2015-05-01

Government Orders
Citizen Voting Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 3, consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the second reading of Bill C-50, the citizen voting act.
Bill C-50 proposes important reforms to Canada's election act. These reforms would reinforce the integrity of a special ballot voting system while at the same time showing fairness for resident and non-resident voters alike.
 In doing so, the citizen voting act would follow in the footsteps of the Fair Elections Act. In particular, Bill C-50 would ensure fairness by providing that non-resident voting procedures are consistent with the procedures for resident voters that were brought in with the Fair Elections Act. 
Among these key provision, the citizen voting act would require that electors applying for a special ballot must include within their application for registration proof of identity and residence, and, if they apply from outside Canada, proof of Canadian citizenship. Electors who are resident outside of Canada would only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided within Canada.
In the debate thus far, some concerns have been raised about the potential negative impacts that could arise as a result of the new identification requirements for non-resident voters. I would like to demonstrate that these concerns are unfounded. Accordingly, I will focus my comments today on the voter identification requirements in the Canada Elections Act and what is proposed in Bill C-50 for special ballot voters.
Before addressing any specific concerns, I think it is worthwhile to again briefly review the voter identification requirements in Bill C-50. The voter identification provisions would require that electors voting by special ballot, non-residents and residents, must include within their application for a special ballot proof of identity and residence, similar to that set out in the Fair Elections Act. Further, Canadians living abroad would be required to prove the place of residence in the riding in which they would be voting, using the same documentation that voters living within Canada must also provide. The same general identification scheme that was established in the Fair Elections Act would apply to applicants wishing to vote by special ballot.
Under the first option, a voter may provide one piece of government-issued identification with the voter's photo, name, and address. An example would be a driver's licence or a provincial or territorial ID card. Under the second option, a voter may show two pieces of ID authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with the voter's name, and one with the voter's name and their address. An example would be a health card and a phone bill, or a debit card and a bank statement. Under the third option, a voter would provide two pieces of ID with the voter's name, and an oath or declaration of residence that is attested to by a properly identified voter from the same riding. 
For non-residents, the attestation process would enable them to provide proof of their last residence in Canada by means of an oath or written declaration. A person providing the attestation could be either a resident of Canada or another non-resident who is qualified to vote in the same electoral district as the person applying for the special ballot. In either case, both the applicant and the person attesting for their residence would have to provide either an oath or a written declaration. An oath would have to be administered by a qualified official, either in Canada or abroad. On the other hand, a written declaration could be completed by the applicant abroad, and it would not require that an official be present in order to administer it. 
To sum up, the provisions of Bill C-50 would ensure that Canadians living abroad follow the same rules as those living in Canada. It is only fair that non-resident Canadians be required to comply with the same rules that are followed by other Canadian voters. 
I would now like to address the concern that has been raised about potentially disenfranchising voters as a result of the new identification rules set out in Bill C-50. The amendments contained in Bill C-50 would simply ensure that the same clear identification rules that apply to voting in person would apply to voting by special ballot.
I understand that there are now 47 approved identification documents listed on the Elections Canada website, some of which were added recently. The website lists 28 pieces of approved identification providing a voter's name, including, to name a few, a health card, a Canadian passport, a birth certificate, an Indian status card, a Veteran's Affairs health card, a student identity card, and an identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility.
The list of pieces of identification providing both name and address currently includes 19 items. Examples on that list are a utility bill; a bank statement; a credit card statement; a residential lease or sublease; an income tax assessment; a letter from a public curator, public guardian, or a public trustee; a letter of confirmation of residence from a first nations band, reserve, or Inuit local authority; a letter of confirmation of residence from one of several designated establishments, including a student residence, a seniors residence, a long-term care facility, a homeless shelter, or a soup kitchen, and the list goes on. This demonstrates the sheer number of pieces of identification that may be used as voter identification, and the breadth of options which are captured by this list. The Chief Electoral Officer is always at liberty to authorize further pieces of identification for the purpose of voting as he sees fit.
I recall an empirical study, conducted by Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University last year, in which he examined the numbers and types of identification that are accessible by Canadians. He concluded that there are identity cards well in excess of 200 million for 18 million voters, and that excluded millions of monthly utility bills. Apart from these sheer numbers, the list that has been approved demonstrates that a lack of identification should not be a barrier to voting in Canada. None of these would change because of the provisions of the citizen voting act.
To conclude, the citizen voting act is designed to reinforce the integrity and fairness of the electoral system for all voters, resident and non-resident voters alike. The new measures will help ensure that non-resident voters have a direct connection to Canada and are subject to similar voter identification rules that all other voters must also follow.
The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. It embodies a responsibility and duty on all of us to familiarize ourselves with the voting process. In that spirit, I encourage all Canadians to become familiar with the identification rules and to ensure that they have the proper ID to vote, whether at the polling station or through a special ballot. It is incumbent upon all of us to support integrity measures aimed at ensuring that ballots are legitimately cast by eligible voters.
Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this new way of doing things will cause people a lot of problems. 
Having worked at polling stations myself, I know that lots of seniors, among others, come with just their voter card. They do not bring anything else. They are asked to go get some ID because their home is usually right in the same building, and they go get a bill or something. However, their health insurance card does not have a photo. They need photo ID, and many of those people do not have any. They do not drive, so they no longer have a driver's licence.
How can the government justify excluding those thousands of people from voting in the next election?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, as we know, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we have integrity within our democratic system. During an election, we must ensure that people are rightfully and dutifully casting a ballot, and that they have the integrity to cast that ballot in a fair and democratic manner. That means that Canadians in Canada who come to vote must be able to prove their residence and identity. That is the very fabric of a democratic system. Literally millions of Canadians have voted in subsequent elections, both provincially and federally, and have produced the appropriate ID to do so. 
We continue to expand the list of authorized identification so that seniors, young people, middle-income Canadians, low-income Canadians, and Canadians from all walks of life, are able to cast their ballot. To do so, they must be able to demonstrate that they are rightfully on the voters list and live in the electoral district where they are casting their ballot. That is the integrity of the system.
A number of lists and the flexibility have been provided by the Fair Elections Act, and now, through Bill C-50, we will ensure we have an equal and level playing field for Canadians voting in Canada and Canadians voting abroad. We must ensure that there is integrity in both systems, domestically and internationally.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. One of the fundamentals is that the international voters list has been eliminated, which was something that was updated on an ongoing basis. It served the international community well for Canadians living abroad. I wonder if he could give the logic as to why that particular item was eliminated. To get rid of it seems to be a solution looking for a problem that did not exist. 
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the process being put in place is to ensure that people who are voting abroad through a special ballot will have their vote count in the electoral district where they last resided in Canada. That requires some proof of when they actually emigrated to another country to reside in a different place internationally.
By providing identification which shows their previous address, that makes sure that their ballot and vote is being counted in the right electoral district. This stops anyone from trying to game the system by collecting a lot of international votes from many citizens abroad and putting them all in one single or a very few electoral districts.
This way, if an individual left a certain electoral district in Canada, went abroad and cast a ballot, which they are rightfully able to do, it will count in the same electoral district where they used to reside.
Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite refers to the notion that people will somehow have an ability to change the electoral district from which they came. I have two questions.
One, does he have any evidence that this is actually happening anywhere in the world? Two, he stated in his speech that the Chief Electoral Officer would have the discretion to determine what pieces of identification would be necessary, and yet the bill does the exact opposite; it limits the type of information that the Chief Electoral Officer can use to determine someone's identity. How is it that he can say on the one hand that we are giving him discretion, but on the other hand the bill does something completely opposite?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, it is an extensive list of identification that can be used by Canadians, both domestically and internationally, to make sure they can prove who they are and where they live, or where they used to live when it concerns citizens abroad, so that their vote will be counted in the electoral district where it rightfully deserves to be counted.
In addition to the extensive amounts of different identification, attestations, oaths, and also declarations that can be written and sent in, the Chief Electoral Officer does have the flexibility to add other pieces of identification he sees as necessary to ensure that all Canadians, both domestic and abroad, would have the ability to vote in the election. 
We also need to have integrity in the system. As I mentioned, the way that the rules are now, there is the ability for people who are casting their votes internationally through a special ballot to name the district where that vote should count. That would open up the opportunity for an abuse of the system. That is a loophole that this legislation seeks to close.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He was a long-time member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The way our government handles various bills that amend the Canada Elections Act is problematic. Most of the problems with this particular bill boil down to the same things we have seen in other bills. The changes the Conservatives make are never motivated by anything other than their own interests. In this particular case, the court was very clear. I can go into more detail in a little while, but the point is that we have no idea what the real reasons driving these changes are, other than the fact that the Conservatives are not really interested in increasing voter turnout and helping people cast their vote. They are more interested in making the process as complicated as possible.
When this bill goes to committee, which will probably be soon, does the member think the government will be open to considering the amendments proposed by the opposition and amending parts of the bill that need amending?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, committees are masters of their own destiny, so when the report goes to committee and comes back to the House, we will have to see what the committee suggests and recommends.
It is incumbent on the Government of Canada, and all Canadians, to ensure we have integrity within our democratic system of elections. The way the legislation is currently worded, it does open up loopholes where people could attempt to game the system, and we are closing that loophole to stop that potential. 
I was asked what the intent of the government is and why we are doing this. We are doing these changes to make sure that all Canadians have the right and ability to cast a democratic ballot in all federal elections, whether they reside within Canada or they currently reside outside of Canada. 
We also have to ensure the integrity of that vote. That is the very basis of our democratic system. That makes sure that the elections can be reflected as being democratic, fair, and also having the integrity that all Canadians deserve.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is fairly straightforward. Does the member believe that the government has a responsibility to work with other political entities, particularly opposition parties, on the best manner in which to proceed in making changes to election laws?
Election laws are one of the fundamental issues we deal with in terms of our democratic principles. Would he not agree that there is an obligation for governments to work with opposition parties when they want to change institutions or things like our election laws?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, all pieces of legislation take input from anyone in the House of Commons. Legislation is brought forward, either by the government or by private members in this institution. If it is passed by the House of Commons, it goes to committee, where all recognized parties have the ability to put forward amendments that can be debated there. When it returns to the House, it is once again open to debate by all members of the House.
 There is a set process for legislation. It is a long and gruelling process to make laws in Canada, as we all know in the House of Commons and in the other place.
However, to say that there are is no option or opportunity for opposition members to comment on legislation is false. They have every opportunity in the House, in the Senate, and at committee to comment on and make recommendations and possible amendments to legislation.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I find it very unfortunate that this is the 95th time the Conservatives have imposed a time allocation motion. I think it is positively shameful that in our democracy, in 2015, the Conservatives will not let us have an honest discussion in the House of Commons on something like closure motions and time allocation motions.
Many of the solutions proposed could help us create a more vibrant democracy. The Conservatives have always rejected the solution proposed by the NDP to have limits on when time allocation motions can be used. I find that unfortunate. Ironically, when the Liberals imposed too many time allocation motions, the Conservatives were the first to denounce it, saying how wrong it was and how limiting debate was an affront to democracy.
Now the Conservatives have set a new record. I think there is an explanation for this. The Conservatives have realized that this is no longer making headlines. Early on, when they began moving closure and time allocation motions, that got a reaction out of people. People wondered why the Conservatives were doing that, and they were not happy about it. Now, 95 time allocation motions later, people are sick of it. There is a certain point where people stop talking about it, because it becomes redundant and there is nothing more to say on the matter. Saying that the Conservatives are attacking our democracy elicits responses like “Yes, but that is the way it is and the way it has always been”. This is nothing new, and people eventually ignore the situation. However, the reality is that we are once again faced with closure on debate. I truly believe that the Conservatives must have some sort of goal to move 100 time allocation motions before the end of the 41st Parliament. It is really unfortunate, but that is just the way it is.
Today I will be sharing my thoughts on Bill C-50. It is yet another bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. This time the amendment has to do with voting from abroad.
Bill C-50 is the solution the Conservative government is proposing in response to the legal problem caused by the Ontario Superior Court ruling in Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada.
I would like to take a bit of time to go over the events that brought us here in order to help those watching at home who may not have all the facts they need to properly understand our discussion today.
Summing things up like that will make it easier for me to explain why I refuse to support this bill. At the same time, I will have the opportunity to share with my hon. colleagues a few suggestions for improving this bill.
First, as I was saying, the impetus for introducing this bill last December was the decision by Justice Michael Penny of the Ontario Superior Court to nullify a part of the Canada Elections Act, specifically paragraph 11(d) regarding certain restrictions on voting applicable to Canadians living abroad.
Up until that verdict was handed down a year ago tomorrow, Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years would lose their right to vote. Justice Penny held that this loss of the right to vote violated a constitutional right guaranteed by section 3 of the charter, which states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”
This prescribed time limit was contrary to the spirit of the charter because it could not be justified under section 1, which guarantees the right to vote in a free and democratic society. Justice Penny further held that voting is an inalienable right under the charter. That is what is at the heart of the discussion we are having today, and it is this key point that informs my entire understanding of the problem.
We must say it over and over again: every Canadian citizen has the sovereign right to cast a ballot during an election. It is simple. However, this statement has two logical consequences. First, anyone who would attempt to hinder or prevent a Canadian citizen from voting is guilty of very serious wrongdoing. Furthermore, and this is the impetus for the bill, as a moral entity, Canada must do everything in its power to ensure that its citizens can exercise their right to vote during an election. In other words, the state administration must adjust to its citizens and not the opposite. Best efforts must be made to facilitate, encourage and honour the citizens' democratic exercise.
This view of the right to vote that I just explained will be upheld by all the courts in the land, no matter what happens.
 I do not believe that I am mistaken when I say that, in addition to the courts, the people themselves will confirm this interpretation of our constitutional rights and defend it. It would seem that the only person who has not understood this is the Minister for Democratic Reform. However, I am not here to argue with and insult the government. I would like all of us to work together to find a solution to this problem.
A consideration related to what I said earlier should be addressed here. We agree that the right to vote is an inalienable constitutional guarantee. The right to vote is also a civil responsibility. A citizen has the right and the duty to vote. However, he or she does not have an obligation to vote. Refusing to exercise one's democratic right is, in my humble opinion, also guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because abstaining from voting or spoiling one's vote constitutes a valid democratic gesture. A vote does not have any qualitative aspect. A spoiled ballot is still a ballot. I am dwelling on these details, these facts, because I want to be clear and I want to properly identify the essential nature of the right to vote. I would like my colleagues to correct me if they believe that my definitions are incorrect.
I would like to come back to the judge's verdict. This Superior Court decision took effect immediately and struck down the five-year limit set out in paragraph 11(d). After all—and I am asking those who are listening this question—why five years? What was the rationale for that timeframe? Why not 6, 10 or 20 years? I am sure that some thought went into that decision when the Canada Elections Act was reviewed in the 1990s, but this number still seems rather random to me. I am not sure when this provision was added to the Canada Elections Act, but perhaps migration was less common or more permanent at that time. When a person left for more than five years, it was only logical to assume that they were never coming back. After all, international travel was not always as easy and common as it is now.
I think that this is one of the shortcomings of the decision to quantify the loss of the right to vote at five years, a flaw that remains in the bill despite the fact that the bill is supposed to fix it. Everything I am about to say now should be taken with a grain of salt. I am going to try to describe the perception that Canadians have of themselves when they take shortcuts. In their minds, Canadians are not the sort of people who tend to emigrate. People leave for a year or two, but then they come back. They may go to the United States or Great Britain to go to school, or they may move for a diplomatic post or because they are in the military and they are stationed abroad. Otherwise, being an expat is not very serious and is more an act of social rebellion than anything else. That is basically the stereotype we have about ourselves. However, it is quite close to the reality of many Canadians. Some Canadians do a lot of travelling. Many of them have dual citizenship and share their time between two countries. These people follow Canadian politics, talk about Canada in their second country and keep up with current events in Canada. These people are full citizens and they have the same constitutional guarantee to the right to vote as every other Canadian.
This was confirmed by Justice Penny in his ruling. If a rose is a rose is a rose, then a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. No matter where a Canadian may be—even on Mars—they have a right to vote. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer quickly responded to this Ontario Superior Court ruling, and it announced that it would no longer apply the parts of the Canada Elections Act that had been invalidated. In theory, the right to vote was thus expanded to a pool of about 1.5 million newly enfranchised voters. This was a historic decision. An entire group of people had once again been vested with the most fundamental right in our Constitution. It was anachronistic, but still exciting. Just last week we celebrated the anniversary of women obtaining the right to vote in Quebec. Need I remind members that aboriginal people just obtained the right to vote in their own country in 1960?
The five-year period set out in the Canada Elections Act was a remnant of an bygone era, and this ruling appears to have completely eliminated this exclusion. 
Although this speech will soon take a more negative tone, I am very happy that the last restriction on enfranchisement in Canada has been eliminated.
With respect to selective inclusion, I would like to share a quote from David Smith of the University of Saskatchewan: 
 Voting is the hallmark of citizenship, both symbolically and practically.... 
 ....at different times, the House of Commons admitted and the House of Commons excluded, but in each instance, the House of Commons defined Canada. 
The value of the right to vote as a guarantee of the legitimacy of this House demands absolute respect on our part.
However, this decision creates a big problem. These 1.5 million citizens who will now be able to exercise their right to vote will be added to the approximately 2.8 million other expats who were already eligible to vote.
Electoral logistics need to be properly set up so that these millions of people can vote. After all, as I said, the state is responsible for facilitating the process and collecting ballots everywhere in Canada.
This is where things get a little less fun because we are getting right into the frustrating world of political calculation.
Let us start with the good ideas and the brilliant initiatives. In February, my colleague from Halifax introduced Bill C-575, which presaged Justice Penny's decision and attempted to ensure that absolutely all Canadian citizens residing abroad would have the right to vote. 
The thinking behind Bill C-575 is self-evident. In the interconnected and instantaneous world of globalization, it a good thing for Canadians to live and work around the world. The House must take immediate action to confirm these citizens' right to vote.
I would imagine that everyone agrees with the member for Halifax's ideas on this, but of course, such a historic and generous initiative from the opposition could not be tolerated, much less endorsed, by the government. The Conservatives would rather die than take the lead and accept a perfectly acceptable opposition proposal.
Hubert Aquin wrote:
 Political partisanship is a means of action, not a mode of thinking. 
A year and a half later, the Conservatives are finally taking action. Bill C-50 is the Conservative proposal for dealing with the consequences of Justice Penny's ruling. 
However, the minister's response goes much further. In response to a clear legal decision regarding an even clearer problem, we have a vague proposal that is like a reflection dimly seen in a mirror, as St. Paul put it.
When you take a closer look at the proposals in Bill C-50, it becomes very clear very quickly that this bill is not about empowering citizens.
This bill accepts the basic premise that Canadians abroad have the right to vote, but it does so in a backwards way. Expanding the constitutional right that is the very essence of the bill and should be showcased does not actually appear in the bill and can only be read between the lines. It is an odd masterpiece of inversion, like a photographic negative.
In his speech introducing the bill, the minister showed no signs of excitement. This bill is not about the right to vote, nor is it about righting a historical wrong, far from it. Rather, it is about tyring to combat electoral fraud.
The minister said, and I quote:
 The citizen voting act has three principal objectives: the first is to help prevent non-citizens from voting in federal elections; the second is to require voters living abroad to provide proof of identity, past residence, and citizenship; the third is to create one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country. 
The main focus of the bill is the fear of these so-called collateral misdeeds, which are presented as going hand in hand with the privilege that the government is taking such great risk to provide to Canadians living abroad. 
From the outset, the government makes it clear that there is the risk of serious abuses, which are listed and may be impossible to prevent. The government's message is that it is full of goodwill, but the electorate abroad is asking for the impossible and, accordingly, the privilege to vote will come with very strict measures. 
It is as though the government were saying that it was giving us the right, but in order to exercise that right, we would have to jump backwards through rings of fire in a hoop skirt. We might go so far as to say that the government is completely disregarding Justice Penny's ruling and not really giving Canadians who live abroad for more than five years the right to vote.
The government did not welcome the decision with great enthusiasm and appealed the Frank ruling. Let us not forget that it also tried to impose a moratorium on the coming into force of the ruling. Clearly, the Conservatives were hoping the problem would go away.
Nonetheless, as I said earlier, no court in this country can justify restricting a Canadian citizen's right to vote. This is the new reality, and we must implement the necessary means to ensure that everything works as it should.
In my naivety, I thought this democratic progress would be heralded for what it says about the maturity of our country. However, I again forgot that I was living in one reality whereas the Conservatives were living in a world of Stalinist paranoia where having a passport is a betrayal. 
Under the guise of harmonizing the procedure—creating one set of rules, according to the minister—the Conservatives are turning what they consider to be a reversal of legal fortune into a win. Not only are they not really giving the right to vote to Canadian citizens who live abroad for more than five years, but they are also taking it away from the other 2.8 million Canadians, with a few exceptions, such as people in diplomatic postings and members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
As my colleague from Toronto—Danforth wrote in an article published in the National Post  on February 3:
 In fact, Bill C-50 uses the court’s rights-expanding ruling as an excuse to actually undermine the voting rights of all Canadians abroad, regardless of how long they have resided outside of Canada. It does this by generating delays that could easily prevent voting in time for election day and that creates disincentives for voting by making it unreasonably difficult. 
This is what Bill C-50 is proposing to do: Canadian citizens living abroad who want to exercise their right to vote during an election will have to prove two things. First, they will have to provide proof of citizenship, which goes without saying. Second, they will have to provide proof of address for the place where they last resided before leaving Canada.
To better understand all that, we can propose a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that in 2011, I decided not to stand as a candidate in the federal election, and I decided instead to live happily somewhere abroad. Had I done that, I would have remained the same citizen I was, with less contact with the political world than I have now, a normal citizen with concerns other than the legislative changes debated in the House of Commons. Furthermore, being abroad, I would work regularly to maintain my ties to Canada. I would make an effort to consult the Canadian media and keep abreast of what is happening.
Say I want to vote in the October 2015 election. I am sure that, if I have to go through a whole process to be able to vote, it is better to get started earlier rather than later, so I go online to see what that process involves. If I search for “voting from abroad, Canada”, the first hit takes me to a Government of Canada website. On that website, it says:
 If you live abroad, you may apply to be added to the International Register of Electors and vote by special mail-in ballot in future federal elections at any time. 
That is no longer true because of Bill C-50. It goes on to say:
 To apply, complete an Application for registration and special ballot for Canadian citizens residing outside Canada, available online through Elections Canada, in person at any Canadian government office abroad, or by calling Elections Canada... 
 Send your completed application and copies of your supporting documents to Elections Canada in Ottawa. Once your completed application has been approved, your name will be added to the International Register of Electors. When a federal election, by-election or referendum is called, Elections Canada mails a special ballot voting kit to all eligible electors whose names appear in the International Register. 
In order to remove inaccurate information from the register—according to the government, there are 40,000 non-Canadians on the list—voters who are living abroad are going to be asked to reconfirm their place of residence.
Canadians living abroad generally believe that they will be able to just pick a riding in which to vote, but in reality that is not how it works. Canadians who are living abroad and who have not lived in Canada for a number of years sometimes have difficulty obtaining tangible evidence that they lived at their last place of residence before moving abroad.
Seeing this measure in the bill gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of the discussions that we had about Bill C-23 last year. It is very simple. Under the guise of improving the accuracy of voter identification and combatting election fraud, the Conservatives are actually making the rules as complicated and as difficult to follow as possible. In a way, they are doing as much as they possibly can to interfere with Canadians' right to vote. As I said, it gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of Bill C-23.
I do not need to remind the House about all the bad provisions that were passed by the Conservative government in its reform of the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-23. There were so many measures aimed at simply lowering voter turnout, such as no longer allowing the voter information card or vouching as a means of identification, that we can no longer trust this government when it tells us that it is doing good things or that it wants to help Canadians; we know that the underlying philosophy of undermining Canadians' right to vote as much as possible is always there.
That is why I obviously cannot support Bill C-50. We will make a number of suggestions to amend and improve this bill. With Bill C-23, we barely had enough time to debate half of the amendments proposed by the NDP. 
I hope that this time we will be allowed to carefully study this bill for real in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the government will be open to improving it as much as possible.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her great speech. It was a good summary and many of the aspects in her speech were well done, because these are the problems we are experiencing. I even had a slight chuckle over the Stalinist reference as well. However, I would like to talk about the issue of the bill coming into force.
We have an election coming very soon and we have heard from Elections Canada officials that they are not quite sure if they are going to be ready for this in addition to the Bill C-23 changes that took place.
Would the member like to comment on that ?
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his question. He has been very involved with us on this issue and he spent a lot of time studying Bill C-23 with us. When we were studying the bill in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he proposed a number of amendments that ultimately could not be debated.
 He asked an excellent question. We knew that was a problem with Bill C-23. The Chief Electoral Officer told us many times that these were massive changes.
There are the changes from Bill C-23, the changes to electoral boundaries, the addition of 30 new members to Parliament and some very complicated voting restrictions for millions of Canadians living abroad. In addition to all of that, Elections Canada is not receiving any kind of additional assistance to implement all these measures. 
Indeed, the fact that the government is introducing bills to amend the Canada Elections Act less than six months before an election causes major logistical problems. I think we will notice an extreme drop in voter turnout as a result of these rules.
This is a serious issue that we need to look at. I hope that this will come up in committee and that we will be able to discuss it in depth.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent's speech. I would like to ask her two questions. I hope that she will have time to answer both of them.
 First, can she share her thoughts on the fact that Canada has not recognized extraterritorial constituencies since 2008? Canada forbids other countries from conducting elections in embassies and consulates even though they are territories that are supposed to be independent. 
Second, it looks like this bill would end up erasing the names of the voters currently on the international register of electors. Another register, an ad hoc register, would be created. Voters will have a relatively short period of time to get their names on the list of voters once the writ is dropped. 
This is a double standard. Some Canadian citizens will have rights and will not have to re-register for every election because they live in Canada, but others, who live abroad, will have to re-register for the same list they have been on for years. 
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for those two excellent questions.
This is a real problem for voters living in Canada who are citizens of other countries. I do not know whether my colleague is aware of this, but it would seem that this government has double standards.
The government systematically refuses to allow citizens of certain countries to vote, while in the case of other countries, it acts as if this does not happen. We get the impression that there are certain countries it would not dare oppose and others that it wants to intimidate. This is very odd behaviour, given that it is common practice in many countries to have members that represent their diaspora. The government's behaviour is very odd.
As for my colleague's second question, this is one of the biggest problems with this bill. It would be quite simple to have an ongoing registry that people could add their names to when they move abroad or when their situation changes. They could renew their registration at any time, not just during an election period.
We know that Elections Canada is completely overwhelmed during election periods. What is more, voters are often asked to provide documents that can be quite difficult to obtain in less than two or three weeks. This measure will only hurt the right to vote. 
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that has come to light. If someone living in Abu Dhabi or somewhere in China wants to vote, in the process by which the list is created, as my colleague from the NDP pointed out, the list is created when the writ is dropped and time is of the essence. The minister said that it can be scanned and sent in that way, but in many places around the world, that type of technology just does not exist. 
I would ask the member to comment on that.
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, it is actually a major problem because basically, access to different information or resources is not the same around the world, and as my colleague mentioned, that is especially true in China.
If someone happens to be in an area where access is extremely difficult and where very few electronic resources or even telephones are available, how can that person have all the information required in time to be able to vote in an election, given that an election campaign lasts no more than four or five weeks?
How can we reach the millions of Canadians living abroad if we do that just in the period mentioned in Bill C-50?
I believe that is completely unrealistic.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which, quite frankly, was very instructive. After listening to her, we really understand the challenges with this bill. 
Listening to the speech by the Conservative member and then that of my colleague, we realize right away that we have a major problem. Quite simply, and this is typical of the Conservative government, it wants to first control everything and then fix the problems. This has already occurred with several types of bills. One of the current problems in our democracy is encouraging voter turnout. 
Would my colleague like to comment on this deep philosophical divide between the opposition and the government? What is really important today is to make it easier to vote, not to create obstacles.
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his comments and his question. He raises a fundamental issue in the debate we are having here today on Bill C-50 as well as the debate we held last year on Bill C-23.
Right now, the biggest threat to our democracy in Canada is low voter turnout. That is our biggest problem and that is what we should be trying to fix, by whatever means necessary. We as politicians should be joining forces to try to address the problem of voter apathy and low voter turnout. It is a truly serious problem.
However, the Conservatives have become paranoid about massive electoral fraud by people who use vouching, although that is not at all the reality. There is no evidence whatsoever; nothing like that has ever been documented.
Faced with the immense problem of very low voter turnout, the Conservatives simply shrug their shoulders. They are not worried about it because, ultimately, they know that with fewer people voting, they can hold on to their little powers and their small majority, given to them by a minority of Canadians.
The only thing that matters to them is being able to hold on to power and control. They really do not care whether democracy is advanced in any way.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is truly my pleasure to address the House of Commons today at second reading of Bill C-50, the citizen voting act.
 As was already explained, the bill proposes electoral reforms and aims at strengthening Canada's democracy by doing two things. One, it would reinforce the integrity of the special ballot voting system. Two, it would ensure fairness for resident and non-resident voters alike.
Despite these laudable goals, which should command the consent of the House, we have heard criticism from members of the House directed at the bill. Some have alleged that this reform could create chaos with voting in Canada. Nobody understands why we would create chaos in Canada with this kind of legislation, but the opposition would allege it. One member suggested that the bill created an administrative nightmare for non-resident voters. These allegations are fabrications and certainly, overstatements of the facts.
The proposed electoral reform was carefully developed and its impacts were apprised. In truth, the reforms are more in nature procedural adjustments than a substantive overhaul of the special ballot system.
I would like to use my time today to review the new rules from an operational perspective. By this exercise, I wish to demonstrate that the concerns of certain members of the House should be allayed. I therefore propose to review the steps that non-resident electors would have to follow in order to vote in a general election under the new rules.
As is known by every member in the House, an election begins with the issue of the writs. The Governor in Council issues a proclamation that directs the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a writ to the returning officer for each electoral district, fixes the date of the issue of the writ, and then fixes the date for voting. This date must be at least 36 days after the issuance of the writs.
After the issuance of the writs, non-resident voters need to apply for a special ballot. I wish to point out that this is currently what resident electors must do if they plan not to be in their electoral district on election day, either because they are vacationing abroad or for another reason. There is no administrative nightmare here, I would suggest. I do not see why applying the same requirement to non-resident voters would make it one.
The special ballot application should be available on the website of Elections Canada, at any Canadian embassy, high commission or consulate, or by calling Elections Canada. Non-resident voters would have to include with their application proof of identity and proof of residence. Proof of prior residence in Canada is currently not required for non-resident voters.
I would hope members would agree that it is reasonable to require non-resident electors to prove that they have previously resided in Canada. I think most Canadians would think that just makes eminent sense. Such proof of residence is already required from resident electors. We are only asking for the same for non-resident electors.
Non-resident voters would have various options to prove their identity and last place of residence in Canada. They could provide copies of a single piece of identification issued by a Canadian government or an agency of that government with a photograph, name and address. For example, a driver's licence would be accepted, even if it has expired. A second option is to provide two pieces of identification from the list provided by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with an address and both with a name.
I invite members of the House to view the list of the types of ID that have been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. They will see that more than 45 types of identification are currently accepted. Perhaps at this point I might address a specific suggestion from the member for Toronto—Danforth that the proposed paragraph 143(2.11)(b) would exclude private leases—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair must interrupt at this point. The hon. member for Oxford will have 15 minutes remaining in his speech when this matter next returns before the House.

Statements By Members
Oak Ridges MoraineMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Oak Ridges Moraine is a distinct land form that stretches through 32 municipalities, including Aurora, Oak Ridges and Richmond Hill.
Described as southern Ontario's rain barrel, it forms the headwaters of 65 streams and delivers clean drinking water to millions of Canadians. Ninety per cent of the moraine is privately owned. Encouraging the donation of land to the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust is therefore an important component in the ongoing efforts to protect and restore its natural environment.
I am therefore very pleased that economic action plan 2015 proposes a capital gains exemption for the donation of private shares or real estate when sold and the proceeds given to a charity. Supporters of the moraine in my riding and across southern Ontario are thrilled with this initiative, just as they were with the announcement of the national conservation plan last year.
 By working together, we can ensure that the Oak Ridges Moraine and other ecologically important lands are conserved and enjoyed for generations to come.
International Workers' DayMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every morning, men and women leave their homes and go to work to support their families. Work is about our skills and our know-how. It is about dignity and pride. Canadian workers contribute to our country's economic growth, and it is thanks to them that Canada is the country it is today.
Unfortunately, workers' rights are increasingly threatened by the Conservatives' measures. Wages are stagnating, permanent and full-time jobs are becoming harder and harder to find and some families can no longer make ends meet, even though they are working. Meanwhile, the Conservatives continue to give gifts to the wealthy few and abandon those who work by the sweat of their brow.
The next government, an NDP government, will help all workers. Our tax measures and public programs will help all Canadians so that everyone can say that they are earning a living with dignity and seeing the fruits of their labour. I look forward to a government for the people.
This evening, I will be joining the workers in my riding in a large rally organized by the Coalition intersyndicale Coton-46 in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, which will bring together various labour union delegations from the Montérégie area. There will be music, gumboot dancing, a BBQ and hot dogs.
On this May 1, International Workers' Day, congratulations and thank you to everyone—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
Human Rights in IranMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week is Iran Accountability Week, a week to address the Iranian threat.
I am proud to be a part of the Iranian political prisoner advocacy program. This year, I am advocating for Dr. Omid Kokabee, a 33-year-old Iranian experimental laser physicist. He has attended university in Iran, Spain and Texas.
 During a family visit to Iran in 2011, he was arrested and has been in detention in Tehran's notorious Evin prison ever since. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being convicted of the unsubstantiated charges of communicating with a hostile government, meaning the Americans, and receiving illegitimate funds. The so-called illegitimate funds are actually the normal stipend given to doctoral students at the University of Texas. 
Dr. Kokabee has publicly stated that he is being persecuted for repeatedly refusing to work on Iranian military projects and help fulfill Iran's nuclear ambitions.
 Dr. Kokabee is yet another example of the travesty of justice in Iran, and his imprisonment is a flagrant abuse of human rights. I call on President Rouhani to exercise clemency, suspend his sentence and immediately release Dr. Kokabee.
Physical Punishment of ChildrenMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the house today to draw attention to a serious issue that has affected the lives of far too many Canadians, the physical punishment of children. This hurtful practice affects the cognitive, emotional and physical development of kids and can result in lifelong repercussions. Shockingly, section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada still permits this cruel form of punishment, an archaic flaw in our legal system to say the least.
 Meanwhile, over 40 countries around the world have banned the physical abuse of children. Federal civil servant Corinne Robertshaw became concerned about reports of child injuries and deaths caused by parents and caregivers, and dedicated her life to repealing section 43.
 An advocacy group called Corinne's Quest was started in her name. I want to thank Vancouver Quadra constituents Barbara Claridge and steering committee chair Kathy Lynn for their work on this important cause.
 I invite all parliamentarians to work together towards ending the physical punishment of children on behalf of the health and well-being of Canadian children today and for future generations.
Natural ResourcesMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the positions the NDP have taken on natural resource projects are extreme and alarming, and Albertans have a right to be very concerned.
 The NDP has called for a royalty review, and have come out against northern gateway, an essential energy infrastructure project for getting our oil to international markets. The last royalty review cost the province billions of dollars in investments and cost thousands of Albertans their jobs. It also shook the confidence of the Alberta economy, and that is the last thing that Alberta needs right now.
 The NDP is also calling for higher taxes on job creators which would kill jobs right across the province. Unlike the path the NDP would go down, our Conservative government has committed to lowering taxes on entrepreneurs. 
Unfortunately, the Alberta NDP is taking its cues from the folks across the way. It is supporting higher taxes that Albertans cannot afford. It would kill jobs that Albertans desperately need, and would bring forward a job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything.
World Press Freedom DayMr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark World Press Freedom Day on May 3, to pay tribute to the essential work that journalists do to inform the public and to speak truth to power. I also pay special tribute to Kathy Gannon, who has received this year's Press Freedom Award. I also cannot let the moment pass without again drawing attention to Egypt's treatment of Canadian journalist, Mohamed Fahmy, who remains in legal jeopardy and is still not home.
As a former commissioner for the civil society Truth Commission established after the 2009 coup in Honduras, I came to better understand the bravery of a principled press. Honduras was the most dangerous place for media professionals in the world—intimidation, threats to family members, assaults, multiple assassinations, forced exile.
Today, too little attention is being paid to the deteriorating situation in another country. I speak of Turkey, where the government has been launching raids on media institutions and detaining journalists in large numbers. Turkey must step back from its deeply worrisome drift into repressive rule.
Public SafetyMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this chamber, the opposition parties decided to filibuster the proceedings of the House. Led by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the opposition parties shamefully chose to trash the RCMP Hill security members as the subject of their filibuster. They chose to criticize the RCMP and complain about being held up on their trip to the House for a mere few minutes due to the security measures deemed necessary by the RCMP to protect the precinct of the Hill.
 RCMP officers have a job to do and they do it every day with the potential always that they may find their lives at risk to protect us.
I want to counter the amateur experts in the opposition and put on record my praise and appreciation of the RCMP and the job it does to protect us, and, yes, that protection also includes those opposition members who so recklessly scorned the RCMP yesterday.
Lyme Disease Awareness DayMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in recognition of Lyme Disease Awareness Day.
 Lyme disease is a debilitating illness that can be transmitted to humans through the bite of a blacklegged tick. The disease is on the rise across Canada, particularly in my home province of Nova Scotia. However, our government is taking action to combat this potentially fatal disease.
We consider the health and safety of Canadians one of our top priorities. We are currently working with provincial health authorities and other partners to inform Canadians of the risk of Lyme disease. We are increasing health transfers to the provinces and these funds can help further combat Lyme disease.
 I had the honour of participating in the debate on a national Lyme disease strategy last year, and I am proud to say that this bill would help protect the well-being of all Canadians. 
As member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margaret's and a resident of Lunenburg county, I am very aware of how much Lyme disease affects us all.
Sainte-Foy Seniors' OrganizationDenis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, Public Works and Government Services Canada should be contributing to the well-being of our society. Recently, an important organization in my riding, Entraide Sainte-Foy, was denied a grant under the new horizons for seniors program.
When I was informed why they were denied and when I saw that a misinterpretation was the problem, I politely asked the minister to review this decision. Last year, seniors at Entraide Sainte-Foy logged more than 14,500 rides, friendly visits and respite care visits for seniors who have lost autonomy. Entraide Sainte-Foy was trying to better prepare volunteers by creating new training sessions that reflect the realities of the growing number of seniors. This was an innovative project that fulfilled all of the eligibility criteria. This government chose to save face instead of admitting that it had made a mistake.
To govern means to encourage and support the drive of community stakeholders and to support innovative ideas. When the NDP comes to power in the next election, Canadians will truly see what it means to have a government that serves everyone.
SeniorsMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, our government has provided important and significant support for Canadian seniors. We provided the largest increase to the guaranteed income supplement in 25 years, introduced income splitting for seniors and doubled the pension income credit. This, among other measures, has removed over 380,000 seniors from the tax rolls. 
Our recent budget further supports seniors by increasing the tax-free savings account limit, creating the new home accessibility tax credit and expanding the El compassionate care benefit to six months.
However, the Liberals and the NDP believe that the hard-earned savings of seniors are just another opportunity to tax. Canadian seniors know they can trust our government to lower their taxes, and provide the support and programs they need.
The EnvironmentMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, rivers in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan are in trouble. We are known as the “wet coast”, but climate change is leaving our rainforest parched.
 This winter brought only 15% of the normal snow pack, meaning the spring melt will bring less water to refresh our watersheds, and the El Niño system in the Pacific may mean a hotter and drier summer.
Last August, a weir was used to slow the amount of water released into the Cowichan River so there would be enough flow when salmon returned to spawn. The Nanaimo River is healthier, but its winter steelhead run is in trouble, putting at risk a successful fishery and tourism industry.
 The Chemainus, Koksilah and the Nitinat Rivers are all affected by logging, overfishing and urbanization. 
The 2012 Conservative budget removed environmental protection for these rivers and cut fisheries habitat protection, funding many communities use to build side channels and increase awareness of impacts of logging and farming practices.
 Many of my constituents see how climate change is affecting our ecosystem. People are working together to mitigate its effects, but we cannot do it as a single community. We need the federal government to work with us, not against us.
TaxationMrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals and the New Democrats like big deficits and higher taxes. My constituents in London North Centre know that it is only our Conservative government that will lower taxes for the middle class.
When I was speaking to middle-class families in my riding last weekend, they told me that they were looking forward to receiving benefits from the family tax cut and especially the enhanced universal childcare benefit.
 Our plan is helping 100% of families with kids put almost $2,000 back in their pockets. We are focused on keeping more money in the hands of the real experts: moms and dads.
Iran Accountability WeekHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, an all-party parliamentary group launched the fourth annual Iran Accountability Week at a most propitious time, as the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran have overshadowed, not sanitized, the Iranian regime's massive domestic oppression, including a horrific execution binge, intensified persecution of the Baha'i minority, criminalization of dissent, mocking World Press Freedom Day, and some 900 political prisoners languishing in Iranian prisons, many of them subject to torture and under the threat of execution. 
Accordingly, a centrepiece of Iran Accountability Week is the Iranian political prisoners global advocacy project, which pairs parliamentarians with adopted Iranian political prisoners on whose behalf we advocate and seek to make their case and cause our own, such as those on whose behalf I am privileged to advocate, the Baha'i seven and Ayatollah Boroujerdi.
 We stand in solidarity with these brave heroes to let them know that they are not alone and that we will not relent until their freedom and that of the Iranian people is secure.
NepalMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked by the devastation and destruction caused by the earthquake in Nepal. Our hearts go out to all those who have lost their loved ones and now must try to move on and rebuild. As always when disaster strikes, Canada is quick to respond. 
Two C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft from the RCAF have already delivered humanitarian aid, and were also made available to evacuate Canadians from Kathmandu. An assessment group from Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team is on the ground and assessing exactly what is needed and where our aid needs to go. We have also contributed $5 million in immediate assistance, and will match donations made by Canadians like Rotarians, Lions and Kinsmen. We also acted to ensure that additional consular staff were made available and deployed to provide assistance to Canadians.
I want to take this opportunity to thank our officials on the ground and the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, who are doing a great job despite the challenges presented by weather, terrain and the sheer scope of this disaster.
May DayMike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, it is May Day, and as the rest of the world celebrates labour, some parties in Ottawa seem to think it is still the 19th century when it comes to labour rights.
The Liberals and the Conservatives voted together against job protections for firefighters. They voted against protection for pregnant or nursing mothers. The Liberals have now lined up to attack basic labour rights on Parliament Hill, by saying that unions should not be allowed space to work or to organize.
The president of the UFCW has said, “it...sends a message from the Liberal Party of Canada that unions and the labour movement can be abused in the eyes of the public, and in parliament”. The president of the United Steelworkers said that Liberals had “chosen to attack a fundamental trade union right for partisan purposes”.
Being friends of labour does not just mean putting on our best suits, showing up at the labour hall and calling people brother. It is about having our actions match our words, something we have never seen from either the Liberals or the Conservatives.
TaxationScott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the leader of the NDP claimed that our new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit were “giveaways”. The NDP is actually upset that, thanks to our budget, people will have more money in their pockets to spend as they wish. It thinks it is entitled to their money.
 That is the NDP plan and the Liberal plan for Canada. They want higher taxes on Canadian families, higher taxes on middle-class seniors and higher taxes on middle-class consumers. 
We all know their plan is not right for Canada. That is why our Conservative government is reducing taxes, making life more affordable for every hard-working family in the country. We will never apologize for leaving 100% of the families in our country better off.

Oral Questions
EmploymentMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's foot and mouth disease continues. First he said he would leave problems to our grandchildren. Then he said he has no idea how many jobs, if any at all, his budget would create. Yesterday, when asked about the thousand jobs lost at GM Oshawa, he replied that he is looking forward to October.
Do they have no sympathy for the families who just lost their jobs, and possibly their futures? Why do the Conservatives consistently put their own narrow self-interest ahead of working Canadian families'?
Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with the workers and their families during this difficult time. We have a strong record of protecting jobs and growing manufacturing jobs. Budget 2015 created the automotive supplier innovation program, which will create jobs for Canada's automotive industry. More than 25,000 businesses in the manufacturing sector have taken advantage of the accelerated capital cost allowance, allowing them to invest back in their businesses, resulting in $1.4 billion in tax relief.
We know that the NDP would take that away from them. We will not let that happen.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday 1,000 people found out they would lose their jobs. One thousand families are reeling, looking to find some way to make ends meet. Yet the Conservatives are more interested in their election scheming than they are in helping them find new jobs. These families are out of work because of the current government's unbalanced approach to the economy, and as a result, we have lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs on their watch.
Why did the Conservatives ignore these families in a budget that gives billions in handouts to the wealthy few?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the claims of that member are 100% false. This was a restructuring plan, first of all, that was announced in 2012. General Motors has advised us that nearly all of the restructuring will be achieved by the voluntary retirement of some workers at its Oshawa facility.
GM continues to make capital investments in Ontario facilities, including plants in Ingersoll, Ontario, and St. Catharines, Ontario. GM also announced this week that it is hiring 100 engineers at its Oshawa plant for research and development work.
National DefenceDavid Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, if the member thinks he has such great news, go on down to Oshawa and take that answer.
The report on sexual assault in the military has shocked and outraged all Canadians, and it is more outrageous that the government is only accepting two of ten recommendations in the report. Time to study implementation is one thing, but what we are seeing here is a real resistence to putting an independent body in place to handle complaints.
The military justice system obviously needs a major overhaul.
Since the government has said it fully supports the report, will it now commit to fully implementing the report immediately?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, we want to thank Madame Deschamps for her report. 
This is not a partisan issue. There is no place for sexual abuse and misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Tom Lawson, has accepted the report's recommendations and is acting upon them.
Since 2006 our government has continuously fought on behalf of victims and has enhanced laws in this country to combat sexual assault.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the report by Justice Deschamps reveals how miserably the army failed to protect its own members by tolerating a culture where sexual misconduct is widespread. In 2014, two journalists from L'actualité revealed that since 2000 there had been an average of 178 complaints of sexual assault every year in the Canadian Armed Forces and that hundreds of other cases were not reported.
Why did the minister wait so long to deal with this scandal?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, nobody who has chosen to stand on guard for Canada should have to put up with this disgusting behaviour.
Now, the Chief of the Defence Staff has stood up, with the strategic response team, under the leadership of Major-General Whitecross. She was clear yesterday that the Canadian Armed Forces is looking at how to best implement the report's recommendations in order to stop sexual abuse in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, Justice Deschamps's report demands a strong and immediate response from the government. The Chief of the Defence Staff is promising an action plan, but does not seem to know, and I quote, “what the government expects”. What Canadians expect is protection and respect for women in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Will the minister tell his Chief of the Defence Staff that so that he implements all the recommendations in the report?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff has been very clear. Major-General Christine Whitecross has been very clear. They are looking at how they can best implement all of the recommendations and ensure that complaints are handled and received properly in a modern system.
The Chief of the Defence Staff also said yesterday that within the Canadian Forces, there needs to be a cultural shift.
The EconomyHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when we asked a question about the shrinking Canadian economy, the Minister of Finance could not answer the question. His colleagues had to do his work for him.
The economy contracted in January. Growth forecasts were downgraded, but the minister was silent on why he has not taken action. 
When will he come up with a real plan for jobs and economic growth?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the strong leadership of this Conservative government has steered Canada out of the global recession, creating nearly 1.2 million net new jobs. 
Our government is continuing to introduce new job-creating measures in budget 2015, such as lowering the small business tax rate to 9%, providing manufacturers an accelerated capital cost allowance so they can invest back into their businesses, supporting young entrepreneurs through Futurpreneur Canada, and now a new public transit fund that will invest in infrastructure in our major cities. 
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, while the minister hides his head in the sand, Canadians are losing their jobs.
Yesterday GM announced that it will cut 1,000 jobs this year from its Oshawa plant, while growing its American operations, and analysts say this is just a start. 
This is not a problem for the Prime Minister's granddaughter. This is a problem for 1,000 Oshawa families today. This is a problem for the minister now. When can we expect him to do something?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, certainly we understand the loss for those families, and our thoughts are with them at this very difficult time.
However, we have a strong record of job-creating measures. We have created 1.2 million net new jobs. This new budget 2015, the economic action plan, has invested again in job-creation measures and also in measures to help the Canadian Automotive Association and manufacturing.
We know that all the measures we have brought, the opposition has voted against. Canadians know they are better off with--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Wascana.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government brags about stale job numbers that are three and four and five years old, nothing more recent. 
Job growth and job quality have been dropping. In all of last year, there were just 121,000 new jobs in the whole country. That is down 60% from two years ago. Job quality is at a 25-year low, and economic growth is pathetic. In fact, the economy has grown only once in the last four months.
Why is the government's plan such an utter failure, and why does it not have a job creation target?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian manufacturing industry and its workers are one of the key engines of the Canadian economy, representing a vital source of jobs and economic growth for many communities. That is why we are investing in them. That is why economic action plan 2015 invests in job creation and the manufacturing sector.
We have brought forward measures that have created 1.2 million net new jobs, but in this budget, we are encouraging investment in the Canadian manufacturing sector, fostering automotive supply innovation, removing financial barriers.
Those involved in this industry commend us on the--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for London--Fanshawe.
Manufacturing IndustryMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday GM announced that another 1,000 jobs will be cut in Oshawa this year. 
More than 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost under the Conservative government. Now it has introduced another budget that fails the middle class and working families. The Minister of Finance did not even bother to try to figure out if his budget would create any jobs.
Why are the Conservatives giving billions to the wealthy, while middle-class working families and future generations pay the price?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, again, our thoughts are with the workers and their families during this most difficult time.
Our government has brought forward measures in budget 2015. Our government reduced EI premiums for small businesses. We eliminated tariffs on machinery, making Canada the first tariff-free zone for manufacturing inputs in the G20. We negotiated trade agreements so that our products can get into countries around the world, and we have lowered business taxes. 
We know that the NDP has a high-tax, high-spend plan that will kill jobs. We are not going to let that happen.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have utterly failed the auto sector, failed the manufacturing sector, and failed the 1.3 million Canadians who are out of work.
Canadians are working harder and falling further and further behind, but instead of helping to create jobs in Canada, the Conservatives loaned Volkswagen $526 million to create jobs in Mexico, and now there is another budget with no manufacturing strategy.
Why are Conservatives abandoning the middle class, working families, and the manufacturing sector?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. She knows that as a result of our government's strong leadership, Canada has the strongest job-creation record in the entire G7, the most industrialized countries.
Economic action plan 2015 will create more jobs, will build on that excellent record, by reducing the tax rate for job-creating small businesses. The opposition opposes this measure. 
We are investing in federal infrastructure and are introducing a new public transit fund. We know that the Liberals and the NDP have a high-tax, high-spend plan that will kill jobs.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Ontario has every reason to be unhappy with the Conservatives' budget, but the budget is no better for Quebec.
Quebec has lost 115,000 manufacturing jobs under the Conservatives. For the second month in a row, manufacturing production in Canada has declined. We also learned that 300 Bell Helicopter employees in Mirabel will be losing their jobs.
 Can the Minister of Finance explain why his budget gives gifts to the wealthy instead of investing to create well-paid jobs in Quebec's manufacturing sector? 
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, again, our record is clear: 1.2 million net new jobs since the depths of the recession. 
The economic action plan is full of job-creating measures. Let me read a few: creating and promoting Canadian tourism, the labour market integration of new Canadians, and the Canada 150 community infrastructure program. 
Measures like these are going to help create jobs and help build a strong economy. Canadians know they are better off with this Conservative government.
TaxationLysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives refuse to even acknowledge that there is a problem, how can Canadians hope to see any real solutions?
It is not only the manufacturing sector that is struggling; many other sectors in Quebec are too. The Quebec finance minister has said that the TFSA increase is going to cost Quebeckers $65 million a year. That is millions of dollars that Quebec could be using to relieve the pressure on hospitals, for instance, rebuild roads or create jobs.
When will the Conservatives stop giving gifts to the rich and leaving the middle class to foot the bill?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government tabled a low-tax plan that will help create jobs for businesses. It is a low-tax plan for families. This budget 2015 economic action plan will help create jobs. 
We know that the Liberals and the NDP want high taxes on the middle class. They want a high-spending carbon tax. They want high taxes on middle-class seniors. They want high taxes on middle-class consumers. That is their plan: high taxes on everyone. 
Our Conservative government is reducing taxes on the middle class--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
Manufacturing IndustryMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member should come to my riding and tell that to the workers who just lost their jobs.
The middle class is paying the price for the Conservatives' mismanagement. The manufacturing sector slipped again, for the second month in a row. Under the Conservatives, we have lost more than 400,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs, and in the suburbs north of Montreal, in my region, another 300 workers at Bell Helicopter are being let go. 
Instead of passing a budget that favours the rich, will the government finally take job creation seriously?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has brought forward a low-tax plan for business. We know that when we tax business higher, as the New Democrats would do, it hurts jobs. People are laid off. The CFIB said that if payroll taxes are increased, up to 60% of businesses would reduce their workforce. 
We eliminated tariffs on machinery, we are making Canada the first tariff-free zone, we are lowering corporate taxes to 15% and small business tax to 9%. We know the NDP would reverse it. We know that would kill jobs.
Consumer ProtectionMr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, it is more and more difficult for Canadians to find good jobs and household debt is higher than ever. In the meantime, the banks are making record profits in the billions of dollars every year.
This prosperity gap, with more profits for the banks and more debt for the middle class, is only going to get worse. Canadians are going to be charged fees to pay their mortgage. That is obscene.
Are the Conservatives going to turn a blind eye to the abuses by their friends at the banks, or are they going to quickly pass a mandatory code of conduct for the banking sector?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, again, we are the only government that has stood up for consumers by lowering taxes and putting more money back into their own pockets. Unlike the Liberals and the NDP who would raise taxes on middle-class consumers, our government has consistently reduced taxes on the middle class. Our government has taken action to improve low-cost bank accounts and expand no-cost banking options for more than seven million Canadians. We introduced the debit and credit card code of conduct. Shamefully, they voted against it.
Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP): The Conservatives did introduce a code of conduct, Mr. Speaker, but it is a voluntary code of conduct, and that voluntary code of conduct gives the banks a blank cheque to charge new fees on everyday transactions that hammer middle-class Canadians, transactions like making a mortgage payment, making a student loan payment. Seniors, even children, are going to be affected by these new pay-to-pay fees. A voluntary code of conduct does not cut it. 
When will the government have the backbone to stand up against the banks and stand up for Canadians against these fees?
Kevin Sorenson: Again, Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government is the only government that consistently stands up for the consumer. We bring forward consumer measures and consistently the NDP votes against them. Unlike the Liberals who would raise taxes, we are lowering taxes for consumers.
Just listen to what the Public Interest Advocacy Centre had to say about our government's actions. It stated, “...we support the establishment of a financial consumer code which would be binding upon financial institutions subject to federal Government authority.” 
Mr. Speaker—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
Employment InsuranceMr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is not just consumers who are paying the price for Conservative choices. It is also over a million Canadians who paid into EI, lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and expect it to be there when they need it. Instead of making sure that EI is there for them, the Conservatives are raiding the EI fund of billions. EI is paid for by workers and businesses.
When will the Conservatives stop raiding the EI fund to give handouts to the wealthy few?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, of course, the EI fund was supplemented by the general revenue from taxpayers during the recession. Now it is being returned to the general revenue for taxpayers.
The focus of our EI program is to make sure that if people lose their jobs through no fault of their own, the EI program will be there for them, for Canadians. The EI program is sound. It works. Please stand up and support the EI program. Support the workers in this country.
EmploymentMs. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is hard to get lower than gutting EI just to pay for benefits for the rich, but these callous Conservatives just do not seem to care. Thousands of families are struggling to make ends meet and they are getting absolutely no help from the government. Instead, 1,000 more auto workers are now out of work and add to that 400,000 manufacturing jobs already lost under the government.
When will the Conservatives own up to their dismal job numbers and introduce a real plan to create and protect family-sustaining jobs?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with the workers and their families during this difficult time. Our government has a strong record of protecting and growing manufacturing jobs. Budget 2015 created the automotive supplier innovation program that will create jobs in Canada's automotive industry. More than 25,000 businesses in the manufacturing sector have taken advantage of the accelerated capital cost allowance, allowing them to invest back in their business, creating more jobs.
The opposition votes against these measures. We know we will stand up for the consumers and the workers.
National DefenceJoyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, the Deschamps report on sexual harassment in the military outlines a culture of sexualization and abuse, particularly against women and LGBTQ members. This is inexcusable. This must be fixed now. The report laid out 10 recommendations on how to begin turning this horrific situation around. Yesterday, the government claimed to accept all 10 recommendations, but the Chief of Defence Staff said that he only accepts two and will study the rest. Who is telling the truth, the military or the government?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind this member that it was the Chief of Defence Staff who ordered this independent external review by Madam Chief Justice Deschamps. I can say that they have received the report, accepted the recommendations and are now currently looking at how to implement those recommendations. The Chief of Defence Staff has stood up the strategic response team, led by Major General Christine Whitecross.
Joyce Murray: Well, no answer there.
Mr. Speaker, the current government has allowed this abusive and misogynistic situation in the Canadian Armed Forces to persist. The military has both condoned inappropriate and abusive behaviour, and turned a blind eye or punished those who have complained. The minister is accountable for his department and a phantom action plan is simply not enough. Will the government take full responsibility for allowing this toxic behaviour, apologize to the victims, and make sure the abusers and enablers are held to account?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. Our thoughts are with the victims. We find this abuse completely disgusting. That is why the Chief of Defence Staff asked for this report and will be reviewing and implementing these recommendations to ensure that this culture is changed and that public education and awareness is increased, and to provide a safe vehicle for complaints to come forward.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is sad to have to mention this, but under the law, the Minister of National Defence is responsible for the Canadian Forces. He is accountable for all matters of national defence.
Why is the minister not responding to this scathing report on sexual harassment in the armed forces? Why did he not ensure that the budget included resources to protect the victims of this despicable abuse? Will he apologize to the victims and personally ensure that the Deschamps report is implemented?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, Major General Christine Whitecross was clear yesterday that they are looking at how to best implement the report's recommendations, such as providing the proper services and support to the victims to ensure that victims can come forward without fear of repercussion and that the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces changes. We are supporting the Canadian Armed Forces in this endeavour and we thank Madam Deschamps for her report.
The EnvironmentCraig Scott: Mr. Speaker, Canada has gone from climate change laggard under the Liberals to climate change embarrassment under the Conservatives, with weakened and missed targets, and a caucus that is a safe haven for climate deniers. Now the Prime Minister is saying that our next set of targets will not even match the U.S. after he spent 10 years telling us that we would harmonize with the U.S.
Canada needs to bring new targets to Paris this year. Our contribution is absolutely crucial. When will the government announce new ambitious targets to fight the climate crisis?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have always said that to effectively reduce global greenhouse gas emissions all major emitters must be on board. We have aligned regulations with the United States in several areas, and are working closer together to developing clean energy. Canada has one of the cleanest electricity supplies, with 80% of our economy coming from sources that emit no greenhouse gas emissions. The United States has only 30%. At home, our government is reducing greenhouse gas emissions while growing the economy.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, climate change is one of the biggest threats we are facing. The government's solution is to try to hide its incompetence behind public relations stunts. Congratulations. As a result, reduction targets keep going down and there are no real regulations for major polluters. In short, there is no great hope on the horizon.
Is this another problem for the Prime Minister's granddaughter to sort out, or is the Prime Minister going to take action to help our planet?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, we will submit Canada's greenhouse gas emission targets sometime this month or next month.
Greenhouse gas emission targets reflect actions by all levels of government, so we are seeking additional information from the provinces and territories on how they intend to meet their targets. This Conservative government is the first government in Canadian history to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we will continue to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without a job-killing carbon tax.
Food SafetyMs. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, three years after the largest meat recall in Canada due to the E. coli contamination at XL Foods, things are not getting any better.
Four cases of tainted meat were discovered by American inspectors last year. We also learned that plant workers are not consistently being given clean clothes and that some of the bathrooms do not have running water. However, if anyone is washing their hands, it is the Conservatives.
Why is the government so flippant about the safety of our food? 
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, action was taken back in 2014, and prior. All issues have been resolved; none have been left outstanding. It is important to note that nearly 40 inspection staff are on the ground in this facility every single day. For additional reassurance, CFIA is sending in an inspection verification team.
Again for Canadians, it is important to note that The Conference Board of Canada rates our food safety system number one against 17 OECD countries, including the U.S.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, the government's response is too little, too late. After the largest beef recall in Canadian history, an independent review concluded that the CFIA needed to improve its inspection program. The minister failed to do that. Sending in new inspectors now to inspect the old inspectors does not really solve the problem.
Conservatives have systematically undermined the capacity of inspectors to do their jobs. What are the Conservatives going to do to permanently strengthen our food safety system?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, not only are the opposition allegations not accurate, they are irresponsibly undermining confidence in our food safety systems.
Again, it is important to note that all issues have been dealt with. The Conference Board of Canada rates our system number one out of 17 countries, and that includes the U.S.
Natural ResourcesMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government believes in responsible resource development.
Sadly, it was not long ago that NDP members went to Washington to campaign against resource jobs. They have a proven record of opposing natural resource projects, and referred to the oil sands as a disease.
Our government, on the other hand, has always stood up for the energy sector. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tell this House what our government is doing to support the resource sector?
Chris Warkentin: Mr. Speaker, the position the NDP has taken on the energy industry is alarming and extreme. Albertans have every right to be concerned.
The NDP has called for a royalty review and has come out against the Northern Gateway. The last time a royalty review was conducted, it cost the province billions of dollars of investment and it cost thousands of Albertans their jobs.
Unfortunately, the Alberta NDP is taking cues from the federal NDP. Unfortunately, the plan would lead to higher taxes, killed jobs and a destabilized economy in the province. 
Public SafetyAlexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to public safety, the Conservatives are all talk and no action.
By way of evidence, we learned that the RCMP's database—which, in passing, is badly out of date, with delays dating back several years—will have its budget cut by 10% this year. We are talking about information that is essential to police officers, who are being asked to work in the dark.
How can the minister go ahead with these cuts?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. This government has actually increased the resources to our national security agencies, including the RCMP. We have actually done that seven times. The seven times we have done those increases, that member has voted against them.
Canadians know that when it comes to supporting our men and women who keep Canadians safe, it is this government that is going to give them the legislative tools, the funding for crime prevention and also the funding to get the job done.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Police Information Centre database is being cut by the Conservative government. It is outrageous that police are being asked to do a dangerous job without complete information. It puts them and the public at risk. 
Why does the minister seem to be content to sit back and let the police operate in the dark for another two years? Why is he cutting resources to this modernization project when he should be doing what it takes to get that database up to date right now?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, our Conservative government has provided significant funding to the RCMP. We have provided legislative tools in order to keep Canadians safe. In fact, it is our government that has passed more than 30 tough on crime bills to do just that. We are also the party that has invested more than $30 million on crime prevention right across the country.
Canada PostMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week, city counsellors heard from people from across Ottawa who are concerned about home mail delivery. In neighbourhoods like densely populated Centretown, people are worried about super boxes taking over scarce green space. 
The Conservatives are turning their backs on the people of Ottawa. For example, they have given Canada Post the power to put these super mailboxes wherever they want, regardless of what the city wants or what local people want. They have run roughshod over their rights. When will the Conservatives stop this reckless plan?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that Canada Post is an independent arm's-length crown corporation. In 2014, it delivered 1.4 billion fewer letters than it did in 2006. The member should also know that two-thirds of Canadians currently do not receive door-to-door mail delivery. 
We do expect Canada Post to operate in a way that is financially sustainable. 
HousingMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, despite the gravity of the disaster, the Conservatives' latest budget shows their complete lack of compassion for pyrrhotite victims. 
Instead of providing financial assistance to the victims who need it, the government chose to adopt policies that help the wealthy. Just think of income splitting and the increased TFSA limit.
Why do the Conservatives keep ignoring this disaster, which is now expanding to other regions of the country? I hope they are not going to tell me that people's misery is a provincial jurisdiction.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact it is a matter of provincial responsibility, and as we know, in the province of Quebec, there is a program to deal with that. We on this side of the House believe very much in respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces. 
We respect provincial jurisdictions and we intend to continue doing so.
The EnvironmentHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what do these environmental charities all have in common? The David Suzuki Foundation, Tides Canada, Pembina Institute, Environmental Defence, and Sierra Club have all been critical of the government's environmental policy, and all have received unsolicited, aggressive, and unwarranted attention from the CRA. 
The minister is going to stand in her place and with a straight face say that these are just routine audits. Why does the minister not use some of that $750 million to stop this witch hunt against legitimate and—
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised by the hon. member's question. I think he is aware that charities must respect the law and that CRA has a legal responsibility to ensure that charitable dollars, donated by charitable Canadians, are used for charitable purposes.
 I also think he is aware that CRA audits occur at arm's length. They are conducted free of any political influence or interference or motivation. The CRA charities directorate acts independently.
Aboriginal AffairsKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, Shoal Lake 40 First Nation has had to deal with a boil water advisory for 17 years. Now the ferry connecting the reserve to the outside world has been shut down. 
 Chief Erwin Redsky says that without the ferry, people on the man-made island have no way to get groceries, bottled water or immediate medical attention, and normal life on the reserve is virtually impossible. 
The question for the minister is, what is the minister prepared to do to resolve the state of emergency at the Shoal Lake 40 First Nation?
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our immediate priority is ensuring the health and safety of Shoal Lake residents. Our emergency management team is in contact with the community to determine the needs and identify areas where we can assist. Our government will continue to stand ready and provide any assistance that the community may require. 
Science and TechnologyMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Space Agency continues to struggle. Despite the paltry amounts announced with great fanfare in the latest budget, the agency continues to suffer because of the Conservatives' draconian cuts. It used to be that the Canadian Space Agency was a jewel of the Canadian economy. Now, the agency is struggling to hold onto expertise as staff are laid off.
Will the government finally ensure that our Canadian Space Agency will remain one of our finest institutions?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting question from the opposition, seeing as the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada had this to say about budget 2015: it said that the budget “is good news for Canadian companies, their employees, and our economy”. 
The Canadian aerospace and space industry accounts for more than 170,000 quality jobs and adds over $28 billion to Canada's GDP. Canada's aerospace sector is one of the most innovative in the world and is a huge contributor to jobs and economic growth.
Our government will continue to work with our private and international partners to ensure that Canada's aerospace sector—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Official LanguagesAnne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, barely 2% of immigrants who settle outside Quebec speak French as their first official language. That is well below the government's objectives for ensuring the survival of French outside Quebec.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration praised the new express entry program as the solution to the problem. However, of the 22,000 people in the recruitment pool, only 200 are francophone.
The minister is supposed to ensure that 4% of immigrants are francophone. How is his approach going to achieve that?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to promoting francophone immigration through our permanent immigration programs across Canada under the express entry system. Most applications are processed within six months or less.
 Last year alone, we welcomed almost 1,500 francophone immigrants outside of Quebec through our economic programs for permanent immigration. Our government's goal is to increase the number of francophone immigrants who settle outside of Quebec to more than 4% of all economic immigrants by 2018.
The BudgetMrs. Pat Perkins (Whitby—Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government introduced the family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit, which will make life more affordable for 100% of families with children. In fact, the average family will save $6,600, thanks to our measures.
Sadly, the NDP and the Liberals have pledged to reverse these measures. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment  please explain what the Liberals and the NDP want to take away from our families?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hard-working member for Whitby—Oshawa for her support for Canadian moms and dads across the country.
The member is right that both the Liberals and the NDP have been full-throated in their outright disdain for our plan to provide more money directly to parents in Canada. The NDP leader actually claims that these tax breaks are giveaways. He does not think that Canadians deserve to have the money that they earn.
The Liberals and NDP want higher taxes on middle-class families. That is their plan. High taxes on the middle class: on this side of the House, we will not do that. Instead, we will continue to reduce taxes on middle-class families.
Canadian HeritageStéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the budget will extend copyright for sound recordings from 50 to 70 years. That is what it is in the United States and Europe.
However, the government has done nothing for Canadian songwriters whose works will still be protected for just 50 years after their death. Americans' and Europeans' works are protected for 70 years after their death.
Why has the Conservative government neglected songwriters? Can the parliamentary secretary answer this question about songwriters and not avoid the question like the minister did yesterday?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for at least taking a look at the budget and seeing within it that there are a lot of measures for arts and culture. We have introduced the Canada 150 fund, which means we are extending the copyright term for artists from 50 to 70 years. It will modernize the Canadian honour system.
There is a lot of good stuff in the budget for culture. He should support it. I know that Randy Bachman likes what we are doing.
Veterans AffairsMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian veterans played a crucial role in the campaign to liberate the Netherlands during the Second World War. They fought for freedom and Canadian values.
 As the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands is upon us, can the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update the House on what our government is doing to to commemorate this important part of our history?
Hon. Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, later today I will be leading a delegation of over 60 veterans to the Netherlands to celebrate and commemorate 70 years since Canadians liberated that country and remember the 7,600 who sacrificed their lives in that effort.
 Each will have a caregiver with them. I have been disappointed this week that in Stratford, 90-year old Art Boon is unable to take his son as his caregiver. There is still time for the Avon Maitland school board to reconsider this decision and allow a history teacher to accompany his father, who is living history to the Netherlands.
Copyright ActMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, last year's report from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which reviewed Canada's music industry, did not raise the duration of copyright protection as a concern. That was rightly so, because it is not a priority for Canadians.
 Unfortunately this is a very important priority to music industry lobbyists who met with the Minister of Canadian Heritage several times last year, which is why I am not surprised to see that the government is extending the term of copyrights for sound recordings from 50 years to 70 years in this year's budget.
By extending the length of these copyright protections, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not realize that more money will go to the multinational record companies, while Canadian consumers will pay more?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and thank the hon. member for question because it reiterates the important study that took place at the committee on heritage and culture. The work we did and the recommendations that were made with respect to the music industry helped lead to the decision to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years and protect artists across our country. Those in the industry are supporting us. 
For example, Barry Sookman, copyright intellectual property lawyer, said: “The extension amendments will enable Canada to harmonize its copyright laws with the laws in more than 60 other countries..”. We are right on track when it comes to the music industry.
International TradeMassimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing less and less about negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP, but surprise: the 2015 budget would extend protection under the Copyright Act by 20 years. Strangely, there had been no discussions about it, and the stakeholders did not ask for this. Moreover, many studies oppose it. The fact is that this is not something Canadians are particularly concerned about. 
Can the Minister of International Trade tell us if this amendment is a strategic gift to American lobbyists to finalize the TPP negotiations?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, over 60 countries are doing this. We certainly are in line. In fact, the word “pandering” perhaps works on the other side of the House, but it does not work on this side of the House. 
We listened to the industry. Witnesses came to committee. We made recommendations. Many of those recommendations were actually supported by the other side of the House. 
These measures and our government are protecting the interests of artists and their work for a much longer period of time, by extending copyright from 50 to 70 years. This will protect performers and producers of sound recordings from having their copyright expire during their own lifetimes. 

Routine Proceedings
Foreign AffairsMr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of International Trade, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration”, done at Port Louis on March 17.
 An explanatory memorandum is included in this treaty.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
Iran Accountability WeekPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and I am hopeful that there will be unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, a take-note debate on the subject of Iran Accountability Week take place pursuant to Standing order 53.1 on Tuesday, May 5, 2015 and any member rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise again in the House to present more petitions on my private member's bill, Bill C-356. I have 32 pages, some of them double-sided, of signatures from hundreds of people from my riding of Nickel Belt, Verner, Field, St. Charles, Cache Bay, North Bay, Sudbury, Guelph and other parts of Ontario.
The petitioners ask the government to support Bill C-356, which calls on the Minister of Health to help implement the national strategy on dementia.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first petition draws attention to a CBC documentary revealing that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn child so expectant parents can choose to terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child is a girl. The petitioners note that 92% of Canadians believe sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal and note that 200 million girls are missing worldwide as a result.
The petitioners feel that it is a terrible shame that the three deadliest words in the world are “it's a girl”. They would like Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from individuals who note the high percentage of prostitutes being forced into the sex trade and trafficked. As a result, the petitioners request Parliament to make it a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams and others to profit from the proceeds of the pernicious sex trade. 
These are people from across the country, from B.C. to Nova Scotia, and the petition has about 300 signatures in total.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg North. 
The petitioners have indicated that they are concerned about the 2015 budget, which favours the wealthy over our middle-class and low-income Canadians; that it lacks a true plan for jobs and economic growth; and that it fails to provide the necessary investments in our infrastructure.
 The petitioners suggest that this budget does not meet the needs of Canadians.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from residents of Duncan who have raised concerns about the ability of small family farmers to produce the food that is required to feed their families and their communities. 
The petitioners ask the government to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the fight against hunger and poverty; 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 and freely exchange seeds.
Gary Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present today three petitions.
 The first petition is from my constituents who are concerned with Bill C-51.
Gary Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, the two other petitions are the same.
 The petitioners ask the House of Commons to respect the right of small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange and use seeds.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is from residents of the London and Woodstock areas. 
While the petitioners agree that terrorism is a real threat and we must confront it, they are very concerned about Bill C-51. They believe that instead of making Canadians safer, the Conservatives are playing politics with this bill, which is dangerous, vague and, mostly like, ineffective. It could threaten our rights and freedoms, and would give CSIS sweeping new surveillance powers without proper oversight.
The petitioners are very concerned about the possibility of abuse. They call upon the House of Commons to listen to the NDP's principled stand, stop the attack on our civil liberties and vote down Bill C-51.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Canadians who have paid into the EI fund their entire working lives and do not benefit. EI was designed to strengthen our workforce but instead, now, 6 of 10 workers are already disqualified from EI because of government restrictions.
With the latest change to EI, the petitioners believe the government is hurting Canadian families, damaging regional economies and driving down wages. They call upon the Government of Canada to reverse the devastating changes it has to made to EI and to restore fair access to decent benefits.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.
The people of my riding are calling on the government to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and exchange seeds freely.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Citizen Voting Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Oxford had 15 minutes remaining in his address.
 The hon. member for Oxford.
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, picking up where I left off, subsection 143(2.11)(b) provides that the Chief Electoral Officer can only authorize the type of identification that has been issued by an entity that is incorporated or formed in Canada. It applies only to entities and not to physical persons. Therefore, private leases would be acceptable as I.D. to prove a Canadian address, even with an individual landlord who is not a Canadian citizen.
There is a third option available to non-residence electors who cannot prove their last place of residence in Canada with documents. These electors would have the opportunity to provide two pieces of authorized identification confirming their name and an oath or declaration as to residence, together with an attestation by another elector from the same electoral district. 
The attestation form would be available online, and the attestor would be able to send the attestation to the non-resident elector with copies of their own identification documents by electronic means.
Additionally, proof of citizenship would have to be provided with the application. This should not pose any problems to non-resident electors who would have a Canadian passport or birth certificate. What is more, Elections Canada already requires proof of citizenship for non-resident voters, so nothing would change in that regard.
In terms of applying for a special ballot, this could all be done in an expeditious fashion. Once the writs are issued, a non-resident elector would download the application form, fill it out, copy the required piece of I.D. and proof of citizenship, print scanned copies of the attestation form, if necessary, and then fax or perhaps email the package to Elections Canada.
 In my view, these are not unreasonable steps for someone to take in order to have a ballot for a Canadian election mailed to them outside of the country.
Some might ask how the identification requirements would differ between voting by mail and voting at the polls. The citizen voting act would create one set of voter rights identification requirements for all voters. However, minor changes to the requirements are necessary for the attestation of residents reflecting the different situations that apply to non-resident voters. When attesting to prove the last address of a non-resident elector, the attestor can be any eligible voter from that electoral district, while those attesting in Canada must live in the same polling division as the elector.
In addition, either a note or a declaration of residence would be acceptable as part of the attestation process when voting by special ballot, given that oaths administered out by Canada are only accepted as valid in Canada if administered by someone within a limited class of persons abroad. The prohibition on serial and multiple attestations in the Fair Elections Act would continue to apply to all electors. 
Canadians support the identification requirements established in the Fair Elections Act, and it is important that Canadians in fact do support those identification requirements that were established in the Fair Elections Act.
According to an Ipsos Reid poll done in April 2014, and this is important because it is very recent, 87% of those polls said that it was reasonable to require someone to prove their identity and address before they were allowed to vote.
The other part of this whole thing is the issue on how many people it affects outside of the country. I heard people talk about trying to prevent folks from voting. This is nonsense. In the 2011 general election, 10,733 Canadians were registered on the International Register of Electors. Of that 10,733 Canadians, the ballots of 6,069 non-residents were counted. That is about average with the returns in all of Canada.
Upon receiving an application for a special ballot, Elections Canada would review the application form, the pieces of identification submitted, the proof of citizenship, and the attestation of residence, if applicable. Upon approval of the request for a special ballot, Elections Canada would update the national register of electors and the list of electors and mail the special ballot voting kit to the non-resident elector. It all seems pretty simple and straightforward. That is similar to what happens now for resident electors applying for a special ballot, as well as for first-time non-registered residents.
Upon receiving the special ballot, the non-resident elector would mark the ballot and send it back to Elections Canada in Ottawa. To be counted, the ballots must reach Elections Canada by 6 p.m. eastern time on election day. Special ballots may also be submitted to the care of Canadian diplomatic and consular offices.
Looking at these rules, I cannot help but ask where the administrative nightmare lies. Not only are these rules clear and easy to follow, but they would provide more tools to verify the eligibility of voters and to instill greater confidence that the ballots are being counted in the right district as non-resident voters would only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence. That seems to be common sense, but it seems to be of great difficulty for some members on the opposite side. Just to be clear, non-resident voters would only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence in Canada. Further, they track, in many respects, the rules already in place.
Under the bill, non-resident electors would now have to apply at each election to obtain the special ballot. Yes, that is a change, but a requirement that currently applies to resident electors who are voting by special ballot. There should be no difference between those living in Canada and those living abroad.
Non-residents would have to provide proof of identity, past residence in Canada and citizenship with their application. Apart from providing proof of past residence in Canada, this is already required when non-resident voters wish to register on the international register of electors.
Another change is the clear identification rules including the attestation procedure. This was adopted in the Fair Elections Act and is available to people if they are not in a position to prove their past residence in Canada. The rest is virtually the same.
Are the detractors of the bill being fair when they talk about chaos or administrative nightmare? As far as I am concerned, the answer is that they are obviously not. 
The government has strived to ensure our electoral process is fair. Our electoral law is strong, but that strength must be maintained at all times. Bill C-50 is intended to further reinforce the integrity and fairness of our electoral system. It would do so notably by creating one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country, and by ensuring that non-resident voters prove their identity and past residence when they wish to vote from abroad.
There may be questions, either in the House or by people watching today, regarding how the bill would apply to special forces personnel outside the country. A completely separate set of rules contained in division 2 of part 11 of the Canada Elections Act provides comprehensive procedures for voting by the Canadian Forces members at locations where they are stationed. This reflects the unique circumstances faced by Canadian Forces personnel.
As I have already indicated, I believe that this would bring fairness to it. It would also bring credibility to it, and it would make it fairer to every citizen of the country: those who live and vote in the country and those who are living abroad. It is not a difficult and onerous system, but is something that all Canadians could abide by, and believe in the truth and the honesty of the system.
I hope the members of this House will come to see the merits of this reform.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague across the way for a considered speech. It seemed to respond to various critiques that have been offered already.
First, as to the administrative challenges point, the chaos or nightmare scenario actually has nothing to do with voters voting from outside Canada. One thing the government is not acknowledging is that the new subsection 143(2.11) would change the rules for identity within Canada. The government may not realize this, but with regard to some of the criteria, such as, “an entity that is incorporated or formed by...an Act of Parliament...otherwise formed in Canada”, Elections Canada's view is that this is incredibly difficult to interpret with respect to complex structures of corporations and what the words “formed by” mean, because it is not a legal term known under Canadian law at the moment.
The chaos has to do with how this would actually change the identity rules for what the Chief Electoral Officer is able to authorize in Canada. That is my only point. When we hear from the Chief Electoral Officer and his officials, it is at that point when we will hear whether this is going to be a problem. It is not about the other side of things. Our concern there is the increased difficulty—not chaos, but just difficulty—of being able to vote after the writ has dropped.
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. He is a learned individual and I appreciate his comments. I look forward to this matter going to the procedure and House affairs committee expeditiously. I am hopeful that it will be in committee very shortly and I hope the committee will hear from Elections Canada officials as to what they perceive to be or do not perceive to be the issues related to this. I think we will spend our time in PROC studying it appropriately. If Elections Canada and others bring that issue to the fore, it will be up to the committee to make its decision.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns members of the Canadian Armed Forces abroad. I understand that a provision in Bill C-50 exempts serving military members outside of Canada from the extra steps, more the difficulties, in voting from outside of our country, and I appreciate that exemption. That shows respect for the men and women in uniform and it recognizes that this bill would make it harder for Canadians to vote.
What the bill would not do is exempt family members of the military. Often, military members serving abroad have family members and a spouse with them. The spouse is treated differently than the military member while being in the same situation outside of the country and potentially unable to go through the bureaucracy and extra paperwork to vote. 
Why are the Conservatives showing such disrespect for the family members of the military in that they exempt military members themselves, but put their spouses through all of the extra hoops that this bill would apply to Canadian citizens voting from abroad?
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to accept the member's statement about disrespect for military families. No government in this country has ever shown more respect for the members of the military and their families than this one has. This bill does not show disrespect to anyone. 
These are rules that would be in place. They are not difficult to follow. I can tell the member that military families would not find it difficult to follow the rules in the bill. The process would not be significantly different than what occurred during the time the member's party was in government. This is a good bill. It has to be something that Canadians can respect. I believe this bill is one that Canadians will see as respecting the integrity of voters.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, speaking of respect, the member across the aisle mentioned in his speech that it is just common sense that non-resident voters should only be able to apply for a special ballot in relation to their last place of residence. It is not just a question of common sense, given that many countries have decided to have representatives for their diaspora. It is just a legislative decision by Canada. We must not assume that Canada's legislative decisions are more intelligent or more reasoned than those of other countries. 
However, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on another point. Bill C-50 will create two categories of citizens: one category of people who live in Canada and do not have to register for every election and another category of second-class citizens who will have to register every time there is an election in order to vote.
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I understood the logic to the question.
This legislation deals with Canadians who live outside of the country. Obviously, when someone lives outside of the country, there may be different standards required. However, in this case, they are very similar to the standards that are required here. In this country, people have to vote in the district in which they live, not in a district where they want to vote.
All this is doing is saying that the district from which people left, where they were formerly resident, is where they will vote. Most Canadians would find that to be the most realistic of requirements for people who live outside the country.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I have one point on the last note the member mentioned.
Why eliminate the permanent list, if the listing is so essential? I do not understand why getting rid of the permanent list of international electors was so necessary. That was by way of comment. 
Now by way of question, the member said that military spouses should not have any problem being able to vote, despite the fact that they have to go through these new rules. If that is the case, why are military members exempt anyway? Why do they have that exemption?
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I do believe the military does possess a different place in Canadian society.
For many of our military members, it is easy to look at them when they may be in some location where the members are living together, but in many cases, our military are stationed overseas in combat locations. They are not in the same place and do not have the same opportunities to do some of these things.
I have had family members overseas in the military. For some of them, it is very difficult. It would be difficult to do these things if they are in a combat theatre. It is a whole lot different when the families are with them, but in a combat theatre, the families are not there.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that a little. I just want to make sure that the government is at least open to seeing scenarios that could be a problem. For example, one of the most frequent sources of Canadians going abroad for up to two years, sometimes three years, is graduate students. They often go abroad, to London, Paris, or wherever, after having been at a university. Their last place of residence is only defined as where they were at university, versus picking up on the fact that the last place of residence could be either there or where their parents reside. The problem is a lot of their compatriots will have gone. They will not have anybody who is able to vouch for their previous address.
 The question is whether we can make sure that in those kinds of circumstances, and it might only affect a couple of dozen or a couple of hundred people, these special cases that can easily be imagined, are taken care of in the committee. I am just hoping that my colleague who is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee will be able to assure me that this kind of situation will be looked at closely.
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we have committee meetings.
Members opposite will have a list of people they wish to present at the committee, as will the government side. I am sure that we will hear all about those issues that he and others have raised.
This bill needs to get to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so that the committee can deal with it and get it back to the House.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to stand to speak to this very important issue today. What I will do is focus on some important measures and how Canada is, in many ways, similar to other countries.
The relationship works both ways. Canada's electoral process serves as a model for other countries to emulate. Our electoral system is deemed to be one of the best in the world. One of the reasons we have this enviable reputation is that we strive to improve how our elections are administered. We review our electoral procedures and laws. We study the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer to Parliament and the various studies and reviews of election procedures conducted by parliamentary committees. We listen to our constituents, and of course, we all live through elections.
We learn from these experiences, and we build on them to improve the processes in place, particularly the procedural safeguards against irregularities or impropriety that could call into question the validity of electoral results. If there is room for improvement or we find that existing procedures are deficient, we need to respond with new procedural safeguards. This is the responsible thing to do, and that is precisely what we would do here with the citizen voting act.
Election procedures must include the checks and balances that ensure that elections are conducted fairly and with transparency and accountability to instill confidence in the electoral process. At the same time, any new procedures must be developed with a view to ensuring that voting remains accessible. This legislation would achieve both of these aims. It strikes the right balance between procedural safeguards and the accessibility of the voting process. 
When we review how other mature democracies, particularly those in the Westminster tradition, structure their voting rules, it further supports this conclusion. Reviewing procedures from other jurisdictions also enables us to assess how well our own electoral processes measure up internationally.
How does the citizen voting act compare with the way non-resident voting is administered in other jurisdictions? 
To start, I will talk a little about the United Kingdom. Non-residents must have previously registered to vote in the 15 years before leaving the U.K. To register to vote, the voter must provide the U.K. with the equivalent of a social insurance number, called a national insurance number, which is matched or cross-referenced against various trusted sources of data. If the voter cannot or does not provide the national insurance number, proof of identity may be requested. Failing these options, the voter must provide an attestation from an eligible registered elector living abroad who is not a spouse, civil partner, or immediate relative. All voters, including non-resident voters, must confirm their election registration details each year.
 International voters cannot choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot. The ballot is cast for the electoral district where the voter actually last cast a ballot.
It is very important to see how similar that is to what we are proposing with respect to the attachment voters would need to have to their place prior to leaving.
Another country we could look at that is very similar is Australia. Its rules for non-resident voters have identification and residence requirements. Non-resident Australians may vote only if they have not lived abroad for more than six years. They must register to vote by providing their driver's licence and passport number. If they cannot provide either of these pieces of identification, a registered voter may attest to their identity.
A non-resident voter may not choose the electoral district in which to cast a ballot. People may only vote in the last electoral district in which they last voted. There is no separate register of international electors, like the measure proposed in the citizen voting act. There is only one register of electors.
New Zealand takes a slightly different approach. It has the most specific jurisdiction requirements. New Zealand voters residing outside the country may vote in national elections provided they have lived in New Zealand for more than one year at some point in their lives, have not been absent from the country longer than three years, and have visited the country in the past 12 months. 
New Zealand non-resident voters may not choose the electoral district for which they cast a ballot; they may only vote in the electoral district in which they have resided for one month or more. Finally, non-resident voters do not automatically receive ballots. Like the measure proposed in the citizenship voting act, they must apply for a ballot at each election.
Notably, Ireland does not permit voting by non-residents unless they are officials of the Irish government who are posted abroad, or their spouses. 
If we look closer to home, there are further examples of different approaches to non-resident voting. For example, Ontario's rules for non-resident voters incorporate elements from many of the international jurisdictions I have reviewed. Ontario non-resident voters may vote in an election for the provincial legislature if they lived in Ontario for at least 12 consecutive months before leaving the province, have not been absent from Ontario longer than two years, and intend to return to Ontario. Members of the Canadian Forces, federal and provincial government employees, students, and the families of these voters are exempted from these particular time limits.
The rules in Quebec similarly impose requirements on non-resident electors. Non-resident Quebec voters are entitled to vote in elections for the Quebec National Assembly provided that they have resided outside Quebec for no more than two years and that they resided in Quebec for a period of at least 12 consecutive months before their departure. Voters must apply for a mail-in ballot by providing two documents that establish proof of identity, date of birth, and residence in Quebec.
I would like to say a few words about France, which has come up in debate in this House. It is important for members to be aware that France has a different approach than Canada or the other Westminster systems I have mentioned. French citizens residing abroad are entitled to vote either in an extra-territorial overseas constituency, sometimes referred to as a consular constituency, or in a domestic constituency. To vote in an extraterritorial or consular constituency, non-resident voters must register in a separate registry of French citizens living outside France. To do so, they must provide proof of identity, citizenship, and address abroad.
As hon. members are aware, Canada does not have extraterritorial constituencies, although I think many of us could think of some wonderful places we might like to live that would provide that extraterritorial constituency. Our system is based on democratic representation based on territoriality, meaning geographic constituencies in Canada, with each domestic constituency returning a member to represent that community.
In France, non-resident voters may also apply to register on a list of electors in a domestic constituency in France. This requires proof of identity and citizenship by means of a French national identity card, a French passport, or a driver's licence accompanied by proof of citizenship. Registration on this list must be renewed every five years, and no later than three months before the expiry of the registration. Failure to do so results in the voter being taken off the register and potentially the register for consular constituencies.
 There are two main lessons we can take from the survey of international practices on non-resident voting.
First, all jurisdictions, importantly, impose procedural safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the process is not compromised, and many go further, with limits on the time a citizen can reside abroad.
Second, and as important, the approaches vary widely, reflecting that each democracy must decide for itself how to structure its rules to instill confidence in its own elections.
There are variations in the nature of the procedural safeguards across jurisdictions, variations in how proof of citizenship and identification are established, and variations in residency requirements to maintain the right to vote.
What Bill C-50 is proposing for Canada is not out of line with the approaches of other jurisdictions. Indeed, what is proposed measures up remarkably well with what other jurisdictions have done to construct procedural safeguards for non-resident voters.
We are also seeking to ensure that safeguards do not act as barriers to voting.
In conclusion, the procedural reforms in the citizen voting act are aimed at improving the integrity and fairness of the special ballot process. By strengthening the procedures required to receive a special ballot, we would strengthen our confidence in the integrity of the ballots. By establishing common application and identification procedures for non-residents and non-resident voters, we would reinforce the fair application of rules for citizens, regardless of where they vote.
 These provisions of the citizen voting act would accomplish both of these goals. I certainly encourage all members in this House to support it.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, this bill would actually make it very difficult for persons living abroad to actually register and vote. Currently people living abroad who have registered to vote stay on a list. All they need to do is change their address, if their address changes.
This would require them to wait until a writ is dropped before they could even apply to vote. That would do two things. First, it would discourage people from putting themselves on the list. Second, it would make Elections Canada's job that much more difficult if it only had 35 days to receive all the applications, check to see whether they were accurate, check all the data that would be submitted with those applications, and mail a ballot back, which according to this law, would have to be received in Ottawa before six days prior. Therefore, there would really only be 29 days to do all of this work.
Would the government be assigning more resources to Elections Canada to accomplish all this extra work during an election period?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I outlined the many different countries and approaches, and there are some approaches that are very similar to what we are proposing in this act. I certainly have every confidence that Elections Canada would be able to process these people who are living outside the country and who are so committed to our democratic process and really do take the time. Of course, we always hope that as many Canadians also take the time, when elections come, to exercise that incredible responsibility and opportunity we enjoy in Canada in our democratic system.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, there are several problems outlined, and they have been directly addressed, in some cases, but in other cases not so much. One of the problems arising from this, which I asked about earlier, was the coming into force, which the Chief Electoral Officer has told us is going to be very problematic, given the changes in Bill C-23 and now changes here.
Does the member agree that this would be overly problematic for Elections Canada, which does not have the resources for that?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, although this is early in the process, we anticipate that it will move its way through committee. It is already, very importantly, signalling the structure and the mechanisms that would need to be in place. Obviously, the committee will be reviewing it in detail.
I have every confidence in Elections Canada and its ability to do what is required in terms of the appropriate structure and mechanisms. Certainly there are some pretty good signals about what those are going to be so it can start to do some planning now.
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks on this very important debate that is taking place today. I recognize that part of the process will be that the bill will be referred to committee for further study. However, for the purposes of today's debate, I am wondering if she would advise the House why our government has introduced the bill. 
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, this is a really important bill. Elections Canada estimates there are approximately 40,000 non-citizens on the national register of electors, and the accuracy of the register is very important for the fairness and integrity of elections. Certainly, we must ensure that people who are registered to vote are Canadian citizens. The bill would help to create and maintain more direct communication between the non-resident voters and the specific electoral districts in which their votes are counted. 
This is a very well structured and important bill for supporting those 40,000 folks who are currently living outside Canada in terms of their ability to exercise their democratic rights. 
Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out something that is remarkable: this is the 95th time we have had a gag order imposed on us. 
My colleague spoke earlier about some other major countries' practices. There are many interesting practices used elsewhere in the world that we could adopt here. Under the current conditions, however, we cannot even discuss them here, let alone in committee, where the Conservatives have the same attitude as they do here. There is no way to discuss them.
This bill only complicates matters for Canadian citizens living abroad. Just look at the situation in Nepal, where the government cannot even seem to locate Canadians in order to evacuate them. We can only imagine its indifference to their desire to vote.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic. On the one hand, we have the opposition saying there is not going to be enough time for Elections Canada to implement the changes and we need to move this rapidly so it is ready for the election in 2015. Then, on the other hand, we have the opposition saying not to move so fast, as we need to debate this. 
Time allocation has given us a very important opportunity to ensure that the bill will move through the process that is required so that Elections Canada will have time to implement the changes and move forward in the 2015 election with some good, solid processes and structures in place that would not only ensure the integrity of our system but allow great opportunities for Canada and for Canadians to exercise their democratic rights. 
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly correct. Basically, what happened was this was dead on arrival. The Chief Electoral Officer said that this would not come in time, before this debate even began. I suspect the Conservatives should have known that. If they did not know that then they did not have that essential discussion with Elections Canada to get advice from it as to when this comes into force and whether it is to be effective. That is the unfortunate part.
My question though goes back to that permanent list again. It seems to me that the narrative they are putting forward is always the case where they have a solution in search of a problem that does not exist, like eliminating the international voters list. What was so wrong with it? 
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, we need to go back to my original comments where we looked at international jurisdictions and the processes that were in place in international jurisdictions. What we have here is a system that has been put in place that is going to ensure the integrity of our system and the opportunity for those Canadians who are living abroad. 
Again, this is not by any means a piece of legislation that is unusual or outside what many other countries similar to Canada have done.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, as is the case when we are dealing with time allocation, usually that means that because the number of speakers is limited, York South—Weston is not represented in the debate on any particular bill. 
By the way, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
Usually York South—Weston does not get to be represented when there is time allocation because it limits the number of speakers in total to something like 5% of the members of Parliament and that is essentially what is happening here, although today, I happened to be here during the one day that the government has allowed for debate on the bill. On the 95th occasion, I think is a record for any Westminster parliamentary democracy in the world in terms of the number of times that debate has been curtailed or stopped in a sitting of Parliament.
The notion that we are dealing with this under time allocation means that a total of six and a quarter hours will have been spent on debating the bill over the course of its life in the Houses of Parliament and the bill has some serious flaws. We have mentioned already that the bill has eliminated the ability for there to be a permanent list of electors and that list is how people who live outside of Canada could remain on the voters list without having to go through hoops each time.
When asked why the bill was coming forward, the member opposite said it is because there are 40,000 non-Canadians on the list of electors, so estimates Elections Canada. That is not why the bill is coming forward. It is coming forward because the courts have told the Conservatives that it is illegal under section 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act to deny Canadian citizens the right to vote, which is what the law did. It denied the right to vote to Canadian citizens who happened to live abroad for more than five years.
We put forward Bill C-575, a good bill that would have repealed section 11(d) of the law in such a way that we would have done away with the requirement to be outside of Canada for less than five years. The Conservatives did not like that and brought forward their own bill and I think it is telling that the member opposite suggested that is not the reason for bringing the bill forward. The Conservatives are continuing with their appeal of the Frank decision to appeal the court decision that says that it is the right of any Canadian citizen to vote in an election. I agree with that right. I think it is the right of any Canadian citizen to vote regardless of how long they have lived outside the country. 
However, the Conservatives, as is the case every time the courts tell them the laws they created were wrong, have created a system that makes it worse, that makes it more difficult and is going to apparently live up to the spirit of the decision, but not the letter of the decision because it will become incredibly difficult.
I asked the member opposite whether, given that Elections Canada will now have the responsibility in every election to process all persons outside Canada every time, it will be given extra resources to do that because it will not be able to spread that out over the period between elections as it now does. It has to do it only when there is an election. As a result, I do not believe Elections Canada is going to have the resources to do it, but the member opposite would not confirm or deny. All she said was they think Elections Canada has lots of resources. That is not a proper answer.
We believe that this change in legislation is going to make it more difficult for all persons living outside Canada, not just those people who are out there for more than five years, but all persons living outside Canada. The effect of that will be to further reduce the number of people who actually vote in an election. It seems to be the Conservatives' mantra to keep people from voting because if people vote maybe they will not get elected. That is apparently what drives a lot of what the Conservatives have done.
I am going to give the example of my brother who is a dual citizen. He was born in Canada to American parents, so the U.S. has determined he is an American citizen as well. When he was living in Canada some 15 or so years ago, he was a lawyer working for a big multinational firm that decided to move his job to the U.S. After much internal wrestling, he decided he had to go with that job and he has lived in the U.S. ever since. For the first five years, he was able to vote, but he has not been able to vote for the last 10 or so years. He would have been on a list of electors for some time. 
Now, he would have to prove where he last lived 15 years ago. If I know my brother, he may have kept his rent receipts but I do not know. I certainly would not have. He has to prove it, and if he cannot prove it, if he has no documentation that shows his previous address, he has to find someone who lives where he last lived to swear that he or she knows him and that he did live there. That was 15 years ago and he lived in a small apartment building in downtown Toronto. I doubt very much that he knows anybody in that riding who can vouch for the fact that he lived there. The Conservative answer to the court decision is to make that become the necessary step by which someone would need to become registered to be a voter.
 I come back to the problem that it has to all be done within the writ period. He cannot get the form until after the writs. He gets the form, finds somebody who remembers him when he lived in an apartment building in downtown Toronto 15 years ago and gets that person to swear out an affidavit because it has to be an oath. I am not 100% certain whether the person has to swear out an oath in front of a justice of the peace in Canada or if it can be somewhere else, but it is the Canada Evidence Act that the Conservatives are using. Those two hoops alone would eat up the first 15 days after the writ drops. 
He has 14 days left, so he fills in the form and sends it off to Elections Canada by mail, or maybe by courier if it will accept things by courier. Assuming that there are 14 days left, because he only has 29 days to act on this, then Elections Canada has to put his application into its queue. There is no obligation on Elections Canada to process it in a timely manner, it just has to process it. The only requirement is that once Elections Canada has sent him the ballot he has to return it, such that Elections Canada receives it six days before the actual election day. 
It is not likely going to happen that my brother would be able to meet all of these requirements in that 29-calendar-day time period, given the vagaries of Canada Post. There is no indication in this bill that Elections Canada would have to find some fast way to get the ballot to him either. If he needs to get a ballot within a short period of time, the most appropriate way would be to courier it to him but I doubt very much that the current government thinks highly enough of the voters living outside Canada to use couriers to get them the ballot.
It is a problem that is being created by the government to suppress votes again. That is what we have seen time and again from the Conservatives whenever they have talked about election reform and voting reform. It is to ensure that people do not have the ability to vote, that for people who are on the margins of society or, in this case, on the margins of Canada, who live outside of Canada, it would become extremely difficult for them to vote. I would be willing to bet that very few people who live outside Canada would be able to cast their ballot in a meaningful time frame and would therefore be disenfranchised by these rules.
That comes back to the court decision, which says Canadians, regardless of where they live, have a right to vote in a federal election. If the Conservatives put forward a law that would deny them that right through timing or other extraneous means, it would be in violation of the charter again, of the Constitution of this country. That is why Mr. or Mrs. Frank went to the courts in the first place.
I welcome any questions.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is definitely the only party in the House that is prepared to defend the right of every Canadian to vote in a general election.
Can my hon. colleague speak briefly to the previous bill, Bill C-23, which dramatically limited Canadians' right to vote?
Would he also comment on the NDP's position and proposal regarding Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the court case that gave rise to this bill, we think, although the minister did not say that, that court case said, or the end result was that every Canadian, regardless of where he or she lives, has a constitutional right to vote and it cannot be taken away by means of an artificial time limit. The government, with the other hoops that it is putting in this bill, would appear to be taking away that right to vote, not just for the people who have lived outside of Canada for more than five years, but for all persons who live outside of Canada, because it will now become effectively impossible for them to properly cast their ballots in a reasonable timeframe.
With Bill C-23, the government also made it more difficult for persons who are on the margins of society, those who do not have documentation, who do not have access to myriad personal information because sometimes they are homeless or not living in a place that is permanent and as a result, it will become almost impossible for them to cast ballots.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a trend happening from Bill C-23 until now where consultations have not taken place, to the point where members in committee find themselves struggling to fix some of the mistakes that were made initially, which have been pointed out by many in the House earlier. The lack of consultation is certainly alarming. We were expecting this to address the Frank decision directly; instead, we got what was a different piece of legislation in addition to the challenge to the ruling that was made.
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that committee deliberations to try to fix bills are challenging at best and impossible at worst. When a flawed bill goes before a committee in the current Parliament, it is almost impossible for opposition parties to have any say in trying to correct it. The exception is when there is something so egregious it is absolutely clear on its face that it will be a problem, and even then sometimes the Conservatives do not listen. That has been my experience until now. 
We have gone through the same thing with Bill C-51, which is another extremely flawed piece of legislation and ought to be withdrawn entirely. The Conservatives have not accepted a single one of any of the amendments put forward at committee.
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
A number of groups live abroad and we do not talk about that enough. One group in particular is very important to me: the students who enrol in long study programs abroad to bring back their expertise to Canada.
I am rather astounded by the content of the bill. It seeks to further control a process instead of encouraging people to get out and vote. It is already hard enough to inform our citizens outside Canada. 
I would like my colleague to say a few words about the fact that instead of working to inform people on the many ways to vote outside the country, the government is trying to control those who might try to vote.
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, this is clearly part of an overall plan. Suppressing votes is key to extremism in Parliament, and that is what the government is doing. It is suppressing votes at every stage of the way. We learned through various court cases that there was an active attempt to suppress votes in the last election and I expect this is just part of the same pattern.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He eloquently presented our position on Bill C-50 and the reasons why we are opposed to An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. 
This bill basically deals with the right to vote of Canadians living abroad. This bill is very important because it directly affects one out of three Canadians. Unfortunately, I see that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion. In fact, it is the 95th time allocation motion that the Conservative government has imposed on the House since 2011. Despite the fact that we have raised a number of concerns with this bill, the government does not want to have this serious debate in the House, which I find disappointing.
I am also disappointed by this government's approach in terms of the bills it has introduced in the House concerning Canadians' right to vote. A few years ago, it introduced Bill C-23, and I was able to voice my concerns about it in the House. It restricted the right to vote of many Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians. In fact, the bill actually prevented them from voting. Bill C-23 primarily prevents young people from voting, as it does aboriginal people and vulnerable citizens, such as the homeless. Basically, the voter card will no longer be accepted as a form of identification when people go to their polling station to vote in an election. With this bill, 120,000 Canadians who had to have someone vouch for them during the last federal election may not be able to vote in the next election. Bill C-23 is extremely problematic.
However, today, we are debating Bill C-50, which could prevent another cohort of Canadians from voting. I am talking about the 1.4 million Canadians who live abroad. We know that there are many reasons why Canadians choose to live abroad. Some of them are going to school, while others are working and are very mobile. I am the NDP deputy science and technology critic. I therefore talk with many scientists who find very interesting jobs or contracts that require them to live abroad for several years. I am also thinking of some of my constituents who often travel to the United States, including retirees who choose to spend their final years there. They are still very attached to Canada and they feel as though they are 100% Canadian. They would like to have the right to vote in Canada's general elections.
I would like to give a little bit of background to explain why this bill was introduced in the House and why it is so necessary. The bill is before the House because of an Ontario Superior Court decision. That court ruled that paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, which prevents Canadian citizens who have been living abroad for more than five years from voting, is unconstitutional. We therefore have a problem. The court forced this government to take action. The decision was rendered in the case of Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. It is a case that will be quoted often in this debate.
At first glance, the bill seems to harmonize the legislation with the court's decision. However, we need to be careful. We on this side of the House did our homework, and we found that that is not the case.
In fact, the bill does not bring the act in line with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. Bill C-50 does not repeal subsection 11(a) of the Canada Elections Act, and the government has still not withdrawn its appeal of the Frank ruling. 
The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It talks about this ruling and claims to want to find a solution to the problem, but it has introduced a bill that is not consistent with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. In fact, it has introduced a bill that will cause even more problems for Canadians living abroad.
Bill C-50 will make it more difficult for all citizens living abroad to vote, whether they have been abroad for more than five years or for less. Furthermore, the bill provides for new prohibitions on the types of identification that the Chief Electoral Officer will accept from any citizen living in Canada or abroad, which could seriously compromise the votes of many Canadians come election day.
 Before going into detail about the problems with this bill, I would like to talk briefly about Bill C-575, which was introduced by my colleague from Halifax. The bill is clear and unequivocal. It is the NDP's response to the decision in Frank et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada. 
This bill, which was introduced in good faith, gives all Canadians living abroad the right to vote. I would like to know why my Conservative colleagues did not simply accept and adopt the bill introduced by my colleague from Halifax, which is in line with the court's ruling.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives' bill ties Elections Canada's hands and makes voter identification requirements so complicated that Canadian citizens living abroad will have a much harder time voting. They are doing this for no reason at all.
 I listened to my Conservative colleagues' speeches, but I did not hear one single citation or study showing that the measures in this bill are necessary and valid. Back when the Conservative government was advocating for Bill C-23, it was also unable to quote one expert who thought the measures in the bill were a good idea. 
Since I have only a minute left, I would like to go into more detail about the provision that removes the Chief Electoral Officer's discretionary power to determine what forms of identification are acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, under clause 143, the Chief Electoral Officer will no longer be able to accept a foreign driver's licence as a main form of identification or even a secondary form of identification to corroborate a main one. We have to wonder how many Canadians living abroad keep a driver's licence that is no longer valid.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, April 30, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The 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, May 4, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Mr. Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will the consent of the House to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  There is no consent.
Before I go to the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth on a point of order, if it relates to what just happened, I want to remind all hon. members that there is a requirement for unanimous consent to see the clock. If the member has a point of order, I would encourage him to promptly make reference to the rule or Standing Order to which he is referring in that case.
The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am raising this point of order is that the failure of government MPs to give unanimous consent to seeing the clock at 1:30 p.m. compromises the integrity of the Thursday statement and of the organization of House business that relies on it.
Let us look at pages 488 and 489 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, by O'Brien and Bosc, which I will refer to for the rest of the intervention. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that I indicate what it says about the Thursday statement in order for you to understand the point of order. With regard to the Thursday statement, it states:
 Each Thursday, after Oral Question, the Speaker recognizes the House Leader of the Official Opposition, or his or her representative, to ask the Government House Leader, or his or her representative, about the government orders to be considered by the House in the succeeding days or week. The Government House Leader then proceeds to outline for the House what business the government intends to bring forward. This practice is commonly known as the “Business Statement” or the “Thursday Statement”. The Weekly Business Statement is not referred to in the Standing Orders but is permitted subject to the discretion of the Chair.... 
A bit further along, it says:
 The Weekly Business Statement was inaugurated on September 23, 1968, when the then President of the Privy Council, in announcing the business the government intended to call the following day, stated that a new practice would begin whereby on every Thursday the government would outline its intentions for the forthcoming week and then respond to questions. Prior to this, it had been the custom of the Government House Leader to announce, at the close of each sitting day, the business to be considered the next day. 
Finally, in O'Brien and Bosc:
 The Speaker has stressed on many occasions that the time provided for this Statement should not be used by Members as an opportunity to engage in negotiations or debate. The Speaker has also not been inclined to consider the question of House business at any time other than on a Thursday during a week of regularly scheduled sittings. On occasion, the Government House Leader has used this period to request the unanimous consent of the House to propose, without notice, motions related to the business of the House. 
With that rule, effectively that practice, in mind, it is important to note what the House leader said yesterday in the Thursday statement. It is very key to know what he said, because it is completely contradictory to what is happening right now in the House. He said:
 After this statement, we will— 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. What is happening right now in the House is that a request for unanimous consent to see the clock has been denied. I think we are all in agreement that unanimous consent is required for that.
I presume the member is presuming what will happen next, as opposed to what is already happening. An order has not been called. There is no government order before the House at this point. The Chair had not had the opportunity to call orders of the day yet. For clarification for the member, there is no business before the House right now because an order has not been called. He is presuming what is about to be called, I presume.
If the member could be clearer in his reference and could come to a conclusion, that would be appreciated.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be as clear as I can on this. When I say “the business before the House”, I do mean the giving of unanimous consent in a way that is contrary to the rules of the House. I am trying to make the point that in fact—
[Interjection]
Mr. David Anderson: You are trying to filibuster. That is what you are trying to do.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  It is nonsense.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, it is not nonsense. 
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that I am asking you to rule that unanimous consent cannot be given in these circumstances. That is the matter before the House. In order for—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. A request was made for unanimous consent to see the clock. That was denied. The proper process was followed. This has nothing to do with the statement that was made yesterday afternoon or with what may follow.
 Clearly the rules were followed related to the business of seeing the clock. Unanimous consent was denied. There is no argument that, given other circumstances, it changes the rules related to the unanimous consent requirement.
Again, I am going to go back to the member. The point that he is making is not valid. If he would like to make his point, I encourage him to do it succinctly.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the issue of whether or not my point is valid cannot be ruled on in advance of me making the point. I am trying to argue that the Thursday statement and the practice that surrounds it is directly relevant to the vote that has taken place. 
Therefore, if I cannot continue to explain that, I do understand and will accept your ruling. However, I need to explain the argument in order for you to understand why I do believe it is not the case that unanimous consent simply being given in these circumstances is in and of itself valid.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair has said twice, and I will repeat it a third time, that it is the opinion of the Chair that the procedure for unanimous consent was followed properly and that there are not extenuating circumstances that caused those rules to change. Consequently, the request to see the clock has been denied, as it should have been.
 In the opinion of the Chair, there is no argument that this member can make that would suggest that different rules ought to apply in this situation, whether it relates to the Thursday question or what might happen next. On that question, the Chair is clear. 
As always, any member of this place has an opportunity to challenge the ruling of the Chair if they so wish. However, I think in this case it is quite clear that what has just happened is unusual but is not outside the rules of this place. 
Is the hon. member for Saint-Lambert rising on the same point of order?
PrivilegeSadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to add my remarks on the question of privilege raised yesterday by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
 I will remind the House of the incident. While my colleague was in an official House of Commons shuttle bus, an RCMP officer refused him, as well as some other members of the House, access to the parliamentary precinct.
That physical obstruction impeded him from performing his parliamentary duties, which I believe constitutes a prima facie breach of the member's privilege and therefore the privileges of all members of the House. 
There were also some Conservative members on the bus with my colleague, and they too shared his concerns regarding what happened and their inability to return to the House, because as members will know, we had a number of votes yesterday.
I was very surprised to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who said that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already dealt with this issue, and therefore the issue of obstructing members needs no further comment. I find that extremely troubling, which is why I wanted to add my voice to the discussion.
On page 75 of Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, Erskine May defines parliamentary privilege as:
 Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively…and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions. 
These functions are critical to the work that we all do here in the House and in Parliament to represent our constituents.
It is true that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already considered this issue. In fact, it submitted its report on March 26. The committee considered a question of privilege raised by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who was denied access to Parliament Hill during the official visit of the President of Germany.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, more specifically to the testimony from Marc Bosc, Acting Clerk of the House of Commons, Kevin Vickers, former Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, and Patrick McDonell, current Sergeant-at-Arms but the then Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and director general of security services.
 During the course of their appearance, the process for determining the security arrangement during visits by foreign dignitaries to Parliament Hill was explained. It was stated that during such visits, extensive planning and numerous meetings take place between the three partners involved in providing security on the parliamentary precinct: the House of Commons security services, the RCMP and the Ottawa Police Service.
Mr. Vickers noted a key step towards interoperability was taken five years ago with the creation of the master security planning office, comprised of representatives from the Senate, House of Commons and RCMP. 
The mandate of this office is to provide guidance and strategic direction and to ensure a proactive and coordinated security approach within the precinct. Mr. Vickers indicated that all official visits are accorded different security levels, ranging from levels one to five, with level one being the highest level of risk. 
The visit on September 25, 2014—when the incident involving the member for Acadie—Bathurst occurred—was designated as a level four visit, during which it is common practice to not limit pedestrian access at closed points. 
In the case of the member for Acadie—Bathurst, there was to be no stopping of pedestrians, regardless of whether they were members of Parliament or not. However, the member for Acadie—Bathurst was prevented from entering the precinct.
I think it is important that the House be aware of what the level of security was yesterday when the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and other members were blocked from accessing the parliamentary precinct. 
 When the committee examined the question of privilege raised by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, we were told that the House security services were going to double their efforts to ensure that front-line officers thoroughly understand that members must have unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. However, the problem that arose yesterday involved an RCMP officer.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to something else that was said before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, when the committee was examining the question of privilege raised by the member for Acadie—Bathurst.
 Bob Paulson, the RCMP commissioner, Gilles Michaud, the assistant commissioner and commanding officer of the national division of the RCMP, Mike Cabana, the deputy commissioner of federal policing for the RCMP, Charles Bordeleau, the chief of police for the Ottawa Police Service, and Murray Knowles, an inspector for the Ottawa Police Service, appeared before the committee.
Commissioner Paulson gave the committee an overview of the RCMP's role on Parliament Hill and during visits by foreign dignitaries. The RCMP is responsible for securing the grounds of Parliament Hill and ensuring the safety of the Prime Minister. The RCMP is also responsible for the safety and security of visiting dignitaries when they are outside the buildings that make up the parliamentary precinct. The RCMP is often faced with competing security priorities. Commissioner Paulson said that the RCMP takes every measure possible to ensure that its security operations do not impede parliamentarians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. As all hon. members know, the time for government orders expires at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, and normally at this time we would proceed to private members' business.
 The Chair appreciates that this is an important matter, not only for the member for Saint-Lambert but also for many other members. The Chair also understands that there may be other hon. members who would like to make presentations or representations related to this question of privilege. The Chair can assure the hon. member for Saint-Lambert, as well as others, that a ruling on this question of privilege will not be delivered today and will not be delivered first thing on Monday morning.
 Given that we are about to start private members' business, if the member and others are willing, this conversation could be continued on Monday when the House resumes. As all hon. members know, the time for private members' business is limited and typically there is a sense in the House that we try to get to private members' business. Therefore, the Chair would ask the hon. member for Saint-Lambert to wrap up her remarks in a few seconds for today, with the expectation those can be continued next week before the Speaker returns his ruling.
The hon. member for Saint-Lambert.
[Interjection]
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for all of the attention you have given to this matter.
As I was saying at the beginning of this discussion, I was truly shocked to learn that our members—because there were several of them—were prevented from coming to the House to do their duty. I think that your attention to this matter is necessary, but above all, it shows how important this is. Thank you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:33 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against a bill that will undermine the safety and security of Canadians. The Conservative government wants to simplify firearms storage and transportation regulations to ensure that low-velocity rifles and air guns are not considered as firearms. However, the NDP has the safety of Canadians at heart. That is why we refuse to support a bill that could compromise that safety.
More specifically, this bill will create even more dangerous working conditions for police officers. There could be confusion between ordinary firearms and air guns, which will make it harder for law enforcement agencies to do their job. This bill will result in more accidents and mistakes that will be front-page news and for which the government will be responsible. 
The government must consult industry representatives instead of running the show on its own. These representatives will tell them what they told us: they do not understand this legislation, it is completely useless since the current system works well without any major problems, and they are especially concerned about the working conditions of police officers.
This is more doublespeak from the Conservatives, who claim to be ardent defenders of security. However, for 2014-15, they voted to reduce the operating budget of the Canada Border Services Agency, which led to the elimination of 1,351 positions. The same goes for the RCMP, which saw $32.5 million in cuts. These cuts greatly hinder the work of our security forces.
As usual, this government has a double standard. First, it scares Canadians by raising the spectre of crime for electioneering purposes. Then, it cuts the budgets of our police services and make it easier to transport weapons. Canadians are no fools and they absolutely do not want a bill that will threaten their safety. In the end, the Conservatives really do not care about the safety of Canadians; they always act too late.
They have proven this many times and in many areas: in health, by refusing to take into account Quebec's rapidly aging population when calculating health transfer amounts and by voting against my bill calling for the mandatory disclosure of drug shortages; in infrastructure, where they do not understand the urgent need to increase the number of inspectors to ensure rail safety; and in food safety, by stubbornly refusing to add more health inspectors. Now, it is weapons. 
The NDP refuses to play games with the lives of Canadians. That is why we will vote against this bill. I urge the Conservatives to think about the consequences this bill will have.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation), introduced by the hard-working member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette. 
In relation to what was just said by the last speaker—that we have cut back—an additional $300 million have gone to Canada's security agencies and of them CBSA is one. Where we pulled these 1,000 jobs out of our hat, I cannot believe. As far as food safety inspectors go, each and every day 40 inspectors are at the former XL plant. Much of what was just said is fiction, and I do not know where it comes from.
However, on this side of the House we have been clear. We believe firearms policies should make sense and keep Canadians safe. In practice, that means we lock up criminals who use firearms and wreak havoc on our communities, but we eliminate needless red tape that does nothing to keep Canadians safe.
We have a strong record in this regard. It was our Conservative government that, for example, created tough new sentences for those engaging in drive-by or other reckless shootings. We have also taken action to reduce needless red tape, as I mentioned. Chief among those actions was ending the $2 billion boondoggle that was the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. We were pleased to end the needless bureaucratic mess once and for all, and we are pleased that all the data have now been deleted.
We have also tabled the common-sense firearms licensing act, which would crack down on dangerous individuals who should not have firearms, while reducing needless paperwork. Individuals from all walks of life have come out in support of this important legislation. We have heard support from hunters, trappers, fishers and sport shooters. We have also heard support from the law enforcement community and former Olympians.
 Despite what the Liberals and New Democrats would have us believe, there is a strong consensus that we must support these Canadian heritage activities.
That brings me to the bill before us today.
 Currently, an individual can face jail time for storing a paintball, BB gun or pellet gun without “reasonable caution”. That may seem like common sense, but the devil is always in the details. What does “reasonable caution” mean? Does it mean in a cabinet? Does it mean out of reach of a child? Does it mean a trigger guard or lock and cases such as that? Or does it mean something completely different? It is impossible to know because the term is not defined.
 I encourage all Canadians listening at home to safely store their pellet guns, their BB guns and their air rifles, just because it is a good example that we can show our children when they become of an age when they can possess a firearm, because they get to form good habits. However, I do not believe it is reasonable that people could spend jail time for not doing so.
Let me give an example. My riding is in a rural area. It would not be uncommon for one of my constituents to take an air gun or a BB gun, put it in a backpack or walk down into the woods or a ravine to shoot some pop cans off a tree stump. Target practising is one of those things we do, either for straight enjoyment or to prepare ourselves for hunting or for some friendly competition, for instance like a turkey shoot.
 Individuals today are at risk of running afoul of the Criminal Code if they should do so. That is why Bill C-637 is so very important. I cannot put too fine a point on this. There are up to two years in prison for careless storage of a BB gun. How many members of the House could be caught keeping a BB gun in the closet or at the cottage? This law, as written, simply does not make sense.
 Bill C-637 would put forward the same exemptions that prevent owners of paintball guns and pellet rifles from requiring a licence and would apply these exemptions to the Criminal Code offences relating to storage and transportation. This only makes sense. These items are clearly not firearms. They are not treated as firearms under the Firearms Act; they should not be treated as firearms under the Criminal Code. However, the bill would maintain the ability for someone to be charged criminally for careless use of a firearm. This is an important point to remember.
Members on the other side of the House have repeatedly said that this bill is unsafe, that it would lead to the unsafe use of pellet guns, and so on. This is simply not true. I grew up using a BB gun. It is what I used before I was old enough to use a legal firearm. I was taught the appropriate respect for and the power that firearms have, and the BB gun was an introduction as to how to properly handle a firearm. My father was quite fastidious about that.
With the law written as it currently is, it dissuades individuals from wanting to use air rifles. The threat of criminal charges for simply making a mistake will turn many people off. When I and members who are pretty close to my age were younger, BB guns were a very common thing and today there is a resurgence. Perhaps this is exactly the intent of the other parties. We all remember former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock, who said that he came to Ottawa with the firm belief that only police and the military should have access to firearms. We on this side of the House clearly disagree.
Hunting is a part of our heritage. Sport shooting is a part of our heritage. Using pellet guns and BB guns is part of our heritage. These sports are very important to what it means to be Canadian. On this side of the House, we will always stand with law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters.
I am pleased to note that support for this legislation has been expressed by groups from coast to coast, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, as well as the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. This legislation would continue our safe and sensible approach to firearms rules in Canada, and I am pleased to support it. 
I continue to hope that members opposite will drop their ideological opposition to any measures that reduce the needless red tape for law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters. Given that both the Liberals and NDP have expressed a desire to bring back the long gun registry, I am not terribly hopeful, but I know that two million licensed Canadian gun owners will not forget the actions of these parties come this October.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to yet another Conservative gun bill. We seem to have had a lot of Conservative gun bills in this session of Parliament. Maybe that is because they like them so much, but it is also because the Conservatives are trying to whip up Canadians into a sense of outrage about the, as they call it, red tape around firearms. 
It is not red tape when the laws of this country are designed to protect people. The laws of this country are designed to protect people, protect police officers and protect ordinary citizens. One of the ways we protect people is by keeping dangerous firearms out of the hands of people who intend to do bad things with them.
 We also protect people by making sure that we cannot confuse, in this case, a BB gun with a real gun. That is part of what would happen as a result of the Conservative amendments to the Criminal Code about firearms storage and transportation. It would become possible for a police officer to become confused over whether or not a gun sitting on somebody's car seat is a BB gun. We do not want a situation to happen where weapons of this ilk become something that could cause confusion and could cause something bad to happen.
The biggest issue facing the folks in my riding with regard to guns is the proliferation of handguns. The proliferation of handguns has happened because the government has reduced the number of people working at the border of this country. As is documented on many occasions, handguns are coming into this country in large numbers, into the hands of children in my riding. 
Nothing in the bill would change whether or not the government has the effective resources at the border of this country to prevent children and young people from possessing and using much more dangerous firearms. 
I am surprised the Conservatives did not bring the bill forward as a government bill rather than a private member's bill, but that is another problem we are dealing with. Conservatives like to bring forward private members' bills to do government business so there is not enough time to properly debate it.
The bill is part of another process of making sure that the Conservatives can deregulate and de-red tape, in their view, the use of firearms in this country.
In many cases the guns that are being exempted by the government from these regulations could cause serious bodily harm. If they could cause serious bodily harm, they need to be handled safely, transported safely, I believe, in the same manner we would transport any other firearm. However, the government would like some firearms to be exempted from the storage and handling requirements.
It is perhaps a little difficult for some members opposite to understand that these things can, in fact, cause serious bodily harm. While at the same time, we have a porous border that allows literally thousands of handguns to flood the streets of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and other places, we have the government focused more on making it easier for people to transport guns generally. 
This is only one of a series of bills on gun control and gun legislation that have done nothing to protect people, and that is part of what a government is supposed to do, protect people. 
The Conservatives have made it easier for Canadians to own guns. They have made it easier for Canadians to own dangerous weapons. They have made it easier for Canadians to not have to let the police know about those guns. They have made it easier for the criminal element in this country to get handguns by getting them across the border, because the border has become so porous. We no longer have the ability to stop these things at the border.
When I go to a grade 10 classroom to talk to them about politics, I ask these 12, 13, 14, 15-year-old kids how many of them own an illegal handgun or know somebody who has one. Half the hands go up in the class. That is the reality we face in my riding. The proliferation of handguns is enormous The current government has done absolutely nothing to stop that flow of handguns at the border. I have not ever gone into a class and had them say, no, nobody has a gun any more. In fact, they repeat it every time I go, and that is because it is becoming so easy to acquire these things. 
What is the government doing about it? It is passing laws that would penalize people by putting them in jail for having one, yes. First, however, we have to stop them coming into the country. They are all illegal. The way to stop them being used is to stop them coming into the country. We are not doing that. These are not guns that are being manufactured in a Canadian facility and being given to grade 10 kids. No, that is not what is happening. They are being traded on the black market, in the city of Toronto. That black market is getting literally thousands of firearms from firearms shops in the U.S. that do not care whether or not somebody has proper ID or proper certification.
Anything that the current government does to lessen public safety is something that we will be opposed to. We have analyzed the bill and part of what the bill would do is to lessen public safety.
 We do not like lessening public safety when it comes to meat inspections. That has happened under the current Conservative watch.
We do not like the lessening of public safety when it comes to the rail system in this country. We have seen what lessening of public safety does when we had a train derailment in Lac-Mégantic. Forty-seven people were killed and a town was destroyed in Lac-Mégantic. What the Transportation Safety Board, very clearly, said is that the current government had failed, that it had failed to enforce and keep up with the systems that were necessary to ensure that the rail system is safe in this country. It is not getting any better. The Auditor General and the Transportation Safety Board said that rail safety in this country is in a perilous state, as we have seen with the spate of wrecks in the past two years since Lac-Mégantic. We have had Gogama, we have had Gogama a second time, we have had a wreck in New Brunswick, we have had wrecks in Saskatchewan and we have had wrecks all over the States.
These systems that the government claims are the rail safety systems of the future are not doing the job. They are not preventing the massive fireballs that happened. Those trains are still rolling through the centres of cities.
The notion that we should use legislation to make Canadians less safe is something that I will oppose. One of the functions of a proper government, of a government that will be in place in October 2015, when the NDP takes over, will be to protect Canadians, to protect their health, to protect their well-being, to protect their ability to live near a rail corridor, because many Canadians do, and to protect people from illogical and unthought-out changes to the Firearms Act.
It is all well and good to suggest that the changes to firearms storage and transportation is only about BB guns, and that everybody knows that BB guns cannot hurt anybody and why are we getting so upset about BB guns. These things are made to look like real guns. That is what they are. They are real guns. They are something that will hurt somebody quite seriously. When I was young, I was hit with a pellet gun. Luckily, the wound was very superficial because it hit a piece of leather on my shoe before it hit my foot. I was not hospitalized as a result, but I very well could have been. It was merely one of these toy guns that the Conservatives suggest do not need regulation at all.
They can cause serious bodily harm, their confusion makes it difficult for the police to sometimes know what they are and, therefore, we will be opposing the bill.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of thoughts that I would like to share with the House in regard to Bill C-637. 
This legislation seeks to ensure that BB guns, air guns and most likely pellet guns are not deemed firearms for the purpose of their transportation and storage, and therefore, the Criminal Code provisions related to the transportation and storage of firearms would not apply to these particular weapons.
The Liberal Party of Canada is opposed to measures that put Canadians' safety at risk, particularly when measures like those in this particular bill would primarily affect the safety of our children. There appears to be no dispute in the fact that BB guns, pellet guns and air guns are weapons and are fully capable of discharging a projectile which can cause a serious injury, if not death. Therefore, we do believe it is against the interest of public safety to weaken provisions on weapons that are often used by children.
The Liberal Party as a whole supports balanced gun control that prioritizes public safety while ensuring that law-abiding firearms owners do not face unfair treatment under the law. Maybe on that point, I could add a few thoughts.
With regard to the potential capability of a pellet gun, it has been recorded on a number of occasions that some individuals have actually died as a direct result of being shot with a pellet gun. I had the opportunity to do a little research on this. In 2014, down stateside, a couple of children were playing in a house. One child shot another child, and the child ended up dying as a result of the other child using a pellet gun.
As to giving the impression that pellet guns are not a dangerous weapon, used in an inappropriate way, a pellet gun can in fact be a very deadly weapon. There is a lot to be said in terms of the responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Canada. I suspect that if we were to canvass them, we would find that a vast majority of those individuals would recognize and want responsible legislation that ultimately does put the safety of Canadians first and foremost.
I have had the good fortune of getting to know a number of gun owners in the constituency I represent. From time to time there is a need for dialogue about gun laws. I do not really see where this particular piece of legislation is coming from. I have not heard anyone from my constituency say that this is something that is necessary. I have not heard arguments that have convinced me that it is in the best interests of public safety to pass this legislation.
I would suggest that if one is going to err, one should err on the side of caution and the safety of our children and the public as a whole. I have family members who have been involved in the restaurant business. We have seen holdups taking place. Holdups take place every day throughout the country. Weaponry, whether it is knives or guns, causes a great deal of fear.
It is not the law-abiding gun owners who concern me and the public. I do think there is a need for responsible legislation that will ultimately make sure both of those issues are addressed in a fair fashion. At times we will see the Conservative Party use gun control as a wedge issue to try to say that people should be able to have a gun and travel or do whatever it is they would like with that gun, in terms of transporting it.
The Conservatives tend not to be overly concerned with regard to the whole safety component, and that has not always been the case. In the early nineties, there was a hot debate on the gun registry. I heard about the debate when I was in the Manitoba legislature because there was a spillover effect that took place.
If we look at the history of the gun registry, we find that Conservative senators originally proposed it. That was through Kim Campbell who was a Progressive Conservative prime minister. It was acted on then by a Liberal administration and put into place. The gun registry is gone. The leader of the Liberal Party has said that we will not bring back the gun registry. However, the messaging tries to give false impressions purely for political purposes. Some of the strongest original advocates for the registry were Progressive Conservative members. 
 People can reflect on why we might have Bill C-637 in the House today. I know the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette is a passionate outdoorsman. I give him full credit for the manner in which he handles guns and rifles. I know he enjoys the outdoors, and he has written books on it. I respect that.
I believe urban and rural Canadians recognize the value of having good gun laws. On balance, there is always some need to do some tweaking here and there, but we need to work with our different stakeholder groups, whether it is the chiefs of police, the police associations, the many different advocacy groups, such as women and hunting advocacy groups. There is a very long list of individuals who have an interest in this industry and in sport activities.
There is an ability to build a consensus to move forward. I do not see that consensus on the bill before us. The arguments put forward are legitimate arguments. When I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba, I heard from the police about pellet guns, the appearances and safety related issues. I do not believe members have been able to convince, at least me, that the passage of the bill is in the best interests of our communities.
When I knock on doors and talk to constituents, the issue of crime and safety is very important. I do not believe I would have the support of a majority of my constituents in saying that the bill would make our streets safer. Again, this is not against what law-abiding gun owners are doing, but being sensitive to what I believe my constituents would want me to do, given the importance of crime and safety in our communities. 
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my colleagues across the way talk about pellet guns and paintball guns, I wonder what will be next: pocket knives, axes, slingshots, cap guns? Is this where we are going? On our side of the House, we like to be more rational and reasonable on this case.
I am pleased to rise today to voice my support for Bill C-637, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to firearms storage and transportation.
The bill was introduced by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, who has also served admirably as the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus. 
I have heard the arguments put forward by members opposite. They say that there is no need to bring clarity to the law, that owners of these items should have to live in fear of criminal sanctions because of unclear rules relating to storage and transportation. They seem to even suggest that ordinary people do not own these items, and that this is just some kind of “payola to the gun lobby”, to quote the NDP member for Newton—North Delta.
I believe that this comes right down to culture. On this side of the House, we believe that hunting, sport shooting, trapping, fishing, and other outdoor recreation activities are a proud part of our shared Canadian heritage. For the Liberals and the NDP, however, it seems that they have dismissed these activities as reserved solely for red necks and people from rural backgrounds. 
My constituents and I find this offensive. However, constituents are not the only ones. Many of my Conservative colleagues are here today based largely on the fact that Liberal and NDP members listened to their big Ottawa bosses instead of their constituents and voted for more red tape on law-abiding gun owners.
In fact, even the Liberal member for Malpeque said that, in his estimation, the gun registry issue cost the Liberals upwards of 60 seats in western Canada. I do not do this often, but I could not agree more with the Liberal member for Malpeque.
This debate is about values. We believe that dangerous criminals belong behind bars, but people who simply like to pursue outdoor activities should not be ostracized. That is why I am proud that our Conservative government has passed over 30 new tough-on-crime measures, including tough new sentences for drive-by shootings. 
However, we are also making sure that our firearms policies are safe and sensible. That is why we ended the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry once and for all. That is why we abolished needless regulations introduced by the previous Liberal government that did nothing but establish red tape. That is why we introduced the common sense firearms licensing act to crack down on dangerous individuals, while reducing red tape for those who obey the law. It is also why we are proud to support this legislation introduced by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.
Let me briefly explain what this legislation would do.
Currently, owners of paintball guns and pellet rifles, such as BB guns, could be subjected to criminal convictions for “careless storage” of these items. Section 86 of the Criminal Code says that someone who carelessly stores one of these items:
 (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment 
 (i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and 
 (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; 
That is, two years in prison for carelessly storing a BB gun. How many of us could be caught keeping a BB gun in the closet at the cottage? This law simply makes no sense and it is ridiculous.
Bill C-637 would put forward the same exemptions that prevent owners of paintball guns and pellet rifles from requiring a licence, and would apply these exemptions to the Criminal Code offences relating to storage and transportation. This only makes sense. These items are clearly not firearms. They are not treated as firearms under the Firearms Act. They should not be treated as firearms under the Criminal Code. What this bill would do, however, is maintain the ability for someone to be charged criminally for careless use.
 I will give members a brief example of ridiculous situations that could arise without this bill being passed.
Paintball is a sport enjoyed by many people across Canada, especially the younger generation. I must say I have played it in the past and my kids will be doing it tomorrow morning at 10:30, and will be participating in paintballing this weekend.
Hundreds of businesses that sell paintball guns and equipment operate across the country. If someone has a paintball gun in their vehicle, even if they are on their way to a paintball field to participate in this sport for the day, they could still be liable to criminal charges if they have not taken “reasonable precautions” to transport these items.
What does “reasonable precautions” mean? No one seems to know, as it is an undefined term. These items are clearly not firearms. They are clearly not dangerous when used, stored, and transported responsibly. We must stop this focus on ostracizing those who enjoy outdoor activities, and we must pass Bill C-637.
Gun owners in Canada know that there is only one party that can be trusted to provide safe and sensible firearms policies, and that is the Conservative Party. The Liberals have said they will bring back the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry should they ever get the chance. They even recruited former Toronto police chief Bill Blair as a candidate, who has repeatedly called for the reintroduction of the long gun registry. This is despite the fact that gun crime in Toronto went down significantly after the abolition of the gun registry.
The NDP has even gone so far as to say that certain firearms should be banned and that it wants a mechanism to track where every firearm in Canada is at at any given time.
I said earlier in the debate that it is about culture. The bill before us today enhances the ability of the next generation to become involved in hunting and sport shooting. Clearly the NDP and Liberals do not support this. My constituents, and I suspect many constituents from rural ridings, will remember the positions taken by members on bills like the one before us today. 
I call on members to join with our Conservative government and vote in support of law-abiding hunters, farmers, sport shooters, and paintballers across the country.
Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their thoughtful speeches.
I am the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, and proudly so. We are the only political party that has such a caucus in Parliament. Over the last year, my caucus members and I have met with dozens of hunting, angling, trapping, and outdoor groups across the country. Contrary to popular opinion, the culture of the outdoors—angling, hunting, trapping and fishing—is very much alive and well. My friend from Prince George said it well when he used the term “culture”. We are the only political party and the only government that so strongly defends the outdoor culture. 
Contrary to popular belief, this is not a declining culture in our country. In fact, the request for hunter safety instruction is growing by leaps and bounds across the country; this community is roaring back. There are some four million people in this country who hunt, fish, and trap. It is a sizeable part of our country.
In order to help and work with this very important constituency, we put forth Bill C-42, which was widely and positively received by the hunting and sport shooting community. In the environment committee, we are doing a major study of hunting and trapping, and in the fisheries committee we are doing a major study of recreational fishing. Why do I mention those two committee studies? That is because both of those studies in each committee were strongly opposed by the Liberals and the NDP. We were shocked by that opposition. It is the first time that those committees have studied these topics: hunting and trapping in the environment committee, and recreational fishing in the fisheries committee.
Interestingly, the members of the hunting and angling community are Canada's first, foremost, and most effective conservationists. Their appearance before our committee was astonishing. They described the conservation activities that the hunting and angling community does across the country, which this government strongly supports.
In terms of my bill, which is basically a kind of housekeeping bill, as my colleague from Prince George said, we are ensuring that such activities as paintballing and owning a BB gun are not subject to criminal sanctions if some paperwork is not done. This important legislation responds to the needs of the owners of paintball guns, BB guns, and air rifles, providing much-needed clarity with respect to how Canadian law treats this type of property.
How do these devices differ from firearms? They are essentially pneumatic devices that propel projectiles by means of compressed air. This differentiates them from regular bullet-firing firearms, which use a propellant charge. Air guns are commonly used for hunting, pest control, recreational shooting, and competitive sports; for example, the Olympics include 10 metre air rifle and 10 metre air pistol events. Beyond this, they remain popular with thousands of Canadians because they are quieter, more affordable, and their regulation is not nearly as stringent as with true firearms. 
Air guns are generally divided into the following categories. 
First we have air guns, in which the shot or projectile will not cause serious injury or death. These devices fall outside of the scope of the Firearms Act. An example is a harmless air gun made out of clear plastic, or a device that is a child's toy. The next category includes those air guns that have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, injury, or death, and these fall under the Criminal Code. 
I would note, as well, that my colleagues across the way were talking about the potential criminal use of air gun devices. I would point out that it is a criminal offence to point an air gun, or to act as if it is a firearm. If a store is robbed by an individual with an air gun, for criminal law purposes it is treated the same as a firearm. 
My bill simply reduces red tape on law-abiding Canadian citizens. This is what Canadians want. I ask all members to support this bill and ensure that we continue to move toward safe and sensible firearms policies in this country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. 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 93, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, May 6, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:17 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:17 p.m.)