2015-03-13

Government Orders
Respect for Communities ActHon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC):  moved that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the third time and passed. 
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my voice to the ongoing dialogue on Bill C-2, the respect for communities act.
Since Bill C-2 was introduced in the House of Commons, it has been the subject of much debate. Over the past few months, we have heard many different opinions about the proposed legislation. At the same time, there are aspects of the bill I believe we should now all agree on. They relate to the bill's contribution to maintaining public health and public safety in all of our communities.
As this is my first opportunity to speak about the bill, I will take some time to review the important points raised by the members of the House, the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, who led the consideration of this bill at committee stage, and the expert witnesses who were called before that committee to share their knowledge and views on the substance of this bill. 
The health and safety of Canadians is something our government is committed to protecting and maintaining. It is an important issue, which we campaigned on. It is why Canadians elected this government and why we stand on this side of the House working to bring forward bills that allow us to do just that.
What is this bill about? In its decision regarding Insite in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Minister of Health's discretion to grant or deny exemption applications and to request information for that purpose. In exercising her discretion, the Minister of Health must take into account public health and public safety considerations in accordance with the charter.
The Supreme Court of Canada decision also stated that the Minister of Health must consider evidence, if any, of the five following factors when assessing an exemption application related to activities at a supervised injection site: one, the impact of such a facility on crime rates; two, the local conditions indicating a need for such a supervised injection site; three, the regulatory structure in place to support the facility; four, the resources available to support its maintenance; and five, the expression of community support or opposition.
Why are supervised consumption sites considered to impact both public health and public safety? Let us look at what is actually at play when it comes to providing an application for an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA, for activities at a supervised consumption site.
As we have all heard, the CDSA controls activities involving controlled substances and precursors to minimize the risk of diversion to an illegal use. The CDSA and its regulations do, however, allow access to controlled substances for medical, scientific, and public interest purposes. One way the CDSA makes this possible is through exemptions under section 56 of the act. Section 56 provides the Minister of Health with the authority to grant an exemption from provisions of the CDSA for activities involving controlled substances. 
Bill C-2 would amend section 56 to create a distinct regime for an exemption for activities involving illegal substances that are obtained on the streets and are then used in supervised injection sites. This is the reality of what is going on now, every day, at Insite. I hope we can all agree that a solid framework is needed when we are overseeing the use of street drugs in this way.
According to a 2008 report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, supervised consumption sites are described as specialized facilities that provide injection drug users with sterile consumption equipment and “a clean, unhurried environment”. The clients frequenting these sites typically have a long history of drug use and drug abuse and often live on the margins of Canadian society, untouched by traditional health or social services.
 It has been argued that these types of sites serve to meet the needs of those who use drugs by serving as a point of entry into health and social services. However, it is also important to remind listeners that the drugs used on the grounds of the facility are illegal and that these pre-obtained illegal drugs are acquired on the black market, usually from drug dealers and others who are exploiting the addictions of Canadians. This market presents obvious health and safety risks, so it is only right that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act should lay out a framework to address this.
That is why the bill is clearly needed. The current system does not provide the tools needed to adequately consider the complex risks associated with supervised drug injection sites. 
The respect for communities act would provide the minister of health with information needed to properly assess section 56 exemption applications and to balance public health and public safety considerations, in accordance with the charter. 
To be more specific, the bill sets out the criteria that build upon the five factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. These criteria would provide clarity to the applicants on the type of information the minister would consider in an exemption application related to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 
Given the serious risks to human health and public safety associated with illegal drugs, and given that substances obtained from illegal sources are known to contribute to organized crime, our government believes that exemptions to undertake activities with them should be granted only once rigorous criteria, identified in Bill C-2, have been addressed.
Under Bill C-2, the minister of health would continue to have responsibility for granting the exemptions. However, to provide clarity and transparency in the application process, the bill sets out the information requirements to inform these decisions. 
I have looked at this very carefully through the lens of being both a former mayor of a small town and a health care practitioner. I believe that what the minister has created in the bill is a positive and appropriate framework for these decisions. 
Bill C-2 specifically identifies the type of information the minister would need to support informed decision-making. It would ensure that the Minister of Health would have access to community perspectives from a broad range of relevant stakeholders so as to give consideration to the potential impact a site could have on a particular community. To take that local government perspective, they are often looking at zoning applications and uses for different pieces of property, and there are frequently very strong opinions on both sides. Again, it is the community that has the ability to express those opinions. The ability of people to express their opinions to help inform the decision-making is absolutely critical.
Applicants would have to provide a report on consultations with the licensing authorities for physicians and nurses as well as with local community groups. As well, letters of opinion would be required from, for example, provincial ministers of health and public safety, the head of the local police force, and the lead health professionals of the government of the province. These individuals would be consulted in their professional capacities so that the minister's decision could be informed by leading experts from the local area. These letters would contain their opinions on the proposed activities and any public health and public safety concerns they might have. 
The applicant would need to provide a report outlining the views of these groups and describing how they would respond to any relevant concerns raised during the consultations. The applicant would also be required to describe proposed measures to address relevant concerns raised by the head of the local police force, the local government, and community groups. 
Available information about crime and public nuisance, public use of illicit drugs, or inappropriately discarded drug-related litter, such as needles, would also have to be submitted, along with any law enforcement research or statistics on the subject.
In addition, to address the safety of individuals and communities, the applicants would need to provide a description of the potential impact of the proposed activities at the site on public safety. This would include available information on crime in the vicinity of the site and in the municipality and a description of measures to be taken to minimize the impacts. 
Applicants would also be required to provide information on security measures, record keeping, and the establishment of procedures for the safe disposal of any controlled substances or the devices that facilitate their consumption. Criminal record checks for key employees would also need to be provided.
Members on the other side of the House have raised a variety of concerns regarding the proposed legislation and the information required to support an application for an exemption for activities conducted at a supervised consumption site. 
I would like to point out that we need to balance the obligations being placed on applicants with the needs of the Canadian public, meaning the individuals, organizations, and businesses that would become the eventual neighbours of any supervised consumption site in their communities.
 A typical and appropriate community process should happen at a local level. That is what this bill is about. It would set up clear parameters and would require a thorough consultation process to ensure that applications for these supervised drug-injection sites were thoroughly reviewed by local experts and community members as part of any decision.
Our government believes that it is important to give members of the public an opportunity to provide input into proposed activities that could impact their communities. That is why, under Bill C-2, the minister would also have the authority to post a notice of application for a 90-day public comment period to seek direct input from community members. It is not unlike a rezoning application, whereby a large sign is posted to inform everyone who is local that it will happen. It is part of the local community consultation process.
That is what I have found so surprising about the debate on this bill until now. The opposition members continue to delay and drag out the debate, when the single largest accomplishment of the bill is simply consultation with local communities. To be quite frank, to me it is incomprehensible. Members in this House need to pride themselves on local grassroots input, whether it is for an environmental assessment process or a rezoning, so I am surprised that there seems to be such resistance to providing what is normal due process in important decisions a community makes. I am pleased to see that we are making some progress on this today.
Consultations are not the only improvement contained in the bill. There are also important new clarifications that would be brought to the inspection regime to monitor these sites following their establishment. This would ensure that the government had the tools needed to monitor any injection site that may be established following the new consultation process.
One of Health Canada's responsibilities under the CDSA is to monitor the distribution of controlled substances and to inspect facilities, as needed, to verify compliance with the act, its regulations, and the terms and conditions of an exemption. This is done to minimize the risk of diversion and any negative impact on public safety. I do not think anyone should argue about the importance of having that measure in the bill. As someone who was responsible for a health centre, there were many different groups that had the ability to come in and monitor the work we were doing, whether it was on our work with controlled drugs and substances or the privacy commission. Again, these are appropriate and necessary safeguards.
The proposed legislation would amend the CDSA, which sets out the powers of inspectors. The amendments would provide authority for inspectors to enter supervised consumption sites for inspections to validate information on any exemption application received by Health Canada. These amendments would also authorize inspectors to enter a site for which an exemption was granted at any reasonable time to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of the exemption. Again, these are appropriate measures and safeguards that would be put in place. If the conditions of the exemption were not followed or the act or regulations were not complied with, there could be a danger to public health or safety, and an exemption could be revoked. 
That brings us back to the real issue at play, which is the danger to public health and public safety. It is no secret that when illicit drug activities take root in neighbourhoods, the health and safety of individuals, families, and communities are put at risk. Illicit drugs that are bought and sold on the streets are inherently dangerous and present dangers in the communities in which they are found. For example, we know that the proceeds from the sale of illicit substances often contribute to organized crime, and the use of these substances can increase the risk of harm to health and safety, especially when these substances are unregulated and untested.
While a supervised consumption site aims to reduce the risk of illegal drug use, it is also important to keep in mind that no level of oversight can ever make illegal, untested street drugs completely safe. 
That is why I also want to note that the bill will require applicants to provide information regarding the drug treatment facilities that may be associated with the injection site. I think all members of this House can agree that the true goal of the program designed to help those of us struggling with addictions is to end drug use in a safe way. That is what any of us would hope for family or friends fighting an addiction. It is only right to analyze the drug treatment facilities that are proposed and associated.
We often hear about safe injection sites being a pathway to treatment, to care. As someone involved in the health care business, I too frequently saw people who were desperate to have detox, to have rehabilitation, to have support with nothing being available to them. If this is to be a pathway to supporting people in their recovery, then it has to be associated with those pieces of the treatment puzzle. 
Everyone in this House probably has family and friends who are aware of enormous dollars that have been spent to send their loved ones to treatment centres because there are no public options available as they were desperately struggling with recovery.
These changes are in line with our government's balanced approach to tackling illegal drug use in Canada. In 2007 we introduced a national anti-drug strategy. The strategy focuses on drug prevention and access to treatment for individuals who suffer from drug dependencies. It also focuses on combatting the production and distribution of illicit drugs by targeting drug dealers and producers who threaten the health and public safety of our communities, and more particularly important, of our youth. 
One of the key components of the strategy is the enforcement action plan, which has increased the capacity of law enforcement to proactively target organized criminal activities. For example, under this plan, funding was provided to the RCMP to expand its dedicated anti-drug team to help locate, investigate and shut down organizations involved in the production and distribution of illicit drugs. Funding was also provided to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute offenders. 
Through these and many other activities under the national anti-drug strategy, we have made great progress in helping to protect public health and safety.
To emphasize just how much the issues related to public health and public safety are intertwined, both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Safety appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to address questions raised by members in their consideration of this bill.
During her testimony, the Minister of Health clearly stated that, “This legislation was not prepared overnight or on a whim”. It was “...drafted to specifically codify a detailed ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in September 2011 on a supervised injection site”. As I have said, that ruling identified the specific factors the Minister of Health must consider when reviewing applications that grant exemptions from Canada's drug laws to allow such sites to be established.
There are many things I could say about the process. I know 20 minutes is a long time, but it can also be a short time. Most people in the House, I expect, have had families and friends who have struggled with addiction. We heard a very powerful statement yesterday from one of our colleagues. We are trying to create a balanced piece of legislation that will really, as I say, take care of the public safety issues, to look at the public health issues and respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. 
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member across talks about the opposition dragging out the debate, and she also underlined the importance of consulting with community groups. 
In terms of the consultative process regarding Bill C-2, has she gone to the grassroots community partners around her, places such as ASK Wellness, Henry Leland House, Crossroads Inn, the Phoenix Centre? Has she talked to the president of ASK Wellness, Elizabeth Harris, about the bill? Has she talked to the president of the Phoenix Centre, Fawn Holland?
I am just wondering what their input was in her own community and whether she has consulted closely with them in Kamloops.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I have ongoing dialogue with many members in Kamloops, including ASK Wellness, on many pieces of legislation, whether it is our prostitution legislation or others.
The member is missing the point. The point is that there are criteria giving consistency to how applications will be received. Most importantly, what it would do is say that if there is ever a proposed site in Kamloops, all of the groups that the member mentioned would have the ability to speak very directly to it, as would the local government and police force.
Again, what we are talking about is the ability of communities to have consultation and be able to determine what is appropriate and what is going to be helpful to deal with what is a very difficult challenge.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear with this particular bill that the Prime Minister's Office is trying to give the impression that we are going to have all of these injection sites scattered across the country unless we pass this legislation.
If we take a look at the one injection site that we have here in Canada, there was immense consultation. We had federal, provincial and municipal cooperation that had all sorts of other stakeholder and community involvement. The stakeholders included first responders, health care professionals and police agencies. The whole nine yards was brought in together to put this one site into being.
It is ludicrous to believe that communities and others would not be consulted. The real reason is that this is nothing more than Conservative spin to try to create an issue that is just not there.
Why does the member believe that this legislation is even necessary?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, the member is making my own point. This legislation would take the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which lays out five things that need to be looked out. The Minister of Health needs to give the exemption.
It is our responsibility to ensure that with those criteria, there are processes and systems around it. Again, to be quite frank, the member is making my point that this legislation would create the system that is needed to address the important issues.
Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we talked a little bit about barriers in getting programs like this off the ground and having community confidence. Some of that is a lack of legislative direction. What we would provide here is that legislative direction, which has that criteria.
One of the pieces of criteria that I was most interested in hearing about, and I wonder if the hon. member could expand on it a little, is the criteria around ensuring that plans includes treatment plans to go along with the safe injection sites. Communities can understand and invest in that. Could my hon. colleague expand a little bit on that piece in plainer English terms?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I have worked in small northern communities and I have seen the decimation that addictions can create in those communities. I also saw the huge lack of appropriate detoxification and rehabilitation services. I can remember time after time when people came to me and said, “Listen, we are ready to quit”. I had to say, “I am sorry, but there no are beds or services available”. I told them that in six months, we may be able to give them the support that they need. That was a shame, because six months later, those people might not have been ready anymore.
Treatment and prevention services that are directly associated with the site is an enormous and absolutely critical piece of this complex and comprehensive puzzle.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like the member's comments on a speech given by Dr. Julio Montaner, the director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He said that the government “just doesn't get it”. He said:
 ...instead of complying with the Supreme Court of Canada, they are making it even more difficult for people to access a service that has been shown to be lifesaving. 
Dr. Montaner is one of our leading world experts on AIDS and believes that this bill is wrong-headed. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to comment on that, and ask her how many safe injection sites the department of health is projecting to be exempted in the first year after this law is proclaimed.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest of respect for Dr. Montaner in terms of some of the work he has done around HIV/AIDS. I have listened to him speak here on Parliament Hill.
The point of this legislation is that we would put in place some appropriate parameters around the minister determining whether to give an exemption. There is even a process around rezoning applications. When a mining company is looking at establishing a mine, there is a process around it. We have created straightforward criteria that look at a balance, include prevention and safety, and include community consultation. To be quite frank, I think all opposition members should be on board with us on this particular piece of legislation.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the problem with this bill is that it is now harder to set up a supervised injection site than it is to build a pipeline. Want to build a pipeline? Do not bother asking permission from the mayor, fishers or farmers. Just do it.
Want to set up a centre to help people who really need help, because life as a drug addict is not easy? You will have to come up with the sun, the moon and the starlit sky.
Will someone please explain to me why it is so easy for oil companies to do what they want and why insurmountable obstacles are put in the way of people who want to help folks who are suffering? I would really like to know why that is.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely have to disagree with the hon. member. He needs to look at what is in this bill. Consulting with communities is perfectly appropriate. Making sure there are criminal record checks of the people who are going to be running these operations is absolutely perfectly appropriate. Having plans in terms of what will be done with the needles so that they are disposed of properly is absolutely appropriate. Having inspectors make sure that people are complying is absolutely appropriate.
I look at every single element in this bill. They are not overly onerous and they are appropriate protections for the health and safety of communities.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in such an important debate.
 I wish we had longer to discuss such a critical issue, but the government, of course, has issued another one of its time allocation motions. I cannot remember if it is 91 or 92 times thus far. We will have a grand total of two and a quarter hours to debate this pressing public health issue, but that is the way it is.
In my remarks today, I want to first examine how we got here on safe injection sites. Second, I want to talk about the bill itself. Third, I want to talk about the ideological underpinnings that are self-evident in this legislation.
I cannot do better, frankly, than to start with an almost poetic description of the crisis that led to this. This is from the Supreme Court of Canada in its famous 2011 judgment relating to the Insite centre in Downtown Eastside Vancouver:
 In the early 1990s, injection drug use reached crisis levels in Vancouver’s downtown eastside.... Epidemics of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C soon followed, and a public health emergency was declared in...September 1997. Health authorities recognized that creative solutions would be required to address the needs of the population of the [downtown eastside], a marginalized population with complex mental, physical, and emotional health issues. After years of research, planning, and intergovernmental cooperation, the authorities proposed a scheme of care for drug users that would assist them at all points in the treatment of their disease.... 
 Operating a supervised injection site required an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances under s. 56 of the CDSA, which provides for exemption at the discretion of the Minister of Health, for medical and scientific purposes. Insite received a conditional exemption in September 2003, and opened its doors days later. North America’s first government-sanctioned safe injection facility, it has operated constantly since then. [...] It does not provide drugs to its clients, who must check in, sign a waiver, and are closely monitored during and after injection. Its clients are provided with health care information, counselling, and referrals to various service providers or an on-site, on demand detox centre. The experiment has proven successful. Insite has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area. It is supported by the Vancouver police, the city and provincial governments. 
The court ordered the minister of health to grant a “constitutional exemption”, as it called it, to the Insite facility, so it could continue to operate free from federal drug laws. The minister was then ordered by the court to grant an exemption under section 56. That is what happened.
The government responded with Bill C-2, which is before us today. It is my strong belief that the bill before us will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Many lawyers and experts have said the same thing. Why? Because it is a thinly veiled attempt to not do what the Supreme Court of Canada required.
This is a public health emergency, and the response is to provide a list of criteria that is so vast that no one believes there will ever be a safe injection site as a function of this legislation. It is absolutely opposed to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.
The parliamentary secretary just spoke about the criteria being perfectly normal. Of course, it was all very much in place when the city of Vancouver got its Insite facility. 
No one is suggesting that there should not be public consultation and the like. I have had a raging debate with my colleagues as to just how many hoops will have to be jumped through to ever get one of these safe injection facilities under Bill C-2. I cannot decide. There are 26 criteria listed in the bill, but, as they say on television, there is more. After the 26, the long, many-paged list of criteria that has be jumped through before the exemption can be granted, there are two at the end that raise a number of eyebrows.
 I will just read them, so members can see why it is so difficult to know. One of them at the end is “any other information that the Minister considers relevant to the consideration of the application”. I have no idea what that means. It is entirely subjective. She could consider the price of tea in China and that might be considered relevant.
However, there is more. It says, “any prescribed information that is submitted in the prescribed manner”. I guess they can make a regulation and prescribe a bunch more. It is 26-plus open criteria, plus a whole list of others that might be prescribed later. This is not a normal series of criteria for granting an exemption.
It then goes on and provides a series of principles that seem to swallow the entire thing. It states, in part, “The Minister may only grant an exemption for a medical purpose” to allow these safe injection sites in exceptional circumstances and after considering a whole bunch of other principles, including criminal activity, organized crime, risks of overdose, and unadulterated controlled substances.
We cannot read this legislation without basically saying that the government is trying to make it as hard as possible to do what the Supreme Court ordered in one of Canada's leading public health emergencies ever.
 There is no need to take my word for that. The British Columbia Medical Journal had an article, before this legislation, by a number of leading AIDS researchers. It starts with this, “Our current approach to the epidemic has been an utter failure”.
 The article then lists the costs for people having to go to the hospital, There is a cost of $500,000 per patient to deal with AIDS, and the cost of emergency care in hospitals, not to mention the homeless. That is why the police have been so strong in Vancouver in support of Insite. The article goes on to talk about how it has been a failure because of the traditional law enforcement paradigm of the current government: more crime, more legislation to deal with crime, more police. It has been an utter failure, according to the police themselves.
I had a chance to meet with Dr. Simpson of the Canadian Medical Association yesterday, and the CMA is strongly in favour of this kind of harm reduction approach. It is reflected in the strategy that Vancouver, the Vancouver Board of Trade, and small business have embraced. It seems that everyone has embraced it but the Conservative government, which seems to think it will help its base in passing a law that is so obviously contrary to the spirit of the Supreme Court.
The four-pillars approach has been what Vancouver has embraced. Those four pillars to dealing with the crisis are the following: one is enforcement, that is granted; second is treatment; third is prevention; and fourth is harm reduction. It is harm reduction of the kind that is reflected in the Downtown Eastside Insite facility, and a very comprehensive plan was put in place by the city to address this.
At this point, I must pay tribute to the retiring member for Vancouver East, in whose riding this occurred. She has been utterly amazing in her advocacy on behalf of the poorest people in our community: aboriginal people, frequently; people from cultural communities; people who have come from all over the country to live in the Downtown Eastside and deal with addiction. They are dying at overdose rates that are absolutely staggering.
I want to pay tribute, as well, to Senator Larry Campbell, who was then the mayor of the City of Vancouver. He embraced a harm reduction strategy from the start and deserves a lot of credit for helping implement the four-pillars strategy in Vancouver.
All that the health advocates have been saying is that we need this in other communities. We need it in my community, and I will come to that. The public health officer of Toronto has been pleading for meaningful legislation. What they are getting from the current government is a farce. They know it, and the courts will soon know it. We will have wasted a lot of time doing something that is so obviously not a public health measure but simply a sop to the Conservative Party base. I will demonstrate the truth of that in a moment. 
That is where we have landed with Bill C-2. This is a government that is more concerned with punishment than compassion; a government that is putting ideology over evidence.
Let me speak about the Canadian Medical Association and its members response to this legislation. They were asked, like so many, to be consulted on this, and they were. What they said was quite staggering. They said the following:
 The CMA fully endorses harm reduction strategies and tools, including supervised injection sites.... 
 Bill C-2...proposes new, far reaching, and stringent conditions that must be met by a proponent who is applying to establish a supervised injection site. The CMA maintains that safe injection sites are a legitimate form of treatment for the disease of addiction, that their benefit is supported by a body of research, and that the conditions proposed under Bill C-2 are overly restrictive. 
That is what the doctors are telling us. It is obvious to them, and it is obvious to most Canadians who have had an opportunity to read this thinly veiled effort to stop supervised injection sites.
When the government looked at the evidence and consulted on this, it was self-evident that it needed a harm reduction strategy, that it needed to make exemptions possible under section 56 more readily available. What it ended up with is what has brought us here today.
The number of people who are opposed to this legislation is staggering, such as the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association. However, we also need to address those people who are trying to get safe injection sites in their communities. There is only one in Canada, and it is in danger now I suppose, but certainly Toronto wants one. Dr. David McKeown, the Medical Health Officer of that great city said: 
 I come at it from a public health point of view. Toronto was one of several cities in Canada looking to implement supervised injection sites as part of an evidence-based, comprehensive approach to health services for people who address drugs. The board feels the proposed Bill C-2 is not consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court on supervised injection. If Bill C-2 is passed as written, we believe it will be a significant barrier for any community or health system in any province that has come to the decision that those services would serve both the public health and public safety interests of local residents. 
Good luck trying to get one, Toronto. Good luck, Victoria.
 I happen to represent the city of Victoria, and I am proud to do so. Let me tell everyone what is going on in my city. Many local agencies have expressed an interest in opening a safe injection site, but there is no application because it is considered that there is no way they would get it. Why bother? There are so many conditions that are required, that they do not think there is any chance.
Nevertheless, people are dying in the streets. Katrina Jensen, AIDS Vancouver Island executive director, in 2013, said:
 We have had eight overdose deaths in the last six months and those are deaths that could have been prevented if we had a supervised consumption site.... 
Good luck getting one, Victoria. I am here to say that the chances of doing so are remote at best.
That is where we are. That is why I asked the parliamentary secretary whether or not Conservatives had any projection as to how many of these facilities would be up and running a year later. I did not get any answer at all. 
I will refer to something that I know many people have been concerned, which is why it is taking this long to get here, and why it is that the Conservative government has done everything it can to thwart this legislation coming forward.
 Stephen Maher, a journalist, wrote the following in 2013:
 On the afternoon of Friday, September 20, [2013, the health minister] sent out a news release announcing she was taking action against Health Canada officials who had approved an application from doctors who wanted to give heroin to addicts. 
 “Our policy is to take heroin out of the hands of addicts, not to put it into their arms,” she said. 
 It was odd. Why would [the health minister] issue a news release attacking her own officials? The next morning a clue landed in the inboxes of Conservatives across Canada. 
 Fred DeLorey, director of political operations for the party sent an e-mail to supporters: “Drug treatment programs should be focused on ending drug use--not giving illicit drugs to drug addicts. That's why I was shocked to learn today that Health Canada approved funding to give heroin to addicts--against the wishes of the elected government.” 
There was a link to surprise, surprise a Sun News story: 
 “What the heck is Health Canada on?”, the anchor asked, throwing to a reporter who said that “government bureaucrats, many are saying, have used a loophole to allow individuals to legally receive prescription heroin”. 
DeLorey's email ended with a link to a Conservative Party website with a big picture of a hypodermic needle and a place for people to enter their name and email address.
Here is the punchline. If one enters one's data, half an hour later DeLorey will send an email with a warning “If the NDP or Liberals are elected in 2015, you can bet they would make this heroin-for-addicts program permanent”, and then hits readers with a pitch for $5 to help the Conservatives fight back.
I guess it is clear why we have taken this long. We know about the fundraising efforts on the backs of people who are dying. This is a public health emergency, yet the Conservatives are trying to use it as a fundraiser. I do not know what to say except that people deserve better than such a mean-spirited government addressing the legislation in this kind of way.
I need to go back to the criteria. The parliamentary secretary was making it sound, and I will use her word in her debate, “typical”. However, as a lawyer, I have never seen anything like the criteria the Conservatives have put forward in an apparent attempt to implement the Supreme Court of Canada's response to this public health emergency. Here are the criteria in the new and improved bill, Bill C-2, to get one of these exemptions to allow a safe injection site. 
Let me be clear. Talking to the police and the neighbourhood, and doing full consultation is a no-brainer. Everybody understands that. How could any municipality get away with doing otherwise? It is what Vancouver did so effectively. However, there is more criteria set out in the bill, such as:
 The Minister may consider an application for an exemption...that would allow certain activities to take place at a supervised consumption site only after the following have been submitted: 
Here I will paraphrase.
First, there is the requirement for scientific evidence demonstrating that there is a medical benefit. Duh, there have been 30 studies already on Insite. Europe and Australia have learned about this, but I guess we need more science on this.
The second is the requirement of a letter from the provincial minister, a letter from the local government, a description of the measures that have been taken to address any relevant concerns in the letter, a letter from the police force saying it is okay, a description of this and that. I am only at five, but there are 26 criterion, including this open-ended thing.
I do not want any Canadian to think this is somehow an ordinary list of relevant criteria, because that would be to misstate and distort the evidence before us.
Speaking of evidence, I need to talk about what happened after the safe injection site was opened in Vancouver. 
First, there had been a twelvefold increase in overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. There had been an astounding increase in communicable diseases among injection-drug users, such as hepatitis A, B and C, as well as AIDS. However, when the safe injection site was opened, there was a 35% decrease in overdose deaths, a decrease in crime as well as communicable disease rates and infections and relapse rates for drug users. That was because a science-based, evidence-based approach was taken.
 People were now saying, and the Supreme Court of Canada was persuaded, that this health service would save lives. It would save a lot of money as people were no longer presenting at emergency centres and hospitals. It would reduce the amount of crime. That was evidence before the Supreme Court of Canada, and it was why it decided that a constitutional exemption was required by the minister.
The bill before us is public health legislation, although one would never know it. It was sent to the public safety committee, not the health committee, by the government. Public health does not get a lot of mention in the legislation nor in the parliamentary secretary's speech.
If we are to face a public health crisis as adult Canadians, then we need to face up to the fact that the four pillars work, that a comprehensive approach is required, that safe injection sites must be licensed and welcomed into communities when reasonable consultation has occurred, rather than the legislation before us, which thwarts this, sadly, for nothing but political purposes. 
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest. As the critic and my colleague was going through the list of what he called onerous things that would have to be done to get a safe injection site going, not one of them seemed unreasonable: scientific data, the ability to have criminal record checks, community consultation, a letter from the police. The opposition is fearmongering around what is an appropriate and reasonable framework. 
I have to pick up on one of the member's comments. Does he also believe we should provide the heroin and the illicit drugs in these sites? Is that something he believes should also be part of this proposal?
[Interjection]
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the parliamentary secretary ask whether we should provide heroin at these sites. Did I understand that? The evidence before the Supreme Court was that people would bring their own drugs in for safe injection. They would be provided services, counselling, detox and so forth to try to get them off these drugs. I cannot believe anyone involved in this debate would ever make such a suggestion.
As to the reasonableness of the criteria, it is the astounding amount of information that must be provided. Critics are concerned about that. There is a stacked deck, to use the words of my colleague from Vancouver East, designed to frustrate. That is the reason I went after the number of criteria, coupled with principles that later seem to fly in the face of even granting such an exemption in the first place.
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for becoming the new health critic for the New Democratic Party.
As the health critic, could he explain to me why the bill was sent to the public safety committee instead of to the health committee?
[Interjection]
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for all her efforts on health reform in Canada. I much appreciate her comments.
 Why this bill was sent to the public safety committee rather than the health committee is simple. It is because the government does not see this as a health issue. It sees it as a law enforcement issue. It wants to spend more money to maybe put more addicts in jail, and maybe that will make the world a better place. That is contrary to the evidence of Dr. Julio Montaner, a world expert on AIDS, who says that the government “just doesn't get it” and has put up roadblocks with this stacked deck of criteria. 
That is why the government sent it to the public safety committee rather than the health committee, because it does not even accept that we have a public health crisis in our cities.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great analysis.
When he was speaking, I was harking back to 2011 when I was invited to Oakland for an international conference on HIV-AIDS prevention and how to deal with it. Guess who was the keynote speaker? It was the model of prevention, our friends from Vancouver. We were on the international stage, but, meanwhile, back home the government was challenging them. I was asked as a Canadian politician to explain that and I could not. However, at the same time, Oakland had declared a state of emergency because of HIV-AIDS. The people were saying that we had to stop locking up people for drug use and start helping them. They were really looking to Canada as a world leader in this area because we were seen as a model.
How is this health approach important versus the public safety approach? It is despicable that people would try to make money off victims. Maybe you could talk about the different approaches of health versus public safety.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to the member for Victoria, I would ask all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues.
The hon. member for Victoria.
[Interjection]
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to come from British Columbia, which has the first safe injection site in North America, welcomed by the police, the province and business. It makes me proud. 
However, it makes me sad and angry at the same time, because a few kilometres away from where I live people are dying on the streets. When people come to my community, they ask me about this public health measure. They ask me if I think they can get one of those facilities in Victoria. I look at the legislation, shake my head and tell them I do not see how they can. We have to wait for the lawyers to once more take this to the Supreme Court of Canada, and once more get it struck down. In the meantime, this is no joke. People are dying.
I am proud my colleague went to Oakland and saw Vancouver featured on the international stage. I am hopeful that in the Senate, Senator Campbell, who has been such a champion of this, will do what he can do to see if we can get back on track with such an important initiative.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I agree with every word in the speech by my friend from Victoria. Bill C-2 is not so much a disguised attempt but a blatant attempt to do indirectly that which the Conservative administration could not do directly, which is prevent the building of any new Insite clinics. 
As for use of this issue politically, I harken back to when the former minister of foreign affairs—now we must refer to him only as the member for Ottawa West—Nepean—was in the Mike Harris cabinet. He said that they wanted mandatory tests of drugs for welfare recipients because “We don't want to see them shooting their cheques up their arms”. It is a long-standing use for propaganda and for fundraising. 
I want to draw his attention to one of the many criteria that are there for purposes of defeating the building of an Insite clinic. They are listed as A through Z and Z1. There is one that says before a clinic is built an applicant must provide the CV and work history of senior employees.
 Could the hon. member for Victoria recall any instance in his experience where a facility that does not yet have a permit to be built knows the names and has the CVs of every senior employee?
[Interjection]
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague and friend from Saanich and the Islands for all her work on this important initiative. We tried to have amendments she brought forward, supported by the NDP, to have this entire travesty repealed, but we were unsuccessful.
I have never heard of a criteria requiring CVs for every employee in any such statute. When the member talked about A through Z and Z1, I am still debating with myself just how many criteria there are. A through Z is 26, but then there is one that seems to say anything can be prescribed, anything the minister considers relevant.
 We do not even know how many criteria there will be. We do not think there will ever be any safe injection sites as a result of such a wrong-headed and mean-spirited statute. 
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments carefully. I was involved in this debate when I was parliamentary secretary and before that, as health critic. The terminology is important. It is not a safe injection site in Vancouver. It is called a supervised injection site. Would the member agree that there is no such thing as a safe injection site or safe injections? 
If I understand the member correctly, he wants facilities to be BYOH, “bring your own heroin”. Is that what he is suggesting?
Is he offering up his riding for a supervised injection site that he is promoting so valiantly today?
[Interjection]
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, those are three questions, but I will try to be short in response to my hon. colleague.
 “Supervised injection site” is the right terminology. They are safe, however, because no one has died at Insite as a consequence of injecting there. 
BYOH is insulting. This is not what I want. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the fact that people were allowed to bring their drugs there for safe injection under supervision.
My riding will not have any sites because this law will not allow, in the real world, any such facilities to be licensed. 

Statements By Members
St. Patrick's DayMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on March 17, many countries, including Canada, the United States and France, will honour Irish immigrants by joining them in simple, friendly celebrations of their national holiday and the joy of being an immigrant of Irish origin.
 St. Patrick's Day is about people celebrating in the streets of Ireland. It is also celebrated all over in Irish pubs in big cities. Young and old alike love to see leprechauns, those little red-headed folk sporting top hats and clovers, and all the people dressed in green with Irish flags painted on their cheeks. 
On March 17, I will be in my riding learning about Irish history through the cultural references and folklore of our good Irish friends, and I encourage everyone to do the same. Do not miss this wonderful opportunity.
Polyform Inc.Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, founded in 1963, Polyform Inc. is Quebec's largest manufacturer in the business of transforming expanded cellular plastic. 
In 2012, the company built its own recycling facility, which can transform a wide variety of plastics. Every year, Polyform continues to invest and develop new technologies that enable it to increase its recycling capacity. Today the company recycles no less than five million kilos of plastic of all kinds.
 On March 2, 2015, at this year's EPS EXPO in Indianapolis, Polyform won the Excellence in Expanded Polystyrene Recycling Award. This is the second award the company has won since the beginning of the year. I want to congratulate the entire Polyform team, not only on the recognition it has received, but also on its environmental commitment.
Persian New YearMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Nowruz, the Persian new year, is fast approaching. This is a very important celebration in my riding of Richmond Hill, which is home to one of the largest, most dynamic Persian communities in Canada. Festivities of all kinds are taking place, from elegant Nowruz galas to the hustle and bustle of the Nowruz bazaars to the thrilling fire festival at Richmond Green. Richmond Hill has it all.
This is also a time to celebrate the rich culture of the Persian people and the extraordinary contributions they have made and continue to make to our great country, including, of course, the great town of Richmond Hill. Their remarkable talents and expertise include business, academia, medicine, science, and arts and culture, to name but a few. 
I am proud to call so many Persian Canadians my friends. I wish all of those who are celebrating across Canada a very happy Nowruz.
  Nowruzetan pirooz.
Montreal North 100th AnniversaryMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of Montreal North.
Montreal North is in the riding of Bourassa, which I have the honour to represent in Parliament. Montreal North is also where I spent my first 10 years in Canada. That is where I went to high school, at the Henri-Bourassa composite school. I have good memories of those wonderful years.
Montreal North has a slogan that makes me proud because it represents us so well: “Where everyone feels right at home”. Montreal North welcomes people from all over. It has a wealth of diversity. Is that not the image we have of Canada?
I want to thank everyone who contributed to this celebration: the elected officials, in particular Mayor Gilles Deguire; the members of the Société Montréal-Nord 2015 board of directors and its chair, Claude Poirier; Sister Angèle; Oliver Jones; and all the volunteers. Happy anniversary and enjoy the celebration.
Team Canada Brier VictoryMr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to extend warm congratulations to Team Canada on winning its second straight Tim Hortons Brier victory. After a slow start at the Brier, the foursome switched up the roles and moved Moose Jaw native Pat Simmons up to skip. They never looked back after the switch. The team was rounded out by John Morris, Carter Rycroft, and Nolan Thiessen. Simmons, who shot 93% in the final, was named winner of the Hec Gervais award as the most valuable player in the playoffs.
 I am also proud to offer congratulations to Saskatchewan's Steve Laycock on their bronze medal victory over Brad Gushue's team.
 Finally, I hope all members join me in wishing Team Canada well at the Ford World Men's Curling Championship beginning at the end of this month in Halifax.
PensionsMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing a retirement security crisis. The Conservatives have blocked attempts to make retirement more secure for Canadians.
 The Canada pension plan is proven and reliable, yet the Conservatives have broken their promise to strengthen it for future generations of Canadians.
The Conservatives have also raised the age of retirement from 65 to 67. Private pension plans and the workers who own them must take a back seat during bankruptcy proceedings. The Conservatives want to make it easier for employers to change secure defined benefit pension plans to risky target benefit plans. As well, younger Canadians today are financially squeezed between having to care for their aging parents and raising their own children.
Canadians want their government to act, and New Democrats are ready. We will secure and enhance the CPP, restore the retirement age to 65, help make the workplace pensions of Canadians more secure, help lift seniors out of poverty, and help our young people prepare for their own retirement.
All Canadians deserve a secure and dignified retirement, and a New Democratic government will take action to ensure that each and every Canadian has just that.
Wearing of VeilsMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the wearing of the burka and the niqab has been the subject of polarized debate.
 The wearing of religious symbols and clothing in the public sphere is appropriate under all but a few specific circumstances.
Obtaining a driver's licence, a citizenship card, or a passport are some of these circumstances, the latter requiring that citizens even remove their glasses for their photo.
 In addition, everyone's face should be uncovered during the course of the citizenship ceremony and while he or she is voting.
 Basic common sense dictates that a person needs to allow visual identification by the public servant dealing with the issue. If a woman refuses to uncover her face because the official in front of her happens to be male, we should be able to accommodate her by having a designated female public servant available to step in.
Furthermore, anyone wearing a veil that does not cover the face should be allowed to testify in court.
 Reasonable Canadians will debate this topic in a measured and respectful manner.
Margaret KennellyMrs. Pat Perkins (Whitby—Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour the life and exceptional career of a Whitby—Oshawa resident who recently passed away.
Margaret Kennelly, a Second World War veteran, joined the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service in 1943, when she was just 18 years old. She served as Leading Wren and was stationed in Halifax until her return back home in 1946.
 Following her discharge, Margaret became a member of the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies' Auxiliary Branch 112. She also served the Legion as treasurer and the first female president. In 1988, she was made a lifetime member.
I know that all members of the House will join me in sending our heartfelt condolences to Margaret's family. We would like them to know that we are forever grateful for her service to our country.
International Day of La FrancophonieMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for la Francophonie, I invite all Canadians to celebrate the International Day of La Francophonie, which is held every year on March 20.
It is a day of celebration for 275 million French speakers on five continents. This magnificent language, the fifth most spoken language in the world, gives us a great power, the power of numbers, but also the means to build international relationships. 
We have major responsibilities with respect to this language. We can write and speak French properly in order to perpetuate it. By being committed to French, we undertake to promote French in all its forms. We should be proud of French and promote French through tangible and progressive actions. Our history, our traditions, our culture and especially our future are amazing because of the French language. 
On March 20, let us be proud to celebrate la Francophonie.
Halabja MassacreMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Halabja massacre, also known as Bloody Friday. 
March 16 marks 27 years since the brutal chemical weapons attack perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's regime on Kurdish civilians, which killed as many as 5,000 innocent people and injured almost 10,000 more.
Kurdish Canadians will be gathering across the country over the next week to remember this horrific crime against humanity and its victims.
 As we reflect on what took place at Halabja, we also recognize the determination of the Kurdish people, who are today facing off against ISIL in northern Iraq. Kurdish forces have played a crucial role in protecting civilians and religious minorities from ISIL.
Canada is proud to be advising and assisting our Kurdish allies as they combat this genocidal death cult, and we stand with them and Kurdish Canadians in commemorating the Halabja massacre.
International Day for the Elimination of Racial DiscriminationMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as a woman who is a member of a visible minority, I know what kind of damage intolerance can cause, no matter where it originates. I strongly condemn this form of violence.
It is therefore with a great deal of emotion that I rise to draw the House's attention to the upcoming International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 21. This day is an opportunity to recognize how all cultural communities and people from all walks of life help to build our country.
At a time when the government is playing on the fears of Canadians to try to win votes, I would like to remind members of the essential role that political leaders and elected officials must play in combatting racism, discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. The statements that we have heard recently from the other side of the House are unacceptable. Racism has no place in our speeches.
I strongly believe in the values of love, openness and freedom, which are values that all Canadians share. These values will help us to combat discrimination in our society, help everyone to feel welcome, and help us to work together to build a united Canada that better reflects who we are.
JusticeMs. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our government has introduced more than 30 tough-on-crime measures.
Through these measures, we have made significant accomplishments in three key areas: tackling crime by holding violent criminals accountable for those crimes, giving victims of crime a stronger voice, and increasing the efficiency of the justice system.
As promised in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, this week we further built upon this success with the introduction of the life means life act. This legislation will ensure that those convicted of the most heinous murders will breathe their last breath behind bars. Providing for life sentences without parole is essential to express society's denunciation of the worst criminals.
 Canadians knows that our government will always put the rights of victims before the rights of criminals.
2015 Templeton PrizeMr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are saints who live among us.
The 2015 Templeton Prize has been awarded to a man of deep faith, Jean Vanier, the son of our 19th Governor General, Georges Vanier.
Jean Vanier was called to found L'Arche, now a federation of 147 communities in 35 countries where people with and without intellectual disabilities live and work together as peers, and all are transformed by the encounter. Vanier co-founded Faith and Light, consisting now of 1,500 groups in 82 countries supporting the intellectually disabled, their families, and their friends.
 Everywhere in the world, we live with brothers and sisters who have intellectual disabilities. To really meet them and become friends is also becoming open, in Vanier's words:
 ...to love people, to respect them deeply, to live authentic relationships with others, to yearn for truth and justice in the huge family of humanity. 
 Today, let us celebrate the saints who live among us.
Veterans AffairsRyan Leef: Mr. Speaker, the retirement income security benefit announced on Monday will provide financial stability for veterans who are moderately to seriously injured as well as to their families. 
However, our Conservative government is not stopping there. Earlier today the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced strengthened benefits for Canada's part-time reserve force veterans to ensure they have the support they deserve. These improvements will ensure the earnings loss benefit is calculated in the same way for reserve force veterans as it is for regular force veterans.
 We place the highest priority on making sure veterans and their families have the support and services they need when they need them. Today's action is more evidence of our Conservative government's commitment to ensuring that veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion, and respect.
Conservative Party of CanadaMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, debating ideas and bills is a healthy activity in any democracy, even if the different parties do not necessarily share the same opinions. However, ethics should generally be something that everyone agrees on. We owe that to Canadians.
The Conservatives would not stop talking about an ethics overhaul before they came to power, but their ethics record this week has been terrible. We have lost count of how many people from the Prime Minister's Office will have to testify at the Duffy trial. The former public works minister was found guilty of patronage and conflict of interest. We learned that Nigel Wright and the Conservatives are punishing the people of Maniwaki because they turfed out Lawrence Cannon in the last election. Furthermore, this week we learned that the RCMP is trying to get more information on 150 fraudulent invoices submitted by Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin. 
It is no wonder that Canadians cannot wait to get rid of this government in the upcoming election. This fall, they will have the option of voting for an honest, progressive government that will look after everyone, not just its own friends.
TaxationMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, As tax season approaches, constituents in Newmarket—Aurora have been overwhelmingly supportive of the tax-free savings account. 
 The Canadian Association of Retired Persons agreed that the tax-free savings account is extremely important for seniors. This is another example of how our government is helping seniors, middle-class families and indeed, all Canadians. 
Unlike the Liberal leader, they cannot rely on their trust fund to pay for their retirement or their kids' education. The Liberal leader wants Canadians to pay more tax and the NDP voted against the tax-free savings account.
 Overall, 11 million Canadians of all ages and income levels have opened an account, allowing them to save, tax-free, for their own priorities.
Our Conservative government is fulfilling our promise to keep taxes low, and we will continue to do so while putting more money back in the pockets of families.

Oral Questions
Public SafetyMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is now being reported in Turkish media that the individual who was detained for allegedly helping three British schoolgirls join ISIS was working for the Canadian embassy in Jordan, where Bruno Saccomani, the former head of the Prime Minister's security detail, is the ambassador.
Can the government confirm that someone linked to Canadian intelligence, an employee, an agent or an asset, is being detained in Turkey?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are aware of some of these reports. However, I cannot comment on operational matters of national security.
I would like to remind the House that the threat of terrorism, the international jihadi movement against Canada, is real. We just have to look at the news. Day after day we are hearing of more instances of people who have allegedly left Canada to join ISIL, to fight for ISIL beliefs. Canadians know that it is this government that is bringing forward legislation to better protect Canadians.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, last night's committee testimony underlined that the sweeping changes Conservatives have put forward in Bill C-51 are excessive, unnecessary, and dangerous to our freedoms, but what really stood out last night was the disrespect shown to a witness. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill suggested that the National Council of Canadian Muslims had ties to Islamic terrorist groups and that they were, in her words, “half-hearted in the fight against terrorism”.
Will the member apologize for her disgraceful behaviour?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and its allies, countries like Canada that believe in openness and tolerance. We see this again and again in the news. We have seen recent attacks here in Canada, Paris, in Copenhagen and Australia. 
Let me talk about the reasons why we brought forward Bill C-51. Our national security agencies have identified serious gaps in the existing legislation that they need to better protect Canadians. That is what this government is doing. We brought forward common-sense measures and I certainly hope that the NDP will eventually get on our side.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, Ronald Atkey, a former Conservative minister and chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, stated very clearly that allowing CSIS to ask a judge to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will turn into a constitutional nightmare. 
Why does the government want to rush a bill that is ill-conceived? 
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard from a number of witnesses. It was the second day of testimony. The first day, of course, was Tuesday with both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice appearing. We look forward to continued debate and information coming from all sides with their views on this.
Talking about the gaps that have been identified by our national security agencies, it was very clear when Commissioner Paulson said that it would also be very helpful in respect of those people we do not know anything about. He was referring to the information-sharing aspects of this particular bill. We have brought forward these common-sense measures and I certainly hope the opposition parties will get on board.
The EconomyMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is strange. They are pushing this controversial bill, but they will not introduce a budget. Canadians deserve better than that.
This week, private sector economists said that the government had no reason to delay introducing a budget. The Conservatives are futzing around while Canadians are losing their jobs. Again this morning we learned that the unemployment rate rose by two points in February. In other words, there are now 50,000 more unemployed workers. What is the government waiting for to introduce a budget that will stimulate job creation?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, our government is lowering taxes. We are bringing forward measures that help create new jobs. The Liberals and the New Democratic Party are pushing a high-tax, high-debt agenda that would threaten jobs. The New Democratic Party is pushing a $21-billion carbon tax, and that would hurt our economy and kill Canadian jobs.
We know that monthly job numbers can be volatile, but what is more important is the long-term trend. Since the recession, we have created 1.2 million net new jobs. They are overwhelmingly full-time jobs in the private sector.
Peter Julian: Here is the long-term trend, Mr. Speaker. Conservatives have lost more than 400,000 full-time, family-sustaining manufacturing jobs and they have the worst record for good job creation in a generation. Canadians deserve better than Conservative policies. Unemployment jumped by more than 50,000 Canadians last month and we saw 29,000 private-sector jobs disappear. Far too many Canadians either lost their jobs or fear that their jobs will be the next to go.
When will Conservatives admit they have messed things up and when will they finally introduce a budget that puts good jobs first?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats and Liberals propose one job measure, and that is their tax increases. They believe that the only way to create jobs is to, in their words, increase taxes on families and on job creators.
We have the opposite approach. We have a low-tax plan for jobs and growth. It has created 1.2 million net new jobs; 85% of them are full-time, 80% are in the private sector, and two-thirds are in high-wage industries. We will continue to ensure taxes go down so that job creation goes up.
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem is that job creation is actually going down. The Canadian economy lost 29,000 private sector jobs last month. Alberta lost 14,000 jobs. 
Private sector economists have warned us that low oil prices and slow growth will be with us throughout 2015, and that there is no reason to delay the budget. We need a budget now, with a plan for jobs and growth. Why is the Minister of Finance dithering and delaying?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, our government has a low-tax plan for jobs and growth for all sectors of the Canadian economy, and that plan is working. That plan will bring Canada to a balanced budget in 2015-16. 
As we have stated, we will not bring forward the budget any earlier than April. While we are focusing on balancing the budget and creating jobs, the Liberal leader is pushing through a high-spend, high-tax plan that would see working families hurt and that would see unemployment rise.
We continue to look for ways that we can put money into the pockets of Canadians. Canadians know they are better off with this Conservative government.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, today's job report also shows that there are fewer jobs for young Canadians. In fact, there are 160,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than in 2008.
Meanwhile, Canada has just set another new record for high levels of household debt. There is a connection between household debt and a weak job market for youth in Canada. Middle-class parents are taking on extra debt in order to help their adult children make ends meet.
When will the Conservatives actually understand the real challenges faced by middle-class families? When will they give them a real plan for jobs and growth?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, again, it is a bit rich, that question coming from the member. It brings to mind the following quote, “It took nine years of Conservative government to undo many of the counterproductive, interventionist policies of Liberal governments which had effectively rendered the Canadian economy incapable of moving forward”. I agree with that quote.
The same member who asked the question, the member for Kings—Hants, is the one who issued that statement.
Emmanuel Dubourg: Mr. Speaker, today we learned that 50,000 more Canadians lost their jobs in February.
Meanwhile, household debt has reached record levels. On average, Canadians owe $1.66 for every dollar of disposable income. Middle-class families are suffering under the burden of their debts. They need help.
Where is the Conservatives' budget? Where is the plan to stimulate job creation and growth here in Canada?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians know that they are better off with this Conservative government. Median net worth of Canadian families has risen by a whopping 45% since we were elected. Thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister, for the first time in Canadian history, middle-income earners are better off than Americans.
The member also knows that the vast majority of benefits from our new family tax breaks would go to low- and middle-income Canadians.
Canadians know they are better off with this Conservative government.
Public SafetyMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 will have a significant impact on Canadians' rights and freedoms. The evidence heard yesterday in committee was very clear.
According to well-known experts, such as lawyer Paul Champ and Professor Craig Forcese, Bill C-51 could open the door to secret detention. It is not surprising that Canadians are mobilizing and protests against Bill C-51 are expected to be held across Canada this Saturday.
How much longer will the government ignore Canadians' concerns? 
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 actually has five components to it. The first one is information sharing.
 We have changes to the passenger protect program, which would allow the airlines to stop people from boarding planes and travelling overseas.
 Of course, there are areas with regard to lowering the threshold for tools that law enforcement agencies have been calling upon. In fact, we heard in committee that Commissioner Paulson of the RCMP felt that these tools that we would provide for national security agencies would be extremely helpful and would actually fill the gaps that have been identified by those very same agencies.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, even witnesses who, in theory, support the Conservatives have pointed out major flaws in this bill.
Ron Atkey, a former Conservative minister and the first chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, said yesterday in committee that it would be unfair to greatly expand the powers of CSIS so that it could conduct disruptive activities here or abroad, while leaving the watchdog frozen in time.
Why are the Conservatives still ignoring these serious concerns?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing of greater priority to this government than the safety and security of Canadians. The national security agencies, the RCMP and CSIS, have identified gaps in our current legislation. Bill C-51 brings those common sense measures.
 We actually heard as well yesterday from witnesses that we are in a new era of terrorism and that the threat is evolving, and we need to modernize the tools we have for our law enforcement and national security agencies. That is precisely what Bill C-51 is doing, and I wish, for once, that the NDP would actually support a common sense measure to tackle terrorism.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, speaking of common sense, we have had 12 witnesses appear before the public safety committee this week, witnesses from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives, and every single one of them has highlighted serious problems with Bill C-51. The bill is so bad that Canadians in over 50 towns and cities across the country will be rallying against it this Saturday. Just like the experts at committee, they are saying that the bill is excessive, unnecessary, and dangerous to our freedoms. 
Why will the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Justice or anyone over there not start listening to Canadians and pull back on the bill? 
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I was actually very pleased to see that the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations appeared at committee yesterday. He had some concerns, and I was very pleased to be able to respond to those concerns and explain how the bill would work with regard to information sharing. 
Most people across Canada believe that if one branch of government comes across information pertinent to the national security of this country and the safety and security of our citizens that that branch of government should be able to relay that information to our national security agencies. That is precisely what Bill C-51 would do, and I was pleased to be able to answer those concerns.
EthicsMurray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, this week we heard that the current Minister of Public Works passed over 160 proposals to fund one from a Conservative insider. What kind of message is the minister sending about the government? 
When a community organization applies for a grant to the Government of Canada, it should not feel the need to do favours for the Conservative Party. It should be able to trust that the proposal will be considered fairly, based on its merits. Why did she pick this project in Markham ahead of all the others?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I always believed that this particular project to improve accessibility for handicapped people at the Markham centre was worthy and was in the public interest. I accept the guidance provided by the commissioner to make sure that these programs are handled in a manner that is fair, accessible, and equitable for everyone involved.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, ever since the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner released her damning report concerning the favouritism shown by the Minister of Public Works, we have been trying to get an explanation.
The government claims that the minister acted on her own and in good faith, and yet three ministers and two of the Prime Minister's close advisers intervened on behalf of a good friend of the Prime Minister to overturn a decision made by departmental officials.
Can the minister tell us if it is common for three ministers and two of the Prime Minister's advisers to get involved in awarding such a small grant?
Diane Finley:  Mr. Speaker, I always believed that this project to improve accessibility for handicapped people in the Markham Centre was worthy and in the public interest.
 I accept the guidance provided by the commissioner to make sure that these grant programs are handled in a manner that is fair, accessible and effective for everyone involved.
Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as of a few months ago, Agop Evereklian is once again working for the Conservatives.
To refresh the memory of the House, this former chief of staff to Mayor Tremblay was found guilty of fraud in 2005. His judgment is so poor that the Prime Minister himself had to ask him to cut ties with a dubious campaign manager during the 2011 campaign.
How can the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec allow someone with such a dubious past in terms of ethics to be involved in distributing grants for the agency? Come on.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec works with all regions of Quebec to promote economic development. I hope my colleague realizes that we have even helped his riding. 
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, according to former Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, the Minister of Public Works blocked a grant promised by Lawrence Cannon in order to punish the Pontiac voters for voting the wrong way. 
At the end of the day, it is the people who use the Jean Bosco centre, people with disabilities trying to enter the labour market, who are the victims of the Conservatives' pettiness in this case.
Will the Prime Minister explain what role his chief of staff played in all of this?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, under our Conservative government, Patrick Brazeau is not in charge of grants. The NDP might want Patrick Brazeau to tell them what to do with taxpayers' money, but it does not work that way on this side of the House.
It is not surprising that the NDP and the Liberals would have to raise taxes, if they say yes every time Patrick Brazeau or someone else asks for money.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, Senator Brazeau was credible enough for the Conservatives to appoint him to the Senate.
The director general of the Jean Bosco centre is disgusted with the pettiness of the Conservatives, who are using public funds to reward their friends and punish their adversaries, and I quote: 
 It is disgusting....Our clientele is disabled and already heavily burdened. People should not have to pay the consequences of such a scheme... 
Can the Prime Minister explain why his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, got involved in this case?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the application was rejected after both an internal and an external review. We have to decide between projects all the time.
What the New Democrats have just confirmed is that they believe that Patrick Brazeau should be in charge of grants and contributions. Maybe that is how they would run their government if they ever had the terrifying prospect of coming anywhere near taxpayers' money, but Canadians will never allow the NDP or the Liberals to do that, because they know that they will only pay more taxes and face more debt if that were to ever happen.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Vic Toews wife now denies that she took a $1-million kickback from a first nations chief who was directly involved with her husband, the senior minister for Manitoba. She says it was no more than $50,000 tops, as if that makes it okay. I know it is peanuts on the scale of Conservative shenanigans. Mulroney's personal rogues would not even get out of bed for that kind of chump change.
Would the government not agree that it is time to tighten up on the post-employment rules for ministers and their spouses so that they cannot exploit the time they spent in public office for personal and private gain?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is a dispute between three individuals, none of which is the federal government. At the same time, when it comes to accountability, it is the NDP that owes Canadian taxpayers close to $5 million for illegal offices. That is $2.7 million for illegal offices and millions of dollars for illegal mailings, and they refuse to pay that money back.
When it comes to accountability, they have nothing to talk about. They took illegal money from unions. They have illegally taken money from Canadian taxpayers, and now they are refusing to even pay it back.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since 2011, 70% of funding under the enabling accessibility fund has been spent in Conservative ridings. Conservatives have been using a program designed to help those with disabilities as a political slush fund to reward their friends.
If that is not bad enough, now the Prime Minister himself ensured that a failed application was put on top of the pile, fast-tracked, and given over $1 million. It is like Duffy all over again.
There is one word for this bad behaviour; it is called corruption. How can he defend it?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the reason we created the enabling accessibility fund is to help people with disabilities have the same access to community centres, churches, synagogues, mosques, and recreational centres every other Canadian enjoys, and that is why we have been proud to fund wheelchair ramps, special elevators, and a whole host of other projects that help disabled people across the country.
We have also brought in the registered disability savings fund so that parents can set aside money for their disabled children's futures, and I am happy to say that both of those programs have been an enormous success.
Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week we heard the racist views of the member for New Brunswick Southwest  on the economic role of “whities” and “brown people”. The member spewing this racism is the Prime Minister's former director of communications. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and kick him out of the Conservative caucus, or is there a place for racism within the government?
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member has apologized, but who has not apologized is the Liberal leader for his comments earlier this week. In fact, regarding his speech, B'nai Brith has said, “Such language is divisive and only does a disservice to Canadians interested in dealing with pressing issues of the day”. 
When will the leader of the Liberal Party stand up and apologize for his comments earlier this week?
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, so the standard of accountability within the government can be reduced to 140 characters on social media. 
The member for New Brunswick Southwest has shared his racist views on suitable jobs for “whities” and “brown people”. This is not an isolated incident. The same member has also referred to first nations as Canada's teepee republic. 
Will the Prime Minister remove the member from his caucus, or do Conservatives condone racism?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the member has apologized, but we are still waiting for the apology from the Liberal leader for his comments earlier this week.
B'nai Brith Canada also said, regarding the Liberal leader, that he “is the latest in a long [line] of politicians who fall into the trap of drawing highly-inappropriate[ly] and offensive Nazi-era comparisons by using the term ‘none is too many’ haphazardly”. 
The Liberal leader should apologize for his speech given earlier this week. 
Canadian HeritageMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the CRTC announced that it was lowering the Canadian-content quotas for television, knowing full well the impact that that regulation has on the entire television industry.
This decision will undermine the creation of local programming. What is more, it shows the Conservatives' complete disregard for the new digital reality in the media. A report was already sounding the alarm on digital issues in 2011.
Why did this government ignore the repeated testimony of the creators of our cultural sovereignty?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, Canada's television, film, and digital media industry contributes nearly 125,000 jobs to the Canadian economy. That is why we proudly created the Canada media fund in 2009 to help with the creation of quality by Canadians for Canadians.
Our government has worked tirelessly to better serve Canadians, bringing them better consumer choice in television while protecting Canadian jobs. We have always been clear: Canadians should not have to pay for the channels they do not want. They should get the ones they choose. 
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that is irrelevant. I am sorry, but that is not what we are talking about.
By reducing the space reserved for broadcasting Canadian content, the CRTC is making a dramatic change to the public policies that were put in place to support creation here in Canada. He is talking about jobs, but we are talking about culture.
The result is that producers and creators are being put at risk. Our television programming will reflect who we are less and less.
Is the minister aware that although talking about jobs for Canadians may be part of her role, her main priority should be to protect and promote the diversity of our cultural sovereignty here in Canada?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware of the rapidly changing media environment, to which no industry is immune in our country. 
We are carefully reviewing the decision, but to come back to the main point, we created the Canada media fund specifically to assist Canadians in the industry. When we look at the 125,000 jobs that come out of that industry, it is because they understand, they know, they create, and they produce, all with Canadian content, and it is for Canadians. We should let them make the decisions in terms of how we drive forward in the industry.
Rail TransportationMs. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there has been another train derailment resulting in an oil spill, this time in Manitoba. That is on top of the three accidents that occurred in northern Ontario in just one month.
With the Lac-Mégantic tragedy still fresh in our minds, the government is telling us that the tank cars that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada does not feel are safe enough will not be phased out until 2023. 
How does the minister intend to reassure Canadians when we will have to live with unsafe tank cars for another eight years?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would have expected the member to be excited about the news that there are solid new tank car standards in the country. They include thicker steel. They include top fitting protection, better protection on the valve, and of course, full head shields, among other important features. 
Those are proposed standards, obviously, and that is a commitment we are moving forward on to ensure, among all the measures we have taken to support rail safety, such as better oversight, more inspectors, and all those actions, that Canadians remain safe. 
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has been six days since the Gogama train derailment. I visited the crash site and saw the horror of the devastation.
 The communities of Gogama and the Mattagami First Nation are concerned about the environment and their safety. Citizens have been told that for trains with more than 20 cars their speed will be reduced from 80 kilometres to 48 kilometres an hour from Capreol to Hornepayne.
Could the minister confirm that the speed reduction will be permanent?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously very concerned about the number of incidents that have taken place in the area of Gogama. We do not yet know the cause of the derailments, but expect that the company should and will fully co-operate with the Transportation Safety Board in its investigations.
 In the meantime, we continue to take a number of very important actions to increase rail safety. We have brought forward new legislation that I hope the member will support as it comes before the House, which will hold railways to account and give inspectors the ability to actually order specific fixes on their problems.
Veterans AffairsHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been reports in the media that the government is making changes to the benefits provided to reservists in the Canadian Forces. Could the government tell us exactly what those changes are?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today's announcement is about respect for reservists. 
 With this announcement, part-time veteran reservists will receive the same minimum level of income as armed forces veterans through the earnings loss benefit.
Our measures now comply with the recommendations made by the Veterans Ombudsman and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. This new initiative is further evidence of our Conservative government's commitment to ensuring that our veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion and respect.
EmploymentMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report on the temporary foreign worker program yesterday.
The Conservatives' data collection system is a mess. We cannot even get a simple answer to this question. Do employers really need to hire foreign workers or are there local Canadians available to do the job? How could the Conservatives mismanage a program so badly that there is no way of even telling if foreign workers are needed?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we have formed the program to ensure that Canadians come first for Canadian jobs. We have required that employers sign an attestation that no Canadian will be either put out of work or out of hours if a temporary foreign worker is hired. We have required employers do extra outreach to hire underemployed groups within the Canadian labour force, such as aboriginals, new Canadians and young Canadians. We have brought in tough new fines and even jail time for those who break these and other rules.
We are working hard to create more jobs through lower taxes and ensuring Canadians come first for those jobs.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, is the minister contradicting the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report? The report clearly says that they do not have the information they need to make such claims.
The Conservatives did such a poor job of managing the temporary foreign worker program that employers started to use this program for purposes other than those intended, namely to fill positions at the bottom of the wage scale and avoid recruiting local workers.
Will the minister finally overhaul this program and find ways to confirm that the program actually works?
Pierre Poilievre:  Mr. Speaker, we have already reformed the program to ensure that Canadians come first for Canadian jobs. These changes include requiring the employer to prove that no Canadian will lose either a job or hours of work if a temporary foreign worker is brought in. We put limits on the percentage of positions that can be filled by temporary foreign workers. We will continue in this direction.
Forestry IndustryMr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the other resource-rich regions in Quebec, the forestry industry is struggling. Mills need investments and jobs are precarious. Modernizing the industry is the key, but the Conservative government is not doing enough to build the forestry industry of the future.
Will the government immediately renew the forest sector research and development initiative previously offered by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and replenish funding for the investments in forest industry transformation program? According to the Forest Products Association of Canada, the industry needs $500 million over six years. 
Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have given more support to the forestry sector than any other government in the history of Canada. We are investing in innovation, but the NDP rejected our plan. Our focus on innovation, energy efficiency and market expansion has paid off remarkably for the forestry sector.
John Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has launched a study of the forestry sector at the natural resources committee, one that is so important to so many communities in northern Ontario and across the country.
We have lost more than 100,000 forestry jobs under the Conservatives' watch. Many forestry towns are in crisis. The government support for industry transformation is drying up.
Will the minister commit to ensuring there is new support for forestry in the upcoming budget?
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, we have and we will continue, and he will continue to vote against it.
In northwestern Ontario alone we have seen no less than five or six mills either open for the first time or reopen. People are getting jobs in this sector. Woodland operators are back to work.
All the member does, and the NDP members from northern Ontario do, is vote against every one of these initiatives. People who work in the forest sector know that, and they will hold them accountable for it.
Veterans AffairsHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we find out that Canadian veterans injured before 2006 will see their benefits clawed back under the government's new retirement income security benefits plan. When the minister was asked if he would fix this problem, he reportedly said, “we are not looking into that at this time”. 
Will the government reverse this clawback and ensure that no veteran loses a single penny under this new plan?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, the member's assertion is false. The retirement income security benefit will provide financial stability to veterans who are moderately to seriously injured, and to their families. Our government will also streamline the multiple monthly financial benefits into a pension system for our most seriously injured veterans.
I thank the veterans ombudsman and other veteran groups for their input on this issue, which will provide security to veterans and to their families.
National DefenceCarolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the Military Police Complaints Commission found the military's investigation of the death of Corporal Langridge to be incompetent and lacking professionalism. Its handling of this traumatic situation has been mired in secrecy and a seven year ordeal for the family.
 The family has asked to see the entire board of inquiry report, but have been stonewalled. Instead, this week it was provided with a selective partial report, which blames the soldier and his family for this horrible tragedy.
Will the government denounce these deplorable findings and commit to releasing the full report?
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what happened in this case is completely unacceptable. The inclusion of these remarks in the board of inquiry report is further evidence of how unacceptable it was.
Our thoughts remain with the family of Corporal Stuart Langridge during this very difficult time. The Department of National Defence is reviewing the Military Police Complaints Commission report. We want to ensure we act upon those recommendations so this never happens again.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour of debating my bill to harmonize Canada's laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately, the Conservatives immediately refused to seize this historic opportunity for real reconciliation.
My question for the minister is very simple: does he share the opinion of his parliamentary secretary, who insinuated that the rights of indigenous people are incompatible with the rights of other Canadians?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must correct the member. The parliamentary secretary did not say that. He simply said that the hon. member's bill would give a group of Canadians, in this case aboriginal Canadians, a veto over the will of Parliament.
That flies in the face of the Canadian Constitution, which is why we will not be supporting his bill.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, recognizing human rights is not a zero-sum game. The parliamentarian should know that.
This is the same shameful rhetoric the Conservatives use when it comes to Bill C-51. It was denounced yesterday by the National Chief Perry Bellegarde. He said:
 First Nations know better than anyone how easy it is for governments to ignore, erode and eradicate our most basic human rights and freedoms until you barely recognize the land you’re living in. 
Why will the government not listen for once?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased that the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations appeared at committee yesterday. I gave me an opportunity to respond to his concerns and to clarify the misconceptions that had been spread by the opposition parties. 
Let me be very clear. With regard to the information sharing act, in the bill we stress, “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”. This means that it is not included in this section for information sharing. However, it also has to apply to the fact that, “if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada”.
Protests are not any of those.
The EconomyRay Boughen: Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals and the NDP are focused on their carbon tax and tax-hike plan, our Conservative government is working on the economy and projects that will create jobs. 
The Prime Minister was in Saskatchewan to announce an important project for our economy. Could the parliamentary secretary update the House on this important announcement?
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Palliser for all the hard work he has done for his constituents, not only in his riding but also in Saskatchewan.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister was in Saskatchewan to announce a major infrastructure program of over $32 million for the twinning of Highway 7 to four lanes, from Saskatoon west to Delisle. This project will not only create jobs, it will improve safety, enhance traffic flow and reduce travel time. 
Unlike the NDP and Liberals, whose only plan to improve the economy is to raise taxes, we are committed to lowering taxes. That was why we launched the building Canada fund and approved, to date, over $5 billion worth of projects.
Canada Revenue AgencyEmmanuel Dubourg: Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act is based on self-assessment, but the act is getting more and more complex.
The Conservatives are trying to use it to win votes. The agency acknowledges that 44% of the calls it receives go nowhere and that even when people manage to talk to someone, they have a one in four chance of being misled. Furthermore, the letters the agency sends are unreadable. For all of these reasons, I am concerned that seniors in particular will be at a disadvantage.
What will the minister do to ensure that these people are treated fairly?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to begin with, we encourage anyone who believes they have received incorrect information from CRA to make a formal complaint. 
We expect CRA to continuously improve the quality and accuracy of the telephone service it provides. We are implementing several measures to improve the quality of services offered by CRA. 
JusticeMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in our 2013 Speech from the Throne, our government promised to introduce legislation to ensure a life sentence meant a sentence for life for those convicted of the most heinous murders.
I am proud to say that this week we have delivered on yet another promise made to Canadians by introducing the life means life act. It is part of our government's commitment to return Canada to a place where the severity of punishment meets the severity of the crime.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice inform the House of the effects of this legislation?
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oxford for previous career and work as a police officer, keeping Canada's streets and communities a safer place for all Canadians.
Canadians do not believe that those convicted of the most heinous murders should have access to parole. This legislation would make that a reality. It would protect Canadians and our streets and communities by keeping the dangerous offenders in custody for most of their natural lives. Importantly, it would do this by eliminating parole eligibility. It would ensure that those who suffered the tragedy of the loss of their loved ones would no longer have to revisit the horror of that tragedy through the ongoing parole. 
The Canadian justice system exists for Canadians—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Public SafetyElizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, earlier today in question period, we heard the parliamentary secretary for public safety say that, “I was very pleased to be able to respond to those concerns and explain how the bill would work”. She was referring to the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations who explained that Bill C-51 must be withdrawn for violating the rights of first nations under section 35 of the Constitution. 
My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Could he please undertake an educational program for members of his caucus to understand the notion of constitutionally-enshrined rights cannot be explained away by a parliamentary secretary?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way already knows that all legislation is vetted through legal evaluation. We are very confident in the constitutionality of this piece of legislation.
National security agencies have identified gaps in keeping Canadians safe and protecting national security. That is what this bill is about.
There has been enough hysteria from across the way from the NDP and the Green Party. It is time to support measures that will protect Canadians and keep our borders safe.
EmploymentMr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD): Mr. Speaker, the people of Lanaudière have not been spared the woes of the current economic climate. 
The Conservatives claim that the economy is a priority. However, instead of investing in communities, they are spending billions of dollars on measures such as income splitting that benefit the wealthiest people but do not create a single job in Lanaudière. Ottawa is even holding back money earmarked for economic development.
At what point will the federal government finally do something meaningful to support workers and to help entrepreneurs in Lanaudière create jobs?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is working very hard to foster economic diversification of all regions of Quebec. Since 2006, over 440 projects have been distributed in Quebec, and we will continue with that approach.
Natural ResourcesJean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, every day we see more people and municipalities in Lanaudière opposing the energy east pipeline. They refuse to assume all the risks of an oil spill and reject the idea that the only economic spinoffs will come from cleanup fees in the event of a disaster, especially when it comes to oil that even the U.S. President describes as extraordinarily dirty.
Why do the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP think it is okay to force a pipeline on Quebeckers that even the United States is refusing? 
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, we are not taking a position until the review is completed.
The National Energy Board is responsible for listening to people directly affected who have pertinent information or knowledge in the field. We have been clear. The plans will be studied only if they are safe for Canadians and pose no risk to the environment.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions.
Committees of the HousePat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to its study of the supplementary estimates (C), 2014-15. 
I am proud to report that the committee, in keeping with its commitment to make a more thorough and robust examination of the supplementary estimates, undertook to study $730 million of the $733 million in estimates that were referred to the committee, which is again in keeping with what all committees should be undertaking: to examine the estimates and not simply allow them to pass unnoticed.
Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages entitled “The Economic Situation of Official Language Minority Communities: Building Sustainable and Growing Economies”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requested that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. 
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a dissenting report to the previously mentioned report. It is entitled “Providing Responsible Governance to OLMCs: the New Democratic Vision”. 
There are good things in the report. The NDP fought hard for multi-year funding and support for arts and culture infrastructure. However, there was important testimony that was omitted concerning the identification of vulnerabilities and the lack of services of equal quality, lack of good data, the importance of co-operatives as tools of development, and problems with francophone immigration.
Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation ActSean Casey:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-659, An Act to Recognize Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to table a private member's bill to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. 
We just went through a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the meetings of the Fathers of Confederation in Charlottetown. Immediately after the 2014 celebrations, Province House began a substantial renovation. It is my sincere hope that this bill will pass in time for the 150th anniversary of Confederation itself. There was, in 1996, a declaration by the Prime Minister that gave Charlottetown this very recognition; the goal of this bill is to enshrine that declaration into an act of Parliament.
 I would particularly like to recognize the substantial efforts by Philip Brown from Charlottetown, who was instrumental in pushing to have this measure come to the floor of the House of Commons.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsRoyal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table in the House the following petition. 
It is a petition signed by the people of Orleans who support Development and Peace and are calling on the government to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, in order to recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, some constituents asked me if I would table this petition in the House of Commons, and I have to say that I am very impressed by the number of people who have signed it. It shows that people in Halifax really care about the rights of small-scale farmers to preserve and exchange and use seeds.
The petitioners are asking the government to adopt international aid policies that support small-scale farmers; to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers; and that they protect the rights of farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds.
 The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand today to table a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg North. In essence, the petitioners are asking that we adopt international aid policies that will support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.
 The petition goes on to ask that Canadian policies and programs be developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use freely, and exchange seeds.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, more than 200 petitioners are drawing Parliament's attention to the fact that a high percentage of prostitutes are forced into the sex trade and into trafficking in sex, that a big majority of them are women and children, and that there are those who profit from the sex trade.
 These petitioners are concerned, and they are asking that we frame legislation so that it would be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, a man, or a child, and that it would be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, and others to profit from the proceeds of the iniquitous sex trade.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by a large number of people from Montreal's south shore. They are concerned about the threat that patenting seeds could pose to biodiversity and farmers' ability to freely use the seeds produced by their work.
The petitioners are therefore calling on the government to take action to support small-scale farmers and protect their rights to preserve, use and freely exchange their seeds.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents and visitors to Prince Edward Island. The signatures are from all four federal ridings in Prince Edward Island. The petition includes signatures from Summerside, North Enmore, and right across the island.
These petitioners are concerned that the cuts to Canada Post are killing good jobs. The petitioners are also concerned about the elimination of door-to-door mail delivery, the closure of post offices, and the drastic increase in postage rates.
The petitioners are calling upon the government to reverse the cuts and to look at innovating instead of cutting.
Mr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by the students and teachers at Abraham Erb Public School in my riding of Waterloo.
The petitioners are underscoring the importance of clean water, clean air, and a clean environment in our country.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions today. 
The first was signed by members of Development and Peace in the parishes of Saint-Noël-Chabanel and Saint-François-de-Sales in eastern Laval. This petition, which was signed by several hundred people, is calling on the government to respect the rights of small family farmers to preserve, trade and use their seeds.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I would like to present today was signed by many women from Laval, Montreal and the north shore.
They are calling on the government to reinstate the mandatory long form census for 2016 and include questions in it about invisible work. They are also asking for measures to promote fairness for people who do invisible work and to improve their economic security.
Ray Boughen: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Regina and the surrounding area. 
These petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that multinational seed companies are threatening the ability of family farmers to produce the amount of food required to feed their families and communities. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, particularly women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.
The petitioners want the government to ensure that Canadian policies are developed in consultation with small family farmers.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present several copies of one petition to support my bill on dementia, Bill C-356. I have petitions from Brant, British Columbia, Ottawa, Ottawa—Orléans, Kitchener—Waterloo, Port Moody, South Surrey—White Rock, and Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. 
Yesterday I held a press conference on my private member's bill that we are going to hear later today. One of the comments from the journalists was—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The member knows that he can present a petition and make a very brief comment specifically relevant to it, but he is not to debate the matter or to make a speech. 
 If the hon. member has another petition to present, he can proceed.
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying as part of this petition, the reporter said that the Conservatives would be pretty stupid not to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The member knows he is out of order.
Presenting petitions, the hon. member for Repentigny.
Jean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by almost 1,000 Canadians. The petition calls on the government to implement policies that support small family farmers and farm workers around the world so they can preserve their seeds.
The threat to biodiversity and the future of food posed by policies in the agri-food industry is growing. The ratification by several countries of the most recent version of the UPOV will make illegal the ancestral rights of small family farmers to preserve, use and exchange their seeds. 
It is time for this government to become a world leader in maintaining biodiversity, which is indispensable to the future of food for our families, communities and regions.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed predominantly by my constituents in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. They are calling for the respect of the right of the small-scale family farmer to preserve, exchange, and use seeds. I think our recent legislation clearly articulates that we do that. The other thing of particular relevance is to look at international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 948, 953, 982, 989, 993, and 1005. 
Hon. Ralph Goodale:  With regard to Health Canada’s regulation of medical marijuana: (a) for the seven step application process for producers, (i) how many applications have been received, (ii) how many are at each stage, (iii) what is the average time required to complete each stage since the program began, (iv) how long have applications presently in process at each stage been at that stage on average, (v) how many staff process applications, (vi) of those staff, how many have degrees outside the health sciences, (vii) how many have formal education in finance, (viii) for how many applicants at each stage is the department aware of non-compliance with applicable federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal legislation, regulations and bylaws, (ix) are media reports about applicants reviewed, (x) what fees are charged to applicants, (xi) what are the costs of processing an application; (b) what is the production capacity of licensed vendors; (c) how many patients are registered to purchase medical marijuana; and (d) what is the total quantity of medical marijuana required for registered patients? 
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, MMPR, allow for the licensing of qualified applicants, or “licensed producers”, responsible for the production and distribution of marijuana for Canadians who have been authorized by a physician. The regulations are comprehensive and include rigorous criteria to protect the public health, safety and security of Canadians, including preventing cannabis from being diverted to an illicit market or use. Applicants seeking to obtain a licence must meet all criteria stipulated in the regulations.
With regard to (a) (i) and (ii), Health Canada has put in a place a rigorous licensing program. The first two stages of the process include a detailed screening of the application, focused on verifying its completeness, an examination of the proposed site, the proposed security measures and a review of the qualifications of the quality assurance person. The key personnel are then subject to a security clearance stage, coordinated by the RCMP. This can involve a comprehensive analysis of police records, fieldwork and coordination with other law enforcement agencies to identify whether an applicant poses a risk to the integrity of the control of the production and distribution of cannabis. The application is then reviewed in detail to confirm appropriate good production practices, record keeping, and physical security plans and procedures. The department may then choose to provide a “Ready to Build” letter, should one be requested. Applicants are notified that this letter is not a guarantee that a licence will be issued. The department will conduct a pre-licence inspection. Once all the terms of the regulations have been satisfied, a licence will then be issued.
Since the introduction of the MMPR, Health Canada has received 1224 licensed producer applications. Most applications to date have been processed and decisions rendered. To date, 881 applications have been assessed and refused or withdrawn; 320 aplications are in process, including security clearance, review and/or pre-licensing inpection phases; and 23 licenses have been issued. 
With regard to (iii) and (iv), all applications undergo a strict and rigorous review process. The quality and completeness of the application can significantly affect the length of the review period. The department may request additional information, as required, to support its review of an application. A licence is only issued once the department has solid evidence that the applicant is fully compliant with the MMPR and would not pose a risk to public health and safety. The duration of the review process is highly variable, and can take more than a year.
With regard to (v), (vi) and (vii), Health Canada has assigned 32 full-time equivalent employees to respond to the current activity levels for licensing and compliance and enforcement activities under the MMPR. The activities are conducted by a multi-disciplinary team including scientists, engineers, project managers and program administrators.
With regard to (viii), Health Canada is responsible for ensuring compliance with the MMPR. Applicants must ensure that they are compliant with all federal, provincial, municipal and environmental legislation, including zoning as well as building and fire codes. It is the responsibility of the municipality to conduct the relevant inspections for compliance with bylaws. Licensed producers are also required to communicate with local authorities whenever there is a change in the status of their licence.
With regard to (ix), Health Canada is aware of media reports about applicants. The department works closely with the RCMP and other organizations, and takes into consideration any information provided by them that is relevant to the review of an application. Licences are only issued once the department has a solid basis of evidence that demonstrates there is no risk to public health, safety and security. 
With regard to (x) and (xi), there are no fees associated with applying to become a licensed producer. It is difficult to determine the cost of processing individual applications, however, the forecasted expenditures of licensing, compliance and enforcement activities under the MMPR for 2014-15 are estimated to be $3.7 million.
 With regard to (b), (c) and (d), as of January 2015, there are 23 licensed producers under the terms of the MMPR that are producing and/or distributing marijuana for medical purposes in Canada, with over 15,500 clients registered. These licensed producers, with an overall approved production capacity of 25,000 kg per year, have sufficient supply to meet current demand in accordance with the quality control measures and appropriate safety standards of the MMPR. 
Mr. Charlie Angus:  With respect to wireless spectrum auctions and spectrum license requirements, including but not limited to AWS-3 spectrum, 600 Mhz and 3 500 Mhz, broken down by each individual auction and license requirement: (a) does the government have provisions requiring the incorporation of technologies into the wireless networks that allow surveillance and interception capabilities built into their networks; and (b) does the government pay for the costs of these provisions? 
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as of 1996, (a) the government introduced a lawful intercept condition of licence that requires the licensee to maintain interception capabilities so that information can be provided when required by a warrant. 
(b) The government does not pay for the costs of these provisions. 
Sean Casey:  With regard to the administration of justice: what are the details of all appeal cases in any court of Canada, or of a province or territory, since January 1, 2008, in which Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada, any Minister of the Crown, or any government of Canada agency, office, or crown corporation, is or has been an intervener, or sought standing as an intervener, notably (i) the parties to the case, including other interveners, if applicable, (ii) the summary of the issue or issues in dispute, (iii) the name of the court and the court docket numbers associated with the case, (iv) the expenditures to date, as intervener, on each case, (v) the reason for which the intervener sought standing as an intervener, (vi) the date and reference number of the judgement, if a judgement has issued? 
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the information requested is not readily available and would require an extensive manual search of all records. It is therefore not feasible to produce a response within the time period allotted. 
Mr. David McGuinty:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Prime Minister's Office since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office identified no contracts under $10,000 granted by the Prime Minister's Office from March 27, 2014 to January 29, 2015.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:  With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada, for fiscal years 2006-2007 to 2013-2014 inclusive: (a) what is the amount and percentage of all lapsed spending, broken down by (i) program, (ii) sub-program, (iii) sub-sub program; and (b) for each answer to (a)(i), (a)(ii) and (a)(iii), how much of the lapsed funding was (i) operating, (ii) capital, (iii) transfer payments?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the amounts of lapsed spending by program for each fiscal year from 2006-07 to 2013 14 are available in the Public Accounts of Canada at the following links. 
For 2006-07, please see page 14.11, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2007/P51-1-2007-2E.pdf. 
For 2007-08, please see page 14.11, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2008/50-eng.pdf. 
For 2008-09, please see page 14.12, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2009/50-eng.pdf. 
For 2009-10, please see page 14.11, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2010/50-eng.pdf. 1
 For 2010-11, please see page 14.10, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2011/50-eng.pdf. 
For 2011-12, please see page 14.12, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2012/50a-eng.pdf. 
For 2012-13, please see page 14.11, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2013/2013-vol2-eng.pdf. 
For 2013-14, please see page 9.12, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2014/2014-vol2-eng.pdf. 
Given that ESDC does not have a capital vote, no capital funds were lapsed for these fiscal years. 
The information by sub-program and sub-sub-program is not available. 
Ms. Joyce Murray:  With regard to military base CFB Petawawa: since 2007, (i) what are the names and ridings of Members of Parliament who have visited the base, (ii) what are the dates when the Members visited, (iii) what were the purposes of the visits, (iv) what were the costs associated with each Members' visit? 
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces, DND/CAF, do not create records of visits by members of Parliament to CAF bases and stations, nor have a centralized tracking and reporting mechanism for such visits, the reasons for visits or their costs. As such, DND/CAF is unable to provide the requested details.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if Questions Nos. 653, 947, 949, 963, 964, 971, 973, 979, 980, 981, 987, 988, and 990 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. John Carmichael:  With regard to questions on the Order Paper numbers Q-264 through Q-644, what is the estimated cost of the government's response for each question?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ralph Goodale:  With regard to the RCMP’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams (INSET), by month and by year, since 2003: (a) how many employees were there in (i) each unit, (ii) each city, (iii) total; (b) of those employees in (a), how many were (i) permanent, (ii) transferred or temporary; (c) how much was spent on salaries; (d) of the amount in (c), how much was overtime; (e) how much funding was allocated to each office; (f) how much funding was lapsed; and (g) were any additional funds granted, and if so, how much? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ralph Goodale:  With regard to Finance Canada’s forecasting of corporate tax losses for each federal budget since 2007: (a) how was the forecast prepared; (b) what were the results of that forecast; (c) what was the difference between the forecast and the actual result; (d) what was the total amount of the corporate tax base to which the losses apply; and (e) for the calculation, what were the (i) parameters, (ii) assumptions, (iii) formulas?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Wayne Easter:  With regard to the Government Operations Centre: for each protest or demonstration reported to the Centre by government departments or agencies since June 5, 2014, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) description or nature, (iv) department or agency making the report? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Wayne Easter:  With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada: (a) what is the current policy on the use of administrative segregation; (b) what changes to this policy are being considered; (c) who has been consulted with regards to any proposed changes, and when did these consultations take place; (d) has the Correctional Service of Canada received any analysis or advice on the constitutionality of the current administrative segregation policy and, if so, (i) when was it received, (ii) who provided the advice, (iii) what were the results or recommendations; (e) what is the proposed timeline for announcing any such proposed policy change; (f) what is the proposed timeline for implementing any such proposed policy change; (g) how many inmates will be affected by any such proposed policy change, broken down by (i) facility type, (ii) location; (h) what additional public costs are projected to be incurred as a result of any such proposed policy change; and (i) what are the titles, dates, and file numbers of any reports, memoranda, briefing notes, dockets, studies, or other records pertaining to any such proposed policy change? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation since March 31, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Judy Sgro:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Emmanuel Dubourg:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Canada Revenue Agency since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Sean Casey:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Justice Canada since April 1, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Sean Casey:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada since May 30, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Rodger Cuzner:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Employment and Social Development Canada since May 30, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
David McGuinty: With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the National Capital Commission since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
David McGuinty:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Privy Council Office since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Respect for Communities Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the third time and passed.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, at third reading.
I have a couple of other suggestions for the name of this bill. It could be called “the refusal to honour the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada bill”. How about “the pursuing ideology versus evidence act”, or “the refusal to save the lives of people with addictions act"?
This bill was introduced in response to the Supreme Court of Canada 2011 ruling that Insite, in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, had been proven to save lives and reduce harm, and that the government's efforts to close Insite would violate section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to life, liberty, and the security of the person. It is clear that the government did not like this ruling, and therefore has tried to go about refusing to honour the ruling by another route.
It is also clear that this bill will not fulfill the spirit of the court's ruling. Rather, it would make it cumbersome for a group or municipality to apply for a section 56 exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which allows a facility to operate. However, the likelihood of any future sites opening in Canada would become slim to none. Making matters worse, Vancouver's Insite would have to apply for a renewal based on the same 26 different criteria as new applications, as well as two additional provisions.
Section 56 of the CDSA gives the Minister of Health discretionary powers to grant exemptions from the act under one of three categories. They are medical purposes, scientific purposes, or in the public interest. Of the exemptions that have been granted for activities with illicit substances, two types are for law enforcement purposes. These are to train sniffer dogs using seized drugs in the public interest and to allow the Vancouver Coastal Health authority to operate Insite. It was initially for scientific purposes, but since the Supreme Court's decision, it is considered a medical exemption.
The government's intentions have been clear from the beginning. It has always opposed Insite and has been trying to close it down since it formed government. Thankfully, the work of the community of Vancouver and the courts have stopped these attempts.
I would also like the opportunity to thank the member for Vancouver Centre and the Liberal Party of Canada health critic for her tireless efforts on this file to ensure that public policy is based on evidence and not ideology.
This is an ideological bill based on crass political motivation from a government that has always opposed evidence-based harm reduction measures such as safe injection sites. Only an hour after the legislation was introduced, Conservative campaign director Jenni Byrne issued a crass and misleading fundraising letter to supporters, stating that the Liberals and the NDP wanted addicts to shoot up heroin in the backyards of communities all across the country.
Despite this bill being tabled by the Minister of Health, it was given to an enforcement department, the committee of public safety and security. This is further evidence of the government's view of addiction as a criminal act. The public safety and security committee heard witnesses from three meetings, with many expressing concern that this bill would effectively shut down the current safe consumption site in Vancouver and deny the creation of further sites.
There were amendments suggested by the Province of British Columbia, the chief public health officer of British Columbia, and the City of Vancouver, which were consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada criteria. Even witnesses in favour of the legislation expressed concern that in some parts the legislation is too restrictive. Over 60 amendments were moved by the opposition parties to bring this legislation in line with the Supreme Court ruling. However, the legislation, as usual, was not amended.
The Liberals proposed amendments to the legislation at committee to amend clause 5, which outlines the criteria that new and existing applicants for exemptions must meet by deleting measures that were not outlined in the Supreme Court ruling. Due to a motion passed by the Conservative majority at the public safety committee, a party can only have five minutes to speak for each clause of the bill while moving amendments. Clause 5, which is the majority of the legislation, required several amendments.
Due to the time constraints, the Liberal Party was unable to speak to the majority of the amendments, as time had elapsed. This is undemocratic and restricted our right to speak and to explain our amendments at committee.
Liberals recognize the need for some form of legislation based on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. However, this legislation does not reflect the spirit nor the intent of the court's decision.
As stated in the 2011 Supreme Court ruling:
 The factors considered in making the decision on an exemption must include evidence, if any, on the impact of such a facility on crime rates, the local conditions, indicating a need for such a supervised injection site, the regulatory structure in place to support this facility, the resources available to support its maintenance, and expressions of community support or opposition. 
Instead, of the five criteria listed in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, Bill C-2 lists 26 different prescriptive criteria that must be met, including the areas that are intrusive into provincial and municipal jurisdiction. It also interferes with the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies on health care providers, as well as provincial and municipal police forces and provincial public health officers.
Liberals support the need for broad community consultation for the establishment of any safe consumption site, which is how the Liberal government established Canada's first safe consumption site in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. When the Liberal government gave the exemption to Vancouver's safe consumption site, we consulted broadly and worked in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments, public health authorities, business associations, and the public. 
Insite was the product of co-operative federalism. Local, provincial, and federal authorities combined their efforts to create it. The Vancouver police support Insite, as well as the City of Vancouver and the British Columbia government.
It was initially launched as a scientifically based research project based on experience with SCS in Europe and Australia on very high, at-risk and resistant groups, which had proven to be successful. It has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.
 lnsite has an average of 700 to 800 visits a day, and over 275,000 visits annually. As of March 2010, there have been over 1.5 million visits, over 12,000 unique individuals registered, and an average of 11 visits per month, per person
 It has been proven to reduce harm. There has been a total of 2,395 overdoses since the facility opened, with zero fatalities. There were 20,000 referrals to health services in 2008-09, and over 50% of those were to detox. 
lnsite users are 30% more likely to engage in addiction treatment than non-lnsite users. It has also dramatically reduced the rate of new HIV infections in the Downtown Eastside. There are three in ten injection drug users in the Downtown Eastside who are HIV positive; 18% of lnsite clients are HIV positive. There were 30 new HIV cases in the Downtown Eastside in 2011, compared to 2,100 new cases in 1996.
I would like to highlight the four pillars of any effective drug strategy: harm reduction, prevention, treatment, and enforcement. The bill underlines the government's misguided decision to remove harm reduction from the equation and from an effective drug strategy.
As Liberals, we support evidence-based policies that reduce harm and protect public safety. Liberals established Vancouver's safe consumption site, which has proven to be effective in supporting those suffering with mental illness and addictions, reducing crime and protecting public safety.
Across Canada, medical officers of health, such as David McKeown, in my home community of Toronto, need this public health approach to get on with creating new life-saving facilities such as this.
Unfortunately, the bill raises the criteria to establish a safe injection site to such an extraordinary high level that it would be nearly impossible for any future site to be established in Canada. 
Legislation proposed in this House must adhere to the rule of law. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada was clear. This legislation would put lives at risk and would likely be challenged in the courts again. 
We cannot support the legislation. To put it bluntly, we cannot help people if they are dead.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague. I know she has a huge passion on the issue. However, to be quite honest, I have listened to the opposition for many hours now on this debate and I look at the framework we have provided. The framework is very practical and appropriate around community input. I have to liken it again to a zoning application that municipal councillors regularly hear when something is proposed, having some basic health and safety measures in place. This is very appropriate.
 Does she not think that the community should be consulted, that there should be criminal record checks done and that there should be the powers of inspection? Again, these are concrete practical steps that look at the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling and ensure that the minister has appropriate information when she makes a decision around an exemption. 
[Interjection]
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the community consultation has always been part of, and was indeed essential to, the success of the Vancouver downtown east side site. It was done with consulting the community. It was done with the support and the efforts of all three levels of government and the local police. 
What is more than irritating about the bill is that instead of using the five criteria that were listed in the Supreme Court ruling, these 26 new prescriptive criteria that must be met are actually intrusive into provincial and municipal jurisdiction. They interfere with the jurisdiction of the regulatory bodies on health care providers, and interfere with the choices of provincial and municipal police forces and provincial public health officers.
It is clear the government just does not want these things to happen. Communities want them to happen. The government should get out of the way.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the comments from my colleague. I would like to know if she could perhaps expand on what I think is a very important issue during this debate and that is that we do have a very highly successful injection site that was built on consultation.
 There were individuals who lived in the community. There were different levels of government, provincial and municipal. She made reference to the fact that it was put into place perhaps during the government of Paul Martin, or possibly Jean Chrétien. The point is, there was a great deal of consultation that ultimately made this happen. 
At the end of the day, it would be ridiculous for anyone to believe that there would be an injection site placed anywhere in Canada without consultation done in the first place. The legislation is just not necessary to ensure that there is consultation, because we have seen that in Canada's one and only site.
[Interjection]
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is actually two things. One is, this is actually just tabled in order to get in the way of having any more sites. It is just obstruction and the government and all people watching this file know exactly what is going on here. 
The second thing is, of course there has to be consultation anyway. The municipalities and the provinces know how to do this and they have always done it with the co-operation of the police. 
This is an institution that has saved lives. When we think that 2,395 people overdosed at this site with zero fatalities, this is just mean and offensive to actually think that those 2,395 people could have died instead of being there where they were resuscitated. I just do not get it. 
John Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, I think my Liberal friend would agree that the Conservatives are taking Canada in the wrong direction with this bill. After 10 years in office, we know and we see that the Conservatives have done environmental, social and economic damage to Canada. This bill is just another good example of that happening. 
Does the member agree?
[Interjection]
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this is again just purely ideologically driven instead of evidence-based, which is the way the government goes in all aspects, choosing ideology and pandering to its base rather than providing measures that save lives, save money and move in the right direction.
The government does not understand that so many people suffering from addictions are victims of child abuse and the kinds of things that cause people to end up going down this wrong and unhealthy path. They have not been able to trust people in authority, whether that be people in their homes, teachers and so forth. Insite has provided an opportunity for them to see a way through and develop a therapeutic relationship with a health care provider for probably the first time in their lives. It has allowed them to get into addiction treatment and safe housing. That is the way to create safer communities, and that is why the title of this bill is offensive.
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians understand the challenges of addiction, and most communities and the people who reside within them understand the value that some of these sites and services provide. However, they also understand that there is a need for criminal record checks, community consultation and a treatment service plan so that it is not just a place where people can safely do drugs but a place where they can effectively move toward getting off them. These parameters and the criteria that are outlined not only provide for the safety, health and security of the people who are going there for support and their health, but also provide safety and assurances to the community. That only emboldens and strengthens the integrity of sites like this and community support for sites like this.
 It is not members of Parliament who are against these sites. They generate some level of anxiety concerning communities. We are responding to that with solid criteria that will only serve to strengthen the ability of these sites across the country and the confidence of Canadians with respect to their integrity wherever they exist in those communities. In cases where that integrity cannot be met, where that work is not done or where the quality of care is not there, those sites should not be made available because it is not ultimately good for the people who could use them. 
Can the member not understand that integrity in these systems is critical for the benefit of the people who will use them?
[Interjection]
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member opposite should understand that this bill gets in the way of providing respect for local authorities, the provinces, the medical officers of health and the local police, those authorities who make decisions based on evidence. Instead, the government is imposing 26 top-down prescriptive criteria that are almost impossible to meet. This is a very thinly veiled obstruction to getting on with what will save lives because of this ridiculous ideology that kills people.
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to add my words of support for Bill C-2, the respect for communities act.
Before I go on, I would like to advise you and the House that I will be sharing my time with the distinguished member for Whitby—Oshawa.
I want to thank all colleagues for their participation in this debate, especially those who are doing it in a measured manner.
Also, I was very pleased that my friends on the committee for public safety and national security were able to conduct a thorough review of this legislation and to return it to this House without amendment.
 The opposition’s constant delay tactics—including almost 18 hours of debate at second reading alone—will not stop your government—the government that I support in the House of Commons—from ensuring that Canadian communities get a say before supervised injection sites open in their communities.
Bill C-2 reflects the concern that the government has for Canadian families and communities, and our commitment to their protection. The rigorous criteria set out in the bill and the principles articulated within it are a reasonable and responsible approach.
This approach is based on the premise that any exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with illicit substances at a supervised consumption site should only be granted after an applicant seeking an exemption has addressed rigorous criteria. 
This is as much for the protection of our communities and the respect for residents as it is an assurance that the Minister of Health is provided with the information she needs to carry out her duties in considering the applications to open supervised injection sites.
Bill C-2, the respect for communities act, is an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The provisions would be incorporated into the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act known as the CDSA.
What I propose to add to the dialogue today is a glimpse into what would be next for Bill C-2, and to reflect upon how provisions of Bill C-2 would be implemented when they are incorporated into the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 
Anyone wishing to undertake activities with illicit substances at a supervised consumption site must apply for an exemption from the CDSA. Under this legislation, a new regime will be established for such applications. Under this new regime, the criteria that would need to be addressed before the Minister of Health could consider such an application would be set out.
These changes are in line with a Supreme Court of Canada decision handed down in 2011, and codify the court’s ruling that community opinions must be considered by the Minister of Health with regard to supervised injection sites. 
Indeed, the court stated that its decision is:
 —not a licence for injection drug users to possess drugs wherever and whenever they wish. Nor is it an invitation for anyone who so chooses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a “safe injection facility”. 
The bill's changes would provide any potential applicant seeking an exemption for activities with illicit substances at a supervised consumption site with greater clarity concerning the application process.
In exercising her discretion, the minister would have to balance public health and public safety considerations.
All members of the House can agree that our communities deserve to have a say if someone would like to build a drug injection site, where illegal drugs are used, in their own neighbourhood.
All we have been getting from the opposition are delay tactics every step of the way.
What members of the opposition fail to realize is that this legislation is a necessary follow-up to the ruling made by the Supreme Court as well as a method for the Minister of Health to receive the information she needs to make an informed decision on supervised injection sites.
This is an important point to note for anyone who might argue that the criteria in Bill  C-2  are onerous. The Supreme Court was quite clear that the Minister of Health must consider certain criteria when judging applications. It is only reasonable that applicants provide her with that information.
The applicant would compile the letters, reports, studies and other information set out in the legislation. 
Health Canada would review the information provided in the application package to verify that all the criteria had been addressed.
Once a complete application package has been received, the Minister of Health would also have an option to post a notice of application. If a notice of application is posted, it would invite comments from the public on the activities being proposed in the application. The consultation period would be 90 days.
This option is another element provided for in Bill C-2 and would put in place a mechanism for the general public to have its say regarding the establishment of a supervised injection site as also mandated by the Supreme Court.
In considering an application, the Minister of Health would be informed by the information provided by the applicant in their application, and by the public during the public consultation period. 
The minister also has the authority to request additional relevant information from the applicant if further detail is needed. With the amendments to the inspection authority specified in Bill C-2, Health Canada would also have the authority to conduct a pre-inspection of the proposed site to verify any of the information provided in the application. In making a decision to grant or not grant an exemption, the minister would balance public health and public safety considerations.
 These are very dangerous substances that we are talking about here. The dangerous and addictive drugs that are used at supervised injection sites tear families apart, foster addictions and destroy lives.
It is only prudent that the Minister of Health take very seriously her duties when evaluating the individual merits of each application that comes across her desk for such sites.
In the event that an exemption is granted, the exempted party must adhere to the terms and conditions set out in the exemption. If the terms and conditions are not adhered to, or if there is a risk that controlled substances might be trafficked or diverted for illicit purposes, an exemption can be suspended or revoked in order to protect public health and public safety.
Safeguards for preserving public health and safety are also built into the process for seeking a subsequent exemption. Under the new legislation, when seeking a subsequent exemption, the applicant would be required to address all of the criteria in the proposed legislation as well two additional criteria. Specifically, they would have to provide information on changes in crime rates in the vicinity of the site and evidence of the impact of the site activities on individuals or public health during the period of the previous exemption.
As I have previously stated, this comprehensive legislation reflects the government's commitment to protecting Canadian families and communities.
Even more than that, Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. 
My speech is not finished, and I am not a fast talker, but I will respect the restrictions imposed by the Speaker, and look forward to questions.
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my learned colleague's remarks. He asked a lot of reasonable questions. However, all of those conditions combined make it impossible for people to obtain these services.
It is the same thing we are always criticizing the government for: having a double standard. Canada Post did away with home mail delivery. Did the Conservatives ask seniors, health care providers and the municipalities whether this was a good idea or not? No. They made the decision for them.
Now, you are imposing conditions on people who want to provide services. Why are you always around when it comes to cutting services, but when it comes to providing them, you are always coming up with bogus conditions?
Why do the Conservatives have such a double standard?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans.
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, you saw that the member just ascribed all sorts of motives to you. I did not know that you had such intentions.
To come back to the subject at hand, the hon. member seems to believe that the conditions set out in this bill are too onerous. Since we are trying to introduce a balanced bill that will protect public health and safety, I would like to know which of these measures my colleague would like to remove from the bill.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that the one injection site we have in Canada is located in Vancouver. This site has received universal support in its creation. Different stakeholders were involved. First responders, health care professionals, security and law enforcement officials and community leaders, including federal, provincial and municipal levels of government were all involved. Years after the fact, there has been virtually no criticism. It has been a huge success story, which has demonstrated the system works.
Outside of having a bumper sticker out of the Prime Minister's Office to give an appearance that it is just not true, why has the Prime Minister taken this direction, which clearly seems to be at odds with what has been a huge success story in Vancouver on many different fronts?
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North approves of the injection site in the lower east side in Vancouver. However, I believe the people of Winnipeg North are going to appreciate, before such a site is established in his electoral district, the extra conditions the minister would have to look at that would protect the communities in his district.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, one of the conditions is the important input from the community itself. Does the member think opposition parties want so-called injection sites, where people are shooting up heroin and other drugs, to be done quietly, or should the community be involved?
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know every community across the country. I know the community I represent in the House. I can assure the hon. member that the people of Orléans, Blackburn Hamlet and Carlsbad Springs would want these conditions to be imposed before the Minister of Health approved an injection site in any of those communities.
Pat Perkins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add to the discussion in support of this important bill. My comments today will highlight the work that is already being done in this area throughout our great country.
Under this strategy, our government has spent well over a half a billion dollars on drug prevention, treatment and enforcement. That is an outstanding sum of money and should highlight for members the importance our government places on addressing drug use and addiction in Canada.
The national anti-drug strategy provides a focused approach aimed at reducing the supply of and the demand for illicit drugs. It is addressing prescription drug abuse and the crimes associated with illicit drugs. To accomplish this, the national strategy has implemented three action plans, which are focused on prevention, treatment and enforcement. 
Under the treatment action plan, the province of Quebec has received $11.8 million from 2011 to 2014, which has resulted in a number of positive outcomes. These outcomes include the establishment of new partnerships and formal agreements to support integrated rehabilitation services and continuity of post-rehabilitation services by developing agreements between addiction treatment centres and partners, such as hospitals and community organizations, as well as the establishment of a substance abuse and homelessness pilot project to implement concerted interventions by all concerned stakeholders in 12 health and social service regional authorities.
Another investment under the strategy's treatment action plan is the $7.68 million the government has provided to the province of British Columbia from 2009 to 2014. This has had funding for many positive outcomes, including improved medical student education by expanding a student's education in addiction medicine, from two hours a week to two weeks in rotations; the co-creation with aboriginal partners of the content and design of motivational dialogue workshops; and the creation of a community-based integrated health service for people with substance use and mental health concerns.
In addition, funding is also being provided to support priorities under the prevention action plan. For example, Klinic Community Health Centre in Winnipeg is being funded for $223,000, from 2014 to 2016, and is assisting youth 14 to 19 years of age at a higher risk for substance abuse. There are three main components: an illicit and prescription drug use prevention workshop for youth; a training program with an emphasis on drug prevention for peer support volunteers; and training to enhance the ability of Manitoba-based service providers to deliver prevention education to high-needs youth.
Another project supported by the prevention action plan is a project with the University of Victoria's Centre for Addictions Research. This centre will receive funding of $481,000, from 2014 to 2016, to enhance the ability of teachers to deliver effective drug education to our youth. To support professional development, the project will create and use online training modules as well as resources for face-to-face training such as lesson plans, learning activities and existing evidence-based drug prevention resources.
Our government also continues to work hard to prevent drug addiction and improve the accessibility, quality and effectiveness of treatment services for first nations, and Inuit youth and their families. To this end, in 2014 through 2015, $80.9 million is being provided to support a network of 44 treatment centres and community-based drug and alcohol prevention services in first nations and Inuit communities across Canada. Included in this funding are $12.1 million from the national anti-drug strategy to improve the quality, effectiveness and accessibility of addiction services for this population.
Investments have also improved access to community-based, client-centred, multidisciplinary mental wellness teams. These teams provide comprehensive addiction and mental health services to first nations and Inuit communities across Canada. They are owned, defined, and driven by the community and include aboriginal traditional, cultural, and mainstream clinical approaches to mental wellness services that span prevention to aftercare.
Investments made through the national strategy also helped to develop “Honouring our Strengths: A Renewed Framework to Address Substance Use Issues Among First Nation People in Canada”, which has been highly successful in strengthening the system of addiction services for first nationpeople.
The recovery and rehabilitation of people living with addictions is another critical element in addressing substance abuse. The Minister of Health participated in two national recovery round table discussions with physicians and leading addiction recovery specialists to discuss practical solutions to support Canadians in recovery. 
People in recovery are dealing with many complex issues related to their addictions. Some of these issues may include untreated mental health problems, family problems, environmental factors, employment challenges, or legal problems related to addiction. This type of dialogue is vital in reducing barriers to accessing treatment so that the people battling addictions, and their families, can get the help they require.
We must not forget about research. The Government of Canada invested over $126 million in addiction research between 2006 and 2014 through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR. It was part of its overall investment, approximately $4.5 million in funding, to support 28 research projects focused specifically on treatment systems for illicit drug use and overall treatment strategies for substance abuse and addiction. Strategy funding also supported the launch of the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse. This network will address relevant research questions related to substance misuse.
Research and investment in recovery and treatment services will continue to be a priority for the government in its effort to help people and communities in Canada suffering with the issue of drug addiction.
Substance abuse and addiction affect people of every race, age, economic status, and background. Effective treatment and recovery programs need to be multi-faceted to ensure that components such as physical health, culture, family, community, and mental health are all part of an integrated solution. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of collaboration in this regard and continues to work closely with the provinces, territories, and key stakeholders to help individuals and families living with addictions.
We all have a role to play and contributions to make. Bill C-2, the respect for communities act, would expand on the Supreme Court's decision regarding Insite. It is another tool the federal government would use to better protect and maintain the health and safety of Canadians. The government's commitment to the protection and safety of Canadians is also reflected in its significant investment in prevention and treatment funding.
The proposed legislation acknowledges that street drugs have serious health effects and that organized crime profits from the use of illegal substances. It is only common sense that activities with illegal drugs would be permitted only once rigorous criteria had been addressed by an applicant seeking to open a supervised consumption site.
 I urge all members to vote in favour of Bill C-2. Our communities depend on our support.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I want to share a story with members from the end of last year. In 2014, a Canadian Press story mentioned that six individuals in the Durham region died from suspected overdoses. There was probably bad heroin on the streets.
In light of that story, would it not be better for the government to accelerate safe injection sites so that the people could be at a site where they could be monitored, rather than letting them shoot up in their living rooms or backyards and having them pass away tragically without any supervision or being known? Would the member not agree that maybe we should be facilitating the process to open these sites so that these victims of drugs do not have to pass away in loneliness anymore?
[Interjection]
Pat Perkins: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question, but I do not believe that an injection site is going to prevent people from, as the member put it, shooting up in their living rooms. He is asking us to take six drug deaths and create an injection site for people so that they do not have to shoot up in their living rooms. That does not reconcile with me.
The fact of the matter is that communities need to be part of the decision. This is the issue, not whether they shoot up in their living rooms or shoot up anywhere. It is about communities having the right to say where they would have them, where they would not have them, and whether they would approve of an application to put one in perhaps next door. We need to have community input. Communities need to be respected.
As a former mayor of a community, if people decided they were going to put in an injection site without contacting our community and allowing us to hear from the people who live and work in our community and letting them decide, I think there would be an absolutely huge backlash from every community in the country. It is intolerable.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, when the opposition members ask questions or make their remarks, they frequently say that we are not taking an evidence-based approach. They talk about Conservatives being hard-hearted and not caring. Quite frankly, I find that very insulting. This legislation specifically talks about the need for scientific evidence. 
Everyone in the House has family, friends, or colleagues who have suffered the terrible ravages of addictions. I do not know that there is anyone who is not impacted.
What I particularly like in this piece of legislation is the linking of some intervention with the site, intervention in terms of rehabilitation or opportunities to help people break the path of addiction. Could the member talk about not only that but about some of the concepts the opposition members are putting out that are simply not true?
[Interjection]
Pat Perkins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments and certainly the question. It is very difficult to move in a positive direction when people are looking to do nothing but find negatives. This is about engaging our communities. It is about respecting our communities and allowing people to have a say. I do not think we should heavy-handedly allow these sites to be implemented in places where they just would not be welcome. 
It is only respectful for us to go to our communities and get input to make sure that medical officers of health, provincial governments, municipal governments, and all of the people who have a stake in this have an opportunity to say what they agree with and what they do not.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan has six minutes on debate.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak once again about Bill C-2 on supervised injection sites.
I wanted to mention that because we have been talking a lot about health in the context of this bill. The Minister of Health appeared before the committee. However, oddly enough, this bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security because that is what the Conservatives wanted. 
Even though this bill has to do with health, I sincerely believe that the Conservatives wanted to politicize the issue by demanding that it be sent to that committee. Everyone here knows that, and nobody is falling for it. However, that did give me the opportunity to hear from excellent witnesses who came to talk about this bill in committee. We had some very enlightening conversations about the issue.
With respect to the debate on Bill C-2, nobody here is a fool, and Canadians are not fools either. My Conservative colleagues have a lot to say about the problem of addiction and drugs, and they think that supervised injection sites make it easier for people to get drugs on our streets. They have created a climate of fear around supervised injection sites. What is even sadder is that the Conservatives are also using this issue to raise funds for their election campaign. That is truly deplorable.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  It is inappropriate.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre:  I think it is inappropriate to use something as serious as the addiction problems of the less fortunate in our society and make money from it. I hope that Canadians will realize that the Conservatives are not acting in good faith. I will try to use what little time I have to elaborate. 
To use the issue surrounding supervised injection sites in order to raise money, the Conservatives came up with the slogan “keep drugs away from our children”. That is nothing new for the Conservatives. We saw that recently with Bill C-53, Life Means Life, introduced by the government. A few hours after announcing this very important justice bill, they launched a fundraising campaign for the upcoming election. Frankly, their way of using very sensitive issues to try to make money on the backs of poor people is deplorable. No one is fooled: we know that the Conservatives are using Bill C-2 to try to score political points.
 I listened to a number of speeches from both sides of the House, and I paid particular attention to the speeches by the government members. They keep saying that this bill addresses the problem of drugs in our streets. Is obstructing groups like InSite in Vancouver East really the best way to eradicate addiction problems? Of course not. This makes no sense.
If the government really wants to address problems related to addictions and mental health, as well as access to drugs and other illicit substances in our communities, there are much simpler ways of doing that. For example, it could invest in our police forces across the country.
I am thinking of what happened in Montreal, for example. The Conservatives allocated $400 million to special projects across the country. I do not remember the exact amounts and I am not going to get into that, but several million dollars were granted to Quebec. The province decided to create the Eclipse squad to deal with the problem of street gangs and, by extension, addiction and access to drugs in its communities. The Eclipse squad worked miracles for five years. Unfortunately, the Conservatives decided not to renew the funding. If they really wanted to address the problem of access to illicit substances in our communities, restoring funding for projects like the Eclipse squad would have been a much better way of doing that than standing in the way of groups like InSite, which is only trying to address certain health issues and help people overcome their addictions.
Other than parliamentary procedures, which I do not want to get into, I would also like to mention something that was talked about in the last speech, and that is the need to respect our communities. That is what we must do. In Montreal there was a project that the mayor, elected officials from all levels of government, the police, community leaders and health leaders were participating in. They were in the process of setting up a project like InSite, in the typical Montreal way of doing things. Unfortunately, if Bill C-2 is passed, it will create obstacles for our communities.
I would like to ask the Conservative government to reverse its decision, rethink its strategy for dealing with addictions and access to illicit substances, and completely dismiss the idea of moving forward with Bill C-2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, February 26, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 23, 2015, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
 The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora is rising.
[Interjection]
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you see the clock at 1:30.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
National Strategy for Dementia ActClaude Gravelle:  moved that Bill C-356, An Act respecting a National Strategy for Dementia, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting a long time for this. I count it a privilege to stand in the House today to speak on my bill, an act respecting a national strategy for dementia.
I am aware of the millions of Canadians who are directly caught up in the web of Alzheimer's or dementia. I have also become aware of many Canadians and groups who, like me, want a national dementia plan.
It was over three years ago that I stood to introduce this legislation. I shared how this bill came to be by telling the story of my mother's seven-year battle with Alzheimer's, from 1997 until her death in 2003. 
The Sudbury Star had profiled my family's experience and had in the headline the following comment: “I didn't know enough”. Truer words have never been spoken. Many others who have caregiving responsibilities thrust on them tell me that those words ring true. 
In the past three years, I have learned plenty. First was the staggering statistic on how many people are affected, which is reflected in the “Rising Tide” report by the Alzheimer Society of Canada. There are 740,000 people with the disease. This number will double in a generation. The health care cost of $33 billion will soar to $293 billion in 2040.
Providing millions of hours of unpaid caregiving has forced people to cut back or leave work altogether, which harms them and our economy. I want to talk about that this afternoon. 
I learned from the Canadian Medical Association that 15% of scarce acute care beds are occupied by people who could be placed elsewhere, and half of those are dementia patients. Beyond those important statistics, I have learned the real face of the problem.
 Fran Linton, in British Columbia, wrote to tell me about her experience and that of her husband in dealing with Lewy body dementia. She wrote:
 I am writing in the hope that what I present to you will enable people to see the person with dementia and their family as real people and not just statistics and numbers. We hear the staggering statistics of how many people in Canada have dementia and we hear that dollars are being invested in research. What needs to be heard is the daily impact of being a person living with dementia and those supporting the person with dementia. Our Canadian government needs to hear the reality of their world. 
I have met these real people from coast to coast to coast in our communities. They are struggling with this enormous challenge. 
I have learned that the real face of dementia is not just older people. Matt Dineen is one of the biggest champions for this bill and an actual plan. He could not be here today, but he is listening in. He is a 44-year-old high school teacher here in Ottawa. He and his relatives are now forced to raise three young children as his wife and their mom, Lisa, at 45 years old, is already in secure long-term care with frontotemporal dementia. Matt has met the Minister of Health.
I learned that 15% of dementia patients are under 60 years old. I have learned that we have a health care crisis and a social and economic crisis that we must address.
My legislation calls for leadership from Ottawa, working with the provinces and territories, which, of course, have primary jurisdiction duties for health care delivery. 
I want this leadership from Ottawa to tackle five main elements: early diagnosis and prevention; research; a continuum of care for people and families in the home, the community, and institutions; real help for caregivers; and training for the dementia workforce.
On that last point, help for the dementia workforce, Michael Alexander shared with me the horrific story of his father's death in a nursing home at the hands of another Alzheimer patient. CTV, in a special report, said that there have been 60 such deaths in 12 years, a figure that is growing. Michael Alexander and his family want a real and national dementia plan. 
I said I wanted to speak about the challenges caregivers face. Tanya Levesque is a woman in Ottawa looking after her mom. Here are some of the life and financial issues she has met with as a caregiver. 
To take care of her mom, Ms. Levesque first had to take leave without pay so she could care for her at home. She will only have the option of leave without pay for five years. Money gets tighter and tighter as they try to keep her in her home and care for her. They draw on savings that were meant for later years. 
She writes the following:
 Following is a list of financial barriers I have experienced during my journey as my mother's caregiver: Unable to access my El benefits; I've been unable to qualify for social assistance; unable to claim the caregiver amount on my income tax, since my mother's net income is a few thousand more than what is listed; lack of subsidies for expenses which keep increasing (i.e. property tax, parking fees at hospitals for appointments, gas for travelling to appointments, hydro, water and sewage fees and more); I've changed my eating habits to save money, due to the increased cost of food, so my mother can eat well; and because of a lack of future job security, my retirement security is in question — I can't save, because I've chosen to care for my mother, who took care of me 
Ms. Levesque, her mom, and others are watching today. Let us pass a real dementia plan as law to help those overwhelmed caregivers.
As I said, I introduced this bill over three years ago. I want to recognize the progress made by Canada since then, through the government working with a G8 initiative and also with our provinces and territories. Many would like that progress to be quicker, but it does deserve recognition. 
Canada had come to the G8 summit called for by the U.K. prime minister without a national dementia plan. Several allies from leading economic nations had national plans. Canada has made several significant announcements on research that we support. Research will be the key part of any plan or response to this health care crisis.
Even though research can have an impact on other parts of the dementia challenge, research alone cannot help those with the disease, their caregivers, or the workforce. That is why our party has been insistent on a full, comprehensive strategy.
 Canada needs a national strategy for dementia that comes from Ottawa, but one that respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction over health. One strategy tailored to the needs of each province or territory will be far better than 13 separate strategies implemented in isolation of one another. We want a national strategy that goes beyond research, to also help those now living with the disease, their caregivers, and the dementia workforce.
The Canadian Medical Association estimates that patients who should be elsewhere occupy about 15% of the acute care hospital beds across Canada, and one third of them are suffering from dementia. Lost in those numbers perhaps is the real human face of the disease—the moms, dads, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbours and work colleagues.
While an elderly face typifies most people dealing with dementia, 15% of those living with Alzheimer's or related dementia diseases are under 60. At every meeting we had on this bill, we found people who know someone directly affected as a patient or caregiver. It is a health challenge. It is a health care challenge. Given the current lack of money and resources for health care, it is a big problem for us to solve.
I have noted the work that the government is doing with the provinces and territories through the Council of the Federation.
 In the past year, I have enjoyed several conversations with the current Minister of Health. I have respected her work on this file. I have been communicating with the minister and her department over the past month and have discussed possible amendments to the bill in committee to work collaboratively on changes that all parties could support. We have identified a way to have this legislation passed. 
I look forward to hearing the government's position regarding possible support for a national dementia plan. I know she and all MPs have been hearing loud and clear from so many Canadians who want this to happen. We now have over 300 municipalities passing resolutions in favour of the bill. We have over 90 petitions tabled in the House of Commons in support of it. 
There are so many people who say it makes sense. There is support from seniors, health care professionals, labour, and faith communities. Yes, the faith communities are very responsive to the bill, and they are very interested in seeing it pass.
In talks across the country, I have often talked about the non-partisan nature of this disease, how it strikes our loved ones, our mums, dads, siblings, grandparents, friends, neighbours, and work colleagues. Everyone, on all sides of the House, knows the story. I am astonished that wherever I go, everyone knows someone with Alzheimer's or dementia-related disease, or someone caring for them.
 Let us do this for them. Let us do this for our country. Let us make history.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I know that a number of members would like to ask questions.
My mother succumbed to Alzheimer's. Therefore, I really get this bill. I also understand the families of people suffering from this disease and its consequences. In 10 years, an affected person can lose their intellectual independence and the ability to get around, feed themselves, even bathe themselves.
Is my colleague aware of the progress being made in research—even though it is not enough—to delay the illness? What more must be done?
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question.
The government has invested in dementia research. However, as I mentioned in my speech, it is going to take more than just research. Everyone is aware that, without research, we cannot solve the problem. Nevertheless, there are other things. We have to look after the caregivers, because home care is needed.
We have to keep our fathers and mothers at home for as long as possible because it has been proven that Alzheimer's progresses more quickly once patients leave their own homes. 
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for sharing his story. 
 We are dealing with a disease that is a type of dementia, as my colleague pointed out. Mothers, children and spouses inevitably end up being responsible for caring for a loved one, so family caregivers play a very important role.
Could my colleague tell us how we could improve the work done by family caregivers and how the government can have a positive impact on these family caregivers who do incredible work? 
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, these people are indeed doing a very good job, but they need help. They need guidance. They need to be eligible for employment insurance. They need a lot of things and the government could do a lot for them.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Nickel Belt, not only for his eloquence but for his personal courage in dealing with the crisis of which this bill speaks. For the House, I should also thank him for his patience.
In that light, I wonder if the member might enlighten the House on the extent to which he may have had opportunity to work with the other parties in this House and the government. He talked about it being a non-partisan issue; if ever there were one, it surely is this. I wonder if the member could enlighten us on whether there has been any progress in that regard.
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: I thank my colleague for that excellent question.
This bill was supposed to be presented in the House three weeks ago. The Minister of Health asked me to delay it until today so we could negotiate. We have negotiated, and I have here seven pages of amendments that were agreed to. All of the amendments that the Minister of Health wanted have been agreed to.
I am going to talk about one amendment. The Conservatives wanted to change the name of the bill, “an act respecting a national strategy for dementia”, to “an act respecting a pan-Canadian strategy for dementia”.
I do not care what they call it; I do not think the patients care what they call it, nor do the doctors or the caregivers. They can call it whatever they want, but do something.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-356, an act respecting a national strategy for dementia. This bill speaks to the important issue of dementia, which not only affects Canadians living with dementia, but their families, friends, and caregivers.
We can all agree that the member for Nickel Belt is well-intentioned with this bill. He has done great work raising awareness of the challenges faced by all Canadians with dementia, and indeed in his very heartfelt speech that clearly articulated personal stories, and personal stories of families who have been impacted.
I want to highlight some of the areas where we have been taking action along the lines called for by this bill, before getting into consideration of what I think are some technical issues within it.
As we all know, Alzheimer's disease and related dementia most commonly affect seniors. However, dementia can also affect younger individuals. Younger people in their forties and fifties have been diagnosed with the early-onset form of the disease.
Our government recognizes the devastating impact that this disease has on Canadian families and the help they need to be able to care for their loved ones. By supporting research and data gathering, we are improving our understanding of Alzheimer's disease and related forms of dementia and how they are affecting Canadians.
Many countries around the world are facing similar issues, and we certainly are committed to working internationally to address the health and economic challenges of dementia and how to reduce the burden of this condition. That is why we have joined our G7 partners in addressing this growing challenge.
Together, at the 2013 summit on dementia in London, Minister Ambrose worked with international leaders to coordinate efforts with the aim of finding a cure by 2025. 
Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a cure for this terrible affliction?
The momentum of the G8 dementia summit has been incredible, and we are investing in ongoing efforts to accomplish our goals. Canada participated in a series of international follow-up legacy events, and co-hosted one of these events here in Ottawa last September.
 Beyond this international leadership, we have also been taking strong action here at home. While our federal focus on dementia is on research, data gathering, and awareness training, we have always tried to recognize the key role of co-operation with the provinces and territories, which are the primary providers of health care. 
It is important to note that in a crucial way, we are actually already ahead of Bill C-356 when it comes to working with the provinces. At the federal, provincial, and territorial health ministers meeting in October of last year, Minister Ambrose was able to secure agreement from the provincial—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. I did not interrupt the parliamentary secretary the first time. This is the second time she has referred to the minister by her name. If she could avoid that, it would be appreciated.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I have been here in the chamber long enough to recognize that this should not be done.
The provincial ministers have begun planning a pan-Canadian dementia strategy. From a federal perspective, the initial focus of this collaboration will be on the coordination of research to advance the collective knowledge base on dementia. The provinces and territories will continue their own work on identifying best practices and on stakeholder engagement. An update on the strategy will be presented to Canada's health ministers for consideration and further direction at their next meeting.
This is truly important work. The crux of this bill is to require discussions with the provinces to set up a national strategy. Our government has already successfully negotiated with the provinces to begin working on exactly that. The work is under way, and we will continue to make progress.
The spirit and intent of this bill is also supported by current federal investments and activities on Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. Many of the specific elements proposed in Bill C-356 that are within the federal role are currently being addressed. Research is needed to learn more about what causes dementia and the most effective ways to prevent, identify, treat, and ultimately, by 2025, cure it.
Since 2006, the government has invested over $220 million in research related to dementia, including $37.8 million last year. Our economic action plan announced ongoing investments of $15 million for the Canadian Institute of Health Research, CIHR, for the creation of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging and other health research priorities. Launched in 2014, the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging is the national component of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research dementia research strategy. It is a prime example of how we are encouraging greater investment in dementia research and the accelerated discovery of treatments and solutions. Through the consortium, more than 300 researchers from across the country will forge ahead with their work to improve our understanding of dementia, how we can prevent it, and how we can improve the quality of life of Canadians living with dementia, and their caregivers.
Another significant piece of work is the national population health study of neurological conditions. In 2009, our government invested $15 million over four years in this study to better understand Alzheimer's disease and other conditions and their impact on Canadians and their families. Findings from the study were released in September 2014. This groundbreaking work fills gaps in information concerning the burden of neurological conditions, their impact on Canadians, risk factors, and the use of health care services. 
Research on dementia and other neurological conditions is also being funded through the Canada brain research fund. 
 However, research for the future is not enough. We are also working to improve the lives of Canadians living with this disease now. In September 2014, the minister announced our intention to work with the Alzheimer Society Canada to establish a new program called Dementia Friends, which will be launched this year. It is an exciting program, and I think it will make an enormous difference. It was originally launched in Japan and the U.K. It will provide education and training to help Canadians learn the facts about Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and how these diseases affect the people who live with them.
As members can see, we are making substantial investments to address the issue of dementia. While many are federal initiatives, there are also many examples of collaboration with the provinces and territories, not to mention the fantastic work being done at the international level. It is apparent that the federal government has addressed many of the themes in Bill C-356 and even some of the specific elements.
 As I mentioned earlier, the minister has already secured an agreement with the provinces and territories on beginning to plan for a pan-Canadian dementia strategy that would guide our collective efforts. As I said at the beginning, I think we can all agree that this bill is very well intentioned. We have been taking action in a number of the areas laid out in it. However, with the provinces having already agreed to begin work on a strategy, many of our actions have progressed beyond what is called for in the bill, making some areas redundant. 
There are also a number of technical issues with the bill. The Speaker has indicated that it would require a royal recommendation. As all members in the House know, those are extremely, if rarely, ever provided. In addition, some clauses in this bill needlessly infringe on provincial jurisdiction in areas such as health human resources and diagnostic capacity. From my understanding, conversations have not resolved all our concerns with these issues.
For these reasons and in order to respect the agreement the minister was able to secure in a co-operative fashion with the provinces, the government will not support the bill. Bringing in federal legislation to control discussions that have already happened in such a collaborative fashion is not respectful of the good work already being done.
 Our government remains committed to taking strong action that will improve the lives of Canadians living with dementia, but we will do so in a way that respects provincial jurisdiction and continues to work on a pan-Canadian strategy to which they have agreed.
With that in mind, I would also like to note that my friend and chair of the health committee, the member for Huron—Bruce, has recently introduced a motion calling on the government to take continued action on dementia. This motion is yet another sign of how seriously our government takes the issue, and I look forward to debate on that motion. We will have to wait for the debate to occur, but I know my colleague fully respects the role of the provinces when it comes to health care. Perhaps it would be an opportunity for Parliament to make some further progress on this issue.
I know we are talking about something that is incredibly important to Canadians. We are talking about something with which the international community, the federal government and the provinces are grappling. I know there was a lot of conversation back and forth, but my understanding is the unresolved issues were too much of a challenge in terms of continuing at this time.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-356, an act respecting a national strategy for dementia.
According to the World Health Organization, there are roughly 35.6 million around the world who are currently living with dementia. This number is expected to double by 2030 and more than triple by 2050.
 In 2011, 14.9% of Canadians aged 65 and older were living with cognitive impairment, including dementia. By 2031, this figure is expected to increase to a shocking 1.4 million people. Today we face the combined costs of dementia totalling $33 billion per year.
This is not something that Canadians can afford, both economically and socially, to continue to occur. We need to enact change by putting in place a national strategy for dementia.
The Liberal Party supports the need for a national plan to address Alzheimer's disease and all other forms of dementia. Canada today has almost as many diagnosed dementia patients as the United Kingdom does, at 847,000, despite a difference in population of 30 million. In B.C., more than 70,000 people have this disease, while another 15,000 people are diagnosed each year.
 Canada pledged in 2013 to find a cure or treatment for Alzheimer's by 2025. As one of the only G7 countries still without such a strategy, our time to do so is running out.
 The Alzheimer Society of Canada as well as the Canadian Association of Retired Persons and other related organizations are united in calling for stronger political leadership to battle this debilitating disease. They recognize society's need for our current government to support Canadians in their difficult battle against dementia, and to find a treatment for it.
Another associated organization, Baycrest Health Sciences and its' Rotman Research Institute (RRI), is also working to accelerate scientific research regarding dementia. This institute recognizes that a person's risk for dementia doubles every 5 years after age 65.
 Their strong focus on the relationship between brain health and aging helps them to understand that as fewer people live to see these older ages, the number of Canadians with dementia could be cut in half if its onset were to be delayed by just five years. With the implementation of Bill C-356, such research could be carried out with promise for viable results.
Unfortunately, however, federal leadership is required for any such action on a pan-Canadian dementia strategy to occur. Once again, the current government is not doing enough.
 In October 2014, Minister of Health announced she was in the “early stages” of discussions with the provinces to establish a national dementia strategy. The 2014 federal budget also promisingly committed new funding for research into age-related neurodegeneration. Sadly, this only represents a fraction of the resources truly necessary to even begin to focus on approaching this disease.
Alzheimer's disease puts enormous emotional stress on millions of families in Canada and costs our health care system billions of dollars every year. Delaying the onset of Alzheimer's by 2 years can save our Health Care system $219 billion over a 30 year period. A national strategy for dementia may be able to make an astounding difference in advancing research in order to work toward achieving this goal, which would diminish this enormous economic hardship and subsequently and, most important, improve the lives of affected Canadians.
 As recently published in the Toronto Star, another possible solution has been proposed by the Alzheimer Society. This organization is recommending that an arm's-length not-for-profit organization be funded through the Public Health Agency of Canada at a cost of $30 million over five years. It would be responsible for research coordination, training for health care providers, delivery of health care services and education, including how to recognize early signs of the disease that affects people in their 40s and 50s. Such a program may provide a possible approach to relieving such aforementioned pressures.
 In our last election platform, the Liberal Party of Canada laid out a clear, comprehensive strategy for tackling the issue of dementia. Along with directing attention towards economic issues, we focused on awareness, education and prevention to support families and combat the social stigmas of dementia.
The social implications of this disease are in equal need of many support services as related economic ramifications. Coping with the effects of caring for a loved one with dementia is exceptionally difficult. 
The Mental Health Commission of Canada recently issued a report of mental health indicators that showed caregivers are facing enormous emotional stress caring for elderly parents and sick children. Many women are leaving the paid workforce in order to care for a loved one, their mother, their mother-in-law, their aunt. There are so many stories that we all know. Some end up having to take a lower-paying job in order to be able to meet the needs of the loved one and family member.
It is therefore necessary that we disseminate proper knowledge and the best practices possible in order to foster improvements in the quality of treatment and support for patients and families coping with these brain disorders, as we also work to ensure their economic security.
I commend Mount Sinai Hospital and the Reitman family for funding a unit there that supports the families of those suffering from Alzheimer's in order for them to give the best possible care. It is sometimes so difficult and frustrating for families to have to provide care without really understanding the frustration and how normal it is to feel that way.
The bill would require the minister to initiate discussions with provincial counterparts within 30 days of its coming into force in order to achieve its objectives of developing a national plan with national objectives.
I do not believe there is any strategy that can just be a laundry list of things the government is already dabbling in, which seems to be what the government thinks is a strategy. The strategy has to be what, by when, and how, and actually be able to identify the partners necessary to make the strategy work. Such a process would help to establish a method of receiving input from affected Canadians and would continue to support greater research and implementation of related technology.
Bill C-356 would also work with the international community in improving clinical guidelines in order to produce the best available practices for care, support and prevention of dementia.
By investing in both research and prevention of Alzheimer's we can delay its onset for as long as possible so all Canadians can live their lives to the fullest potential. We need the research and practice-based evidence in order to determine what is the best possible support we can give to the families of those affected.
We must work together to support the bill and most importantly, bring necessary aid to those so desperately in need.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I must start by acknowledging the enormous amount of work that my college from Nickel Belt has done on such an important initiative. It has been three and a half years since this initiative first came forward. He has been all around the country. He has heard, not from statistics, but from real Canadians who are living with Alzheimer's and dementia and the tragedy that they entail, not just for the individuals, but for the caregivers. They are always forgotten in these discussions, and they must be acknowledged. I do so today.
I heard the parliamentary secretary stand in this place a moment ago to say that the government could not support this bill due to “technical issues”. This is why we have committees to which we send bills. It is for them to be discussed and for evidence to come forward, and to fix problems that may or may not exist with this initiative.
It is passing strange that two days ago, a motion from the member for Huron—Bruce, the chair of the health committee, was brought forward that would do virtually the same things that this bill would do, but, of course, it would not have the force of law.
Technical objections were suggested by the parliamentary secretary. She referenced, for example, the royal recommendation as somehow being a problem. It is clear that the modifications at committee could have addressed that problem. Moreover, the Conservatives have themselves given royal recommendation to a private member's bill. I speak specifically of Bill C-838. 
There is no technical problem that stands in the way of doing what so many Canadians want. There are some 750,000 of us who are living with this disease. We want a law, not a feel-good motion of no force and effect.
 The parliamentary secretary talked of the provinces and the strides that have been made to work together. She said that the government is already ahead of Bill C-356. 
We can work with the provinces. We can fix things in committee. That is what committees are for. That is how we fix legislation. We give a voice to Canadians, and we work on making the legislation better. To suggest that it must be thrown out, despite enormous effort in going through clause-by-clause with the government to try to do what all Canadians want, in the health field in particular, is not right.
She talks about how fantastic the work is at the international level. I agree there have been some strides made, although interestingly, Canada was not among the countries at the G8, now G7, that had a national dementia strategy, the pan-Canadian, if they want to call it that, dementia strategy. That is very upsetting. If they want to work with the provinces and work internationally, why do they not want to work with this side of the House in a non-partisan way to produce a law that Canadians so desperately want?
When I say “Canadians”, I should start with Dr. Chris Simpson of the Canadian Medical Association, with whom I had the pleasure to meet two days ago. He told me how much he looked forward to a bill of this sort. He said, “our acute care hospitals are overflowing with patients awaiting long term care placement and our long-term care facilities are understaffed...”
He suggests that the cost of looking after people in hospitals is enormous. I think my colleague from Nickel Belt made a suggestion that a health care bill, in today's terms, would be $33 billion, but by 2040, it would soar to $293 billion.
 People want a health care strategy. This has to be seen as part of a national aging strategy, which our party is trying to address. This would be part and parcel of a strategy to deal with aging. People need care at home and in the community instead of overflowing expensive hospital beds. It is more humane, and it would cost radically less to treat people better.
The concern about cost is only one part of the tragedy at the human level that my colleague has signalled needs to be addressed. I am told that over 75 petitions on this topic have been tabled here. I am told that over 300 municipalities have passed supporting resolutions. There is a pent-up demand for Parliament and government to show some leadership on this issue.
I respect the initiatives that have been made for research, which are fabulous, and I salute the government for them, but it is not just about finding a cure. This bill would provide leadership, with Ottawa working with the provinces, and it would also promote earlier diagnosis and intervention.
The bill would strengthen the integration of primary home and community care. It would enhance skills and training for the dementia workforce. It would recognize the needs of and improve the supports for caregivers. They are the ones I wish to address. The plight of caregivers, the millions of unpaid hours that are given for free by loved ones for loved ones, is staggering. They do not have enough economic support as people age in our society.
In my community of Victoria, I asked my office to tell me what their experience was in dealing with people living with dementia. They said that there are so many people in a community like Victoria who are living with the disease. I think everyone in the House knows someone who is living with or is connected to someone living with the disease. 
There have been so many cutbacks in government agencies in my community, my staff informed me, that people with dementia are unable to access services the way they did before. They need to have face-to-face contact. They are often unable to deal with the processes and roadblocks that have been put in the way as we cut services in the CRA, as we are now about to get rid of postal home delivery, and as we deal with no immigration office in our community.
In our community, people are already suffering from cutbacks. That is having a disproportionate impact on people living with this terrible disease. The boomer generation, of which I am a part, is going to be living with the disease in greater numbers as we go forward. It will be something like 1.4 million people in the next few years. It will increase dramatically. 
It is not just a seniors issue, as my colleague from Nickel Belt so passionately demonstrated. It is people he gave examples of, people here in Ottawa who are living with early onset at a much earlier age. He did an excellent job in putting a human face on this crisis we are facing.
Apparently a Nanos survey done recently said that 83% of Canadians believe that Canada needs a national dementia plan. We have had great success with these kinds of plans, such as the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The Canadian Medical Association make reference to its excellent work as an example of what could be done here if the government was willing to work with us to achieve that result.
The former executive director of the Alzheimer's Society of Sudbury, Patricia Montpetit, said this:
 It's so pressing that a national strategy be adopted by the government so they don't suddenly wake up one day and say we're overwhelmed with the demands of care. 
That is something we all have reason to fear. 
I like the expression Dr. Frank Molnar, a professor at the University of Ottawa, uses in describing Alzheimer disease. He calls it “the godfather of all chronic diseases”. 
With the gray tsunami, with the aging Canadian population, we are facing a crisis if we do not get our hands around this problem. I respect that the provinces are working now with the federal government to begin this dialogue. We need to go much, much further. We need a strategy that takes into account the skyrocketing economic costs, the social costs, and as I continue to say, the costs for caregivers, because the pressure on family caregivers is only mounting. 
I have a statistic here that is quite remarkable. In 2011, family caregivers spent 444 million unpaid hours per year looking after someone with dementia. That represents $11 billion in lost income and 228,000 lost full-time equivalent employees in the workforce. By 2040, they will be devoting a staggering 1.2 billion unpaid hours per year to this initiative. 
We have had strategies and partnerships to deal with other devastating diseases, like cancer and heart disease. Why can we not work together to deal with one that we all know is going to be something in the future that will occupy all of us in the country? As the Canadian Medical Association says, it is time to roll up our sleeves and face the epidemic head on. 
It is time for the government to work with parties on both sides of the aisle on a pan-Canadian strategy. It is time to put aside partisan differences. Coming up with an alternative motion two days before this debate makes us feel good, but it does not allow a forum for Canadians to come and testify to this tragedy and to provide a law with teeth that would actually do something to address this crisis. 
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Bill C-356, an act respecting a national strategy for dementia. I thank the member, my friend from Nickel Belt, very much for bringing this bill forward. 
It is unfortunate that he is a little late in the cycle, because the government has been very active on this file in the last couple of years. However, I want to commend him for doing it and say that he has performed a very useful service for people with dementia by bringing the public's attention to this issue, as he has managed to do through this private member's bill. I commend him for that.
Bill C-356 states that research remains the key to finding a cure and that early diagnosis and support for treatment can lead to positive health outcomes for persons with any form of dementia. In turn, this can have a positive impact on the family and friends who provide care for people affected by dementia. 
I could not agree more, and our government could not agree more. In fact, Canada's commitments, both domestically and internationally, have led to our being recognized as a global leader in dementia research. 
The member mentioned some of these recent commitments in his speech. The commitments are driven by the fact that between 6% and 15% of Canadians over 65 currently suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. As our population ages, the number of Canadians with dementia is expected to double by 2031. This will have great impact on the families and caregivers of Canadians living with this disease. 
To accelerate research efforts, the government is working in close collaboration with the provinces and territories, external organizations, universities, researchers, international experts, and patients and their families to improve our understanding of these conditions in order to help those affected and their families and caregivers. 
As an example of global collaboration in this area, the Minister of Health represented Canada at the world's first global summit on dementia in London. This global meeting resulted in G8 ministers committing to work toward a cure for dementia by 2025, an extremely laudable goal, and I pray that they meet that goal.
Canada is upholding these promises through various international and domestic research initiatives that will bring together a variety of stakeholders toward meeting these important goals. For example, in September of 2014, nearly 200 industry leaders, academics, and policy-makers from across Canada and around the world met in Ottawa for a global dementia legacy event. This event was co-hosted by Canada and France as a follow-up to the global summit. 
The Ottawa legacy event focused on finding ways to support and develop joint public-private international approaches to dementia research. A report of the discussions was presented to G7 dementia leaders. It will contribute to the development of a global action framework that aims to promote international collaboration and share ideas, data, platforms, and discoveries related to dementia. 
At the global legacy event, the health minister released the coordinated Government of Canada approach to address dementia in the national dementia research and prevention plan publication. The plan outlines the government's investments, partnerships, and key initiatives related to dementia research and prevention. The research portion of the plan consists of activities that fall under the dementia research strategy led by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or the CIHR. 
I am not one who is fond of acronyms, but, quite frankly, I am going to have to use them in this speech or I simply will not be able to cover the material I would like to cover.
This strategy supports research on the latest preventive, diagnostic, and treatment approaches to Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. It consists of an international and a national component. Together, these two components work toward three common goals related to primary prevention, secondary prevention, and quality of life.
Our government, through CIHR, has increased its investments in dementia research by over 67% since we took office in 2006 for a total of $220 million. Last year alone, CIHR supported close to 400 research projects related to dementia, representing a federal investment of almost $38 million. Most of this research is funded under the CIHR dementia research strategy.
In September 2014, the Minister of Health launched the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging, or the CCNA. The CCNA is the national component of the CIHR dementia research strategy. It is Canada's premier research hub for all aspects of research involving neurodegenerative diseases that affect cognition in aging, including dementia. It represents a $22.6-million federal investment and is supported by an additional $9.9 million for important external public and private partners.
The CCNA brings together the very best researchers in Canada to achieve a unified objective. Together, they are working toward addressing the challenges posed by neurodegenerative diseases so that they can stimulate Canada's innovation, increase our competitiveness and lead us to solutions faster.
Currently, the CCNA is composed of over 300 researchers and 13 partners and stakeholders, all of whom are working to tackle dementia by understanding the root causes and how it progresses. 
The CCNA is also integrating the perspectives of research users, policy-makers, industries and of course patients and their families to identify targeted achievable challenges that can be delivered in relatively short order. For example, CCNA researcher Dr. Sylvie Belleville brings expertise in recognizing the early signs of Alzheimer's disease. Her approach is to use a simple test of memory, attention and perception to identify those with Alzheimer's disease and ideally, slow the rate of damage to the brain.
Another CCNA researcher, Dr. Sandra Black, is interested in determining the causes and progression of dementia. Her team's approach focuses on taking pictures of the brain to see how dementia physically affects it over time. This research has already revealed important information about the connection between cardiovascular health and dementia.
CCNA is also proud to have on board Dr. Debra Morgan from the University of Saskatchewan. Her team designed a rural and remote memory clinic in Saskatoon, a one-stop shop for people with dementia and their families to get tested, treated and talk with dementia experts. This clinic reduces stress, difficulty and cost of travelling to access multiple services.
Using the new clinic model, the team has drastically decreased the time required to provide diagnosis and treatment, doing in a single day what could ordinarily take more than a year. To families and caregivers, this makes a big difference, as of course it does to the individual affected.
As is called for in the bill, research is already including populations at high risk of dementia, those less likely to receive care and more likely to be affected by its associated burden, such as women and aboriginal populations.
I once again want to commend the member for bringing forth this private member's bill. A lot of the benefit of private members' bills can be the attention they bring to issues. I want to thank my friend from Nickel Belt for bringing much needed attention to the issue and I think adding to what the government is doing in this area already. I wish him all the best in continuing with these efforts. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard will have three minutes today.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that all of the parties are showing so much compassion today. Who has not had a family member, friend or colleague with dementia?
I thank my colleague for moving this motion in the House regarding an issue that affects us all in some way. This bill proposes that we work on a national strategy. It is not just a matter of voting on a national awareness day. We also need to provide assistance and implement the necessary measures to address the increase in dementia in Canada and in many other countries. This national strategy would increase funding for research into all aspects of dementia and promote earlier diagnosis and intervention.
 The number of Canadians with Alzheimer's disease and other types of dementia now stands at 747,000, and that number will double to 1.4 million by 2031. Now is the time to take action. Seniors are not the only ones affected. About 15% of all those suffering from this disease are under 60. No one is immune.
Of course, it is impossible to think about people with this illness without thinking about their family caregivers. These people, these children, these spouses are worried about their loved one's present and future. They want to give their best, but they deserve and sometimes need a break and some support.
Too often, governments react at the last minute and try to implement piecemeal measures to respond to serious situations. We have seen that happen in a number of cases, but I do not want to single anyone out because this is not a partisan debate. I would simply like to remind members that the aging population and the rising tide of dementia and Alzheimer's, as the Alzheimer Society of Canada has described it, are things that we can see coming.
With all of the experts, the workers in the field and the intelligent people we have in the House of Commons and in this country, we should be able to work together and pass legislation that focuses on prevention and on helping those who are in this situation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 23, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)