measures to promote the transparency of private entities and to ensure that the public has access to information.
Canada is also a signatory to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions; is a signatory to the G8 Declaration: Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy; and was party to the G8/Africa Joint Declaration: Shared Values, Shared Responsibilities, issued at the G8 summit at Deauville, in 2011.
It is not as if the government has never heard of this kind of measure that would require greater accounting transparency on the part of extractive companies doing business abroad. It is not as if it is a new issue. Not only is it not a new issue, it is one we support in words in the international arena.
Adopting this bill would simply be consistent with the path the government claims it wants to take. It would be beneficial to the mining companies themselves. Sometimes companies in the private sector balk at certain regulations. Then they find out later that, in fact, those regulations were beneficial to those companies in the long run.
For example, there are many investors, more and more, who want to invest ethically. They want to make ethical investments. If they see that these Canadian mining companies and other extractive sector companies operating abroad are being fully transparent, they will be able to invest. They will have licence, essentially, to invest in these companies. I think all CEOs and all management teams in all publicly traded companies want to have buy-in of their shares.
In the long run, this will be good business. It will also confirm, in law, the values we claim on the international stage to hold dear.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Ottawa Centre for putting forward this bill. In the past, we have had bills before this House that have dealt with corporate and social responsibility. It is an important issue, and I am most pleased to speak to it today. 
I want to read one part of the bill. This is, “An Act respecting the promotion of financial transparency, improved accountability and long-term economic sustainability...”. That strikes me as almost the Conservative mantra, when I see that.
However, the reason I am particularly interested in this bill and pleased to have the opportunity to speak to it today is that in my capacity as critic for international human rights for the last eight and a half years, I have had numerous delegations. In fact, in a one-month period about a year ago, I had indigenous groups from Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, the Philippines, and Mexico, all of whom accused their governments of removing their communities from their traditional lands to allow mining exploration and development, some of which was conducted by Canadian mining interests.
I know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast believe that Canadian mining interests would operate and function with the values that we hold dear about human rights in Canada. Unfortunately, from time to time that has been called into question. This bill would require that Canadian mining, oil, and gas corporations submit annual transparency reports that disclose all payments provided by them or their subsidiaries to a foreign government for the purposes of further mining, oil, or gas activities. 
We know there have been Canadian companies called into question around Libya and other countries. We have some court cases that are underway. This type of legislative responsibility is important, not for the good mining companies, not for the people who follow the rules and have some pride in what they do, but for those companies that we would call into question their activities and how they proceed in foreign lands.
I spent time in Saudi Arabia, in the 1970s, and in that country at that time bribery was a huge undertaking. Nearly anything one needed or wanted to get done had a bribe attached to it. That is a culture that needed change. Part of the change is that countries that provide workforces to a country that functions on bribery have a responsibility to start that change.
From the reports of abuses that I heard from the indigenous groups who visited me, it is clear that part of the equation for change in those countries is contained in this bill. Clear reporting on those transactions will ensure that Canadian companies continue to use the proper due diligence in those countries with murky governments, and we all know what we are talking about here. There are governments out there that will use torture and will attack their own citizens. Members of the leadership of these indigenous groups are physically at risk as a result of standing up for what should be rights to their own traditional lands.
New Democrats have long supported transparency and accountability by Canadian corporations overseas. The member who sponsored Bill C-300 is with us here today. In fact, in that bill we had an opportunity to further corporate and social responsibility in the world by having Canada become a leader. Unfortunately, even though it was a minority Parliament, we lost, if I recall, by some 12 votes. We see that this bill further complements legislative efforts that the NDP members and others have made in this House to encourage that kind of responsibility and sustainable and transparent management practices in the Canadian extractive sector, which is then used around the world.
We also believe that the responsible management of natural resources means that part of the arrangement must provide the people of these countries with social and economic benefits. Rather than having all of the profits skimmed off, when they have a corrupt government that is practically willing to give away the resources in these countries, there must be some responsibility to ensure that the people who have lost their land receive the benefits.
It is clear to NDP members, as well, that corporate transparency about payments to foreign governments should further Canada's national foreign policy objectives, and we think it would do that.
Part of our goals as a country, for many years, has been to encourage the development of democracies around the world. Part of that, particularly, is governmental accountability. If there is a trail of transparency where we can see where the monies have flowed, when those get off base, it would be something that we could identify and act upon.
With this bill, Canada would join the growing international community that is starting to move toward disclosures of this nature. Another speaker earlier quoted the Barney Frank initiative in the United States. We also believe that enforced regulations would create a more level playing field for all Canadian companies. 
In these countries, we know bribery happens and huge amounts of money are fed to governments under the table. When Canadian companies are abiding by the rules and being responsible but have been defeated in getting a chance to explore for a certain resource because someone else outbid them under the table, we have to develop international rules and regulations to ensure it does not happen.
Today, the EU, Australia, and the U.K. are considering standards similar to what was just imposed in the United States. Bill C-474 would put Canada on the path to joining those nations that believe their companies must show a commitment to corporate and social responsibility when dealing with resource development, particularly in the developing world. It would ensure that Canadian corporations are accountable for the payments they make, as I have said over the last few minutes.
The bill complies with the corporate standards of the extractive industries transparency initiative. Payments are required to be identified, under this initiative, and separated according to the specific extractive projects to which they apply. It is very direct, maybe in some terms simple, accounting for what people do, but if that payment is not linked to a specific reported project, it must be listed separately. If a payment that is listed generically is believed to apply to a specific project, the bill would authorize the Minister of Natural Resources to launch an investigation. That is what I would call true accountability.
The Transparency International bribe payers index ranks the oil and gas and mining industries as the fourth and fifth most likely sectors to issue bribes. Consider that for a moment, because Canada is a leader in resource development in both of these areas. We do not want our companies tempted or compromised into feeling they have to pay bribes in these other countries.
Two-thirds of the world's poorest people live in countries rich in natural resources. As I said before, if Canada is party to the extraction of those resources, it is part of our responsibility to ensure that those poor people benefit from that extraction and the sales of their resources. Note that I said they are their resources. Effective environment and labour standards in developing countries often depend on advocacy and activism by local populations; thus the groups that visited my office over last summer.
This bill would make sure local people are aware of the payments made to their governments by Canadian extractive companies. Beyond that, it would show where the give and take has been in those agreements and where the principles have been tested for the Canadian companies. We hope to be able to say that this bill would encourage those Canadian companies to the point where we will never see on record any evidence that they have bribed, been part of any coercion, or had anything to do with it. My belief is that companies do not do it, but this would ensure that it is not done and it would ensure direct accountability.
When the leaders of those nations see that there is an accountability chain that could cause Canadian companies to withdraw from their country, perhaps that is just the one lever that might be needed to start the change to where they treat their own people with dignity, they do not push them off the lands for exploration, and when the lands are taken and the delivery of the resources is done, the people benefit in a true way.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to give a final summary of this debate. I want to thank all of my colleagues for participating in the two hours of debate. I am actually a little more enthusiastic about my colleagues on this side of the House than that side, but nevertheless I do appreciate their at least engaging.
I want to commend the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for speaking today. I do want to correct the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I think he confused me, as the sponsor of the bill, with his esteemed colleague from Ottawa Centre, who has his own very worthwhile bill on the floor of the House.
As he and others have rightly said, this bill is modelled on the Cardin-Lugar amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill. It is about as similar a bill as one could make it given the differences in the jurisdiction, because I did not want to see an unnecessary regulatory burden imposed on Canadian companies that trade exclusively in Canada.
Ironically, Canadian companies that trade both in Canada and the U.S. will be forced to comply on September 1. They will be forced to tell the United States Securities and Exchange Commission what moneys were paid, to whom they were paid, the currency they were paid in, and what project they were paid for, so that everyone in the world, including Canada, will find out what Canadian companies paid to secure those concessions, and yet the government continues to resist.
I had occasion to go over the arguments put forward by government members in the last hour of debate, which I found more amusing than anything else. Regrettably, it is not a laughing matter. 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources has referred previously to “The new mandatory reporting regime announced by the Prime Minister...”. There is no mandatory reporting regime. There are no regulations. There is no law. There is an announcement. That is it. The only time a Canadian company would actually have to disclose the information in Bill C-474 would be when it files its return with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The parliamentary secretary went on to say that “Canada already has a well-established financial recording system...”. There is no recording system. If there were a recording system, we would not have to go through this. 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs recognizes international voluntary guidelines. It cannot be voluntary and mandatory at the same time. The industry is actually quite supportive of the voluntary guidelines.
The same parliamentary secretary then made reference to the CSR's extractive sector and Marketta Evans. She has been in place for, I think, either three or four years. She resigned last year. Her budget was around $1 million a year. She had precisely three cases, none of which were resolved. I do not know how that can be considered to be progress on this particular file.
This month, the former minister of natural resources, now the Minister of Finance, made a big announcement at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference, where he said that if they could not get their game together, particularly the provinces, the government would start the process of initiating legislation on April 1, 2015, more than a year from now. Any legislation he initiates will look a lot like Bill C-474.
As I said, it cannot be both voluntary and mandatory. There is no voluntary aspect. It is actually mandatory.
The government, by its announcement at PDAC, contradicts all of the representations made by the speakers from the Conservative side in the first hour.
This is very serious stuff. Mining companies are having real difficulties these days. It is extremely expensive. The meltdown in shares, particularly of one company in South America, because it did not follow disclosure requirements and did not take corporate and social responsibility seriously, has resulted in a massive multi-billion dollar write-down in its share value and the exit of the chairman of that corporation.
I wish not to be discouraged but I am. The Prime Minister is prepared to blow off the G8, President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, and Canadians. I regret to say that the industry is desirous of this kind of legislation and the only drag is the government itself.
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 2, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:51 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:51p.m.)