2015-01-30

Government Orders
Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from January 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the protection of Canada from terrorists act. This is an important bill that would allow our government to move forward on our commitment to keep Canadians safe from terrorist threats. 
The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. That is why our government has committed the Canadian Armed Forces to the broad international coalition against the so-called Islamic State. No Canadian government should ever stand on the sidelines while our allies act to deny terrorists a safe haven, an international base from which they could plot violence against us.
Recent events of terror around the globe, and particularly the two tragic attacks last October in Quebec and Ottawa and the recent attacks in Paris, have pushed this issue to the forefront of the government's agenda in a way never before seen in Canada's history. It is now abundantly clear to all Canadians that terrorism is no longer a threat in a faraway land. We must degrade and destroy the terrorists before they bring their barbaric, violent ideology to our shores. 
In light of the atrocities carried out by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, and the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Syria, the world is rallying against the threats of violent extremism. That is why we have introduced the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Now, more than ever, we must ensure that CSIS can undertake its work as it was originally intended by Parliament. 
While this legislation is important, it is not lengthy or complicated. In fact, the proposed amendments are targeted and common sense. However, any time a government introduces legislation concerning national security, there are those who raise concerns, which can lead to misunderstanding. As a result, there has been some confusion about what this legislation would do. 
 Allow me to start with what it would not do. It would not, as some have suggested, hand broad, sweeping powers to CSIS. Just as importantly, it would not create new authorities or infringe on the rights of Canadians. We have been abundantly clear on these points. With this legislation, as with all bills that have passed through the House, our government has worked diligently to strike a proper balance between public safety and civil liberties. 
Thirty years ago, when the CSIS act was passed, the Parliament of the day ensured that this balance was adhered to in the authorities given to CSIS. That is why the act put in place robust safeguards, oversight, and review mechanisms to ensure that CSIS's investigative work is done with full respect of its governing laws. 
As we know, Bill C-44 responds to court decisions that are having a significant impact on CSIS operations. Before I go into the provisions of the bill, I would like to provide some context on these decisions and why they necessitate the amendments before us today. 
Just last fall, the Federal Court of Appeal unsealed its July 2014 decision related to the government's appeal of Justice Mosley's decision that was issued by the Federal Court in November 2013. This decision has raised important questions about certain aspects of CSIS's mandate and investigative authorities, particularly in relation to CSIS's ability to conduct investigations outside of Canada.
It is self-evident that Parliament always intended CSIS to be able to take reasonable and necessary measures to investigate threats to the security of Canada outside of Canada. The protection of Canada from terrorists act introduces targeted amendments to the CSIS act to ensure that CSIS can continue to do just that and do so in a manner that is consistent with relevant Canadian law, the Charter, and Canadian values. 
To start, the bill would confirm CSIS's authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada and security assessments. At the same time, the bill would also confirm the authority of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada, and it would give the Federal Court authority to consider only relevant Canadian law, primarily the CSIS act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when issuing warrants for CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada.
Why are these amendments important? It is because threats to the security of Canada do not stop at our border. Many threats, in fact, may develop entirely outside of Canada. 
In order to fully investigate these threats, CSIS must be able to use intrusive investigative techniques outside of Canada, and it must have a clear means to obtain authorization to do so. The Federal Court of Appeal effectively found that, as currently written, the CSIS act may require CSIS to demonstrate that its activities will be lawful in the country where the activity will take place. This is not a reasonable threshold to require CSIS to meet. CSIS, and indeed the Federal Court, cannot reasonably expect to track the legislation of all 170 countries in the world to determine which kinds of activities are lawful in those countries and which ones are not. It is also unreasonable because subjects of investigation move around from country to country and CSIS cannot reasonably be expected to predict to which countries a subject of investigation might travel. It is clear that Parliament did not intend CSIS to meet such a threshold when it originally passed the CSIS act, and neither should we here today.
Just to re-emphasize the fact that CSIS must have a clear authority to conduct investigative activities outside of Canada, let me say this. At a time when we are witnessing Canadians travelling abroad to take part in terrorist activities, we simply cannot have ambiguity or questions about CSIS's authority to take reasonable steps outside of Canada to investigate the threat to the security of Canada that they may pose.
Turning to the second court decision affecting CSIS operations, in May 2014, as part if its decision on Mohamed Harkat, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that CSIS human sources do not benefit from a common-law class privilege similar to the informer privilege applicable to police informants. While this does not necessarily mean that these CSIS sources will be revealed during court proceedings, it has weakened CSIS's ability to provide human sources—a critical source of information for CSIS—with a credible assurance that their identity would be protected. The implications of this are serious, as those human sources may decide not to provide CSIS with information that could be vital to an investigation of a terrorist threat to Canada. To address this issue, the bill provides that the identities of CSIS human sources would be prohibited from being disclosed in legal proceedings.
However, it is worth noting that this is subject to certain exceptions to preserve the right of Canadians to fair legal proceedings. To this end, the legislation includes three measures under which this protection could be lifted. 
First, the human sources could, of their own accord, agree to the disclosure of their identity in court, subject to the consent of the director of CSIS. 
Second, parties to the proceedings could ask a judge to make a ruling regarding the human source. For example, is the individual in fact a human source, and could the information in question actually reveal the identity of the human source? 
Third, in criminal proceedings, defendants and any other party to the proceedings would be able to ask a judge to declare that the disclosure of the identity of a human source or information from which their identity might be inferred is essential to establish the innocence of the accused.
 More important, these amendments would not in any way interfere with the ability of judges to take other measures to ensure the fairness of legal proceedings beyond revealing the identity of a CSIS human source. Judges also have broad discretion to determine the weight to give to information provided by CSIS human sources in legal proceedings. The proposed amendments would not affect this discretion in any way.
The protection of Canada from terrorists act would also make technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. These amendments would allow earlier implementation of provisions that ensure that dual citizens who have been convicted of terrorist acts and sentenced to a prison term of at least five years would not continue to benefit from Canadian citizenship. 
The amendments that our government has proposed through the protection of Canada from terrorists act are reasonable, necessary, and consistent with the values of Canadians. The Federal Court of Appeal and decisions from the Federal Court have raised important questions about CSIS's mandate and investigative authorities, and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has weakened CSIS's ability to protect the identity of human sources.
Parliament must respond to these decisions by affirming CSIS's existing authority to conduct investigative activities outside of Canada, clearly stating that the Federal Court does have jurisdiction to issue warrants for activities outside of Canada, including certain intrusive activities that may be unlawful in the jurisdiction where they would take place, and stating that Parliament wishes the identity of CSIS human sources to be protected from disclosure in legal proceedings, subject to certain exceptions. 
CSIS would, as always, continue to be required to obtain judicial authorization to undertake certain intrusive investigative techniques in relation to Canadians, and also remain subject to robust review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, CIRC, which has access to all information in the possession of CSIS, except cabinet confidences.
CIRC's powers of review are among the most far-reaching of any body reviewing any intelligence agency in the western world. I believe that these amendments are critical to ensuring safety and security of Canadians. 
Canadians expect us to ensure that our law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools to keep them safe. That is why we have trusted our Conservative government to deliver on these important issues. Unlike the NDP, whose leader has refused to call the atrocities that occurred in late October a terrorist attack, we have taken strong action, except when he asked for 24-hour, 7-day-a-week police protection.
I have a question for the NDP leader, and perhaps some of his colleagues could answer me today. If what happened in this place was merely caused by a drug addict who was mentally unstable, why did the NDP leader demand additional RCMP security? I can tell him why. It is because, despite his leftist rhetoric, he knows that there is a real and present terrorist threat.
I was pleased to see earlier this week that the Liberals have finally adopted our approach on national security. Hopefully they have rejected their ill-advised approach of looking for the root causes of terrorism, as their leader suggested after the bombing at the Boston Marathon. I can tell the Liberals exactly the root cause of terrorism in plain language that all Canadians can understand. The root cause of terrorism is terrorists. 
I hope all members will join me in supporting this very important legislation. 
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech. We have frequently worked together as members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Even though we have often disagreed about various bills, we have always preserved a sense of collegiality in the committee.
During meetings of that committee, whether attended by witnesses and experts or private citizens, people had lots of questions. There is one question in particular that the government never answered; it was about the constitutionality of Bill C-44. We repeatedly asked the Minister of Public Safety, his parliamentary secretary and his colleagues on the opposite side of the House whether they had received any legal opinions confirming that Bill C-44 is well and truly constitutional because we do not want to end up debating the constitutionality of a bill before the Supreme Court yet again. 
Can my colleague across the way tell me for sure whether Bill C-44 is well and truly constitutional?
[Interjection]
LaVar Payne: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from across the way. We do work together well on the public safety committee. Certainly we have had the opportunity to have a lot of discussion on various issues, and I appreciate her presence and her question. 
I can tell the hon. member that, in fact, any of the legislation that our government puts through the House of Commons has to go through a rigorous process to ensure that it does meet all constitutional requirements, as well as those ensuring the freedoms and protection of all Canadians.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member might be able to respond to a letter, or it may have been an email, that was actually sent to one of his colleagues in regard to exploding targets. The letter says, “I continue to find it very surprising that the Conservative government seems unable to understand that the easy availability of this explosive [referring to exploding targets]—ammonium nitrate and aluminium powder that can be simply scaled up to a very powerful bomb—is a threat to the safety of Canadians. There is no control on a radicalized person acquiring a large quantity of this explosive, once they have obtained a firearms licence. I hope that someone in the existing government will realize the major blunder made by making this powerful explosive so widely and easily available before it results in the injury and death of Canadians.” 
It is regarding exploding targets, and apparently the government has done something to make it more available, that one only requires a firearms possession certificate to acquire large quantities of it.
This is a letter that I just bring to his attention, and I would be interested in his thoughts on it.
[Interjection]
LaVar Payne: Mr. Speaker, I would not mind getting a copy of that letter from my colleague across the way. It is an interesting concept that people can buy a whole bunch of different products to potentially make bombs. I do not believe that is in the interest of Canadians in ensuring the protection of all our citizens.
I have not seen anything in particular with respect to the legislation, but I would be more than happy to work with him on that issue and come to some resolution.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that public safety and national security are a priority for every person here. 
I think it is important to point out that this highly important question is, once again, being discussed in a hurry under a time allocation motion that restricts our speaking time. To me, that is completely unacceptable.
To be sure, we cannot pretend that we have not seen the Conservative Party's tasteless and partisan ads about these very issues. 
I would like to know if the government introduced this bill for partisan reasons and is trying to ride roughshod over reason. We agree that the issue is pressing, but the government could make it a priority instead of limiting our speaking time. 
If they did not do it for partisan reasons, then why is there once again no place for the amendments put forward in committee by, for example, the NDP official opposition, which, like the Conservatives, cares deeply about public safety?
[Interjection]
LaVar Payne: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that those members have suggested that this is a political manoeuvre. It is the responsibility of the government of the day, which happens to be our Conservative government, to ensure that Canadian citizens, whether they are parliamentarians or everyday citizens, are protected from terrorists. That is our prime concern.
If we do not get the legislation through, people will ask why. This is important legislation that would protect Canadians and our country from these jihadist terrorists. It is extremely important. I would not say that this is any kind of political move.
 If we talk about a political move, the leader of the NDP and his colleagues suggested that the attack in the House was because of a drug addict. Let us get real. We know what it was. The real question is this. If the NDP members think this was just a drug addict, why did the NDP leader ask for 24-hour a day police protection? I do not see the reality in his question.
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, we support this bill insofar as it explores and seeks to strengthen provisions to ensure the safety of all Canadians. However, we have concerns, when the Conservatives say “a robust debate” and “a robust process”, that closure will not be used, and that when it comes to committee, they will not be scoping the input from learned Canadians to ensure the bill is improved.
My question is centred on the concern that the member had about a political leader who talked about root causes as being somehow inappropriate. My understanding is that the Prime Minister is today announcing measures in Richmond Hill that explore how we stop the root causes from creating the dangerous circumstances and how we work with our friends and neighbours in the Muslim community, who seek peace and a just world, to ensure that radicalization does not happen, and that the elements and conditions that create radicalization and dangerous circumstances are addressed before terrorism exists.
Surely, terrorism does not just create terrorism. There are root causes. That is why the Prime Minister is making his announcement. Does the member not support his Prime Minister?
[Interjection]
LaVar Payne: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. Of course I support the Prime Minister. 
Throughout these activities, including this bill, we have talked about what we need to do to try to ensure that terrorists are stopped before they come to Canada. We already know we have about 130 individuals who have gone abroad to participate in terrorism.
 I know the leader of the Liberal Party had suggested that the bombing in Boston was because we did not understand the Muslims and we needed to get to the root cause of that. The root cause of it is that those terrorists do not want to see Canadians and people across the globe have the freedoms and values that Canadians appreciate.
 We have freedom of speech. We have the opportunity to work and travel abroad. These are the rights that Canadians want. In fact, our government, and all our agencies and legal authorities, such as the police, are working with Canadians right across the country to try to stop terrorism before it hits here.
I certainly do support our Prime Minister. I do not have the items that the Prime Minister will be releasing, but I am sure we will get that information in short order. However, it will be to ensure that Canadians are safe from terrorists.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-44. Bill C-44 was introduced shortly after the events of October 22, 2014, which shocked us all.
I know that this bill was not a response from the government to those events, something that was not clear in the speech that my colleague just gave. It seemed like he was saying that it was a response to the attacks that took place in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa, but it was not. Bill C-44 had already been drafted well before those attacks took place. This bill is therefore not a response on the part of the government.
We expect better answers from the Conservative government on what it wants to do to combat terrorism today. There was talk of an announcement around noon. We are anxious to see whether the government is going to present a balanced approach. I am still holding out hope.
With regard to Bill C-44, which is before us today, I would like to say from the outset that the official opposition, the NDP, is going to oppose this bill at third reading. I will try to explain why in my remarks.
I have a few things to say to my colleagues opposite after listening to their speeches. I noted a few things that they said. The sad thing about Bill C-44 and the pressure that the government is putting on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is that the government would have us believe that giving CSIS more power is a good thing. It would be if the government also gave the agency the resources and tools it needs. However, unfortunately, the Conservatives decided to go it alone and did not hold the necessary consultations on Bill C-44. There has also been talk about a balance between public safety and civil liberties, something that we do not see at all in Bill C-44.
The whole national security context is undergoing rapid changes. The nature of the attacks we are facing has changed, and in general, the attackers are not the same either. The problems are changing extremely quickly, particularly because of the new tools that terrorists have and their access to social media.
This brings me to the issue of resources within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This is a fundamental part of the problem, but the Conservatives refuse to address it. All departments have been affected by austerity measures over the past few years. For example, cuts totalling over $100 million have been made to the Department of Public Safety. In 2012-13, cuts totalling about $15 million were made to CSIS.
When my colleague talks about striking a balance between security and civil liberties, I also think about the fact that the inspector general of CSIS position was scrapped, even though it was crucial to accountability at CSIS. That was not done in 2012-13, but because of cuts totalling around $24.5 million that will be announced in future budgets, it will be done in 2014-15. That was an extremely important position that helped balance civil liberties and national security.
In addition, we were disappointed to hear about some questionable spending, to say the least and to avoid unparliamentary language, by Michel Coulombe, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Here is just one example: during a trip, the director of CSIS actually spent over $750 on a hotel room for one night—this at a time when we are in the middle of an austerity program and his agency is suffering significant cuts. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. The director of CSIS is spending more on himself right now than the Minister of Public Safety. It is totally unacceptable to see taxpayers' money spent like that. What are we hearing from the Conservatives right now? Nothing, radio silence. They have no response when we ask what will happen next. Will the director of CSIS be reprimanded for misusing public funds? We still do not know. 
As far as Bill C-44 is concerned, many things were discussed in committee. In fact, I will come back to what happened, but to give my colleagues a sense of what is in Bill C-44, I would add that it does nothing to improve civilian oversight of CSIS, as promised. As the official opposition, we thought it was an excellent opportunity to correct the situation and work together to ensure that the government kept its promise and did more for civil liberties while sorting out the existing problems at CSIS.
Unfortunately, all of our amendments to that end were rejected. In fact, I will go even further: all the amendments that the official opposition, the third party and other members of the House proposed at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security were rejected by the government. That is absolutely unacceptable after members said they would try to work together, especially at such an important stage as review in committee, where witnesses give extremely important opinions.
I was also shocked by something else. This bill is only six or seven pages long, which is not very long. Under the Conservatives we have become accustomed to seeing bills that are often 100 or so pages long, so five or six pages is not very much. However, the Conservatives managed to create an omnibus bill out of those pages. I commend them. That is quite a feat. Bill C-44 affects not just CSIS, but also part of the Citizenship Act, which has nothing to do with what we are interested in here, namely the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
In fact, the Conservatives are playing petty politics. They passed legislation concerning the Citizenship Act and they want that legislation to come into effect sooner than they planned. They therefore included a provision in Bill C-44 to make the legislation they introduced come into effect sooner. In fact, no one in the House except for them agreed to that. This is absolutely unacceptable and illogical when we are dealing with something as important as our public safety and national security.
This brings me to the work in committee in general. We moved 12 very reasonable amendments to this bill. A number of expert witnesses were behind us. Our proposed amendments were mainly based on the evidence provided by experts to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and also that of groups of stakeholders that we managed to meet with over what I must say was a short period of time. In fact, Bill C-44 was rushed through committee very quickly. The number of hours of debate in the House of Commons was reduced, as often happens with this government, and we did not have many committee meetings. There were only two meetings where we were able to listen to witnesses and experts. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the director of CSIS, Michel Coulombe, and stakeholders associated with the minister and the director attended the first meeting. That left us with only two hours to question witnesses and experts not directly associated with the government.
As for the work in committee, I must say that the Conservatives allowed us to invite only a small number of witnesses. Clearly, you cannot have a large number of witnesses in two hours, but we had very limited time.
The committee did not hear from a lot of witnesses, and most of the witnesses came from the Conservative government. As a result, we heard very little from people who were not from the government side. This made the work very difficult because I would say that over the course of an hour, we had about six witnesses at once. This prevented us from really going into great detail on Bill C-44. The government had told us that we would all work together, that we would develop a good bill and come to a unanimous consensus on something. Unfortunately the government disappointed us yet again. 
We voted in favour of this bill at second reading because we wanted to send it to committee. We thought that the Conservatives were serious about Bill C-44 and that they truly wanted to work together and put partisanship aside. There is no place for partisanship in discussions on public safety and national security or in discussions on civil liberties, when we are talking about CSIS. 
It is sad to see that the government has disappointed us yet again and that we were not able to work together to create the best bill possible. Because the bill before us is not the best it could be, I want to talk about its constitutionality.
I asked the Conservative member who just spoke on Bill C-44 whether they had received legal opinions confirming that the bill is well and truly constitutional. He managed to evade the question just as well as the Minister of Public Safety and all the people who dealt with this bill. No one was able to offer any legal opinions to prove that this bill was constitutional.
This is therefore highly likely to be yet another bill that ends up before the courts in a test of its constitutionality. If that happens, millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent on something that could have been taken care of before the bill was introduced. The government is being irresponsible by introducing bills that it does not know for sure are constitutional. When we are trying to address public safety in the current global context, it is a very bad idea to introduce something that is not constitutional and that will probably be unusable until its constitutionality has been proven in court. This is extremely disappointing. 
I talked about what is in Bill C-44. I would like to go back to that because I want to make one very important point about something in it. Bill C-44 contains one very important clause that will make significant changes to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, namely with respect to the protection of all the sources listed. 
Bill C-44 ensures full protection of identity for all of CSIS's human intelligence sources. Those of you who know a little bit about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will see that that is a very good thing: people doing secret work on the ground and sources will be protected. That is very important, and it is already being done. Sources involved in sensitive and delicate cases are already being protected. At any time, on a case-by-case basis, judges can already protect CSIS sources. 
Under Bill C-44, all employees who are currently working, used to work, or may someday work for CSIS can be protected. That might seem right on the surface, but here is what is changing: this is directly related to what the government did not do, to the balance between public safety and civil liberties. 
 Should CSIS end up in court for criminal proceedings, CSIS human sources may well have to testify, if necessary. Legal experts have expressed concern that full protection of identity for human sources will make it more difficult to test CSIS evidence in criminal cases, which may create obstacles to the successful prosecution of those involved in threats to national security on the basis of CSIS information. 
The ability of the accused to confront their accuser and to test evidence in court is a fundamental part of Canadian criminal law. 
This will add complications, as it will require a separate process in Federal Court. This unnecessarily complicates many things. We can protect sources working on extremely important investigations on a case-by-case basis. This measure is then a rather grandiose way of protecting a lot of people at the head of CSIS.
After the events in Ottawa and the attacks on Charlie Hebdo or in Australia, a few weeks ago, people are worried and expect Canadian parliamentarians to work together to find the right solutions to national and international security problems. They expect us to work with our counterparts around the world to find tangible ways to deal with radicalization and terrorism.
Unfortunately, partisan measures and a box full of unnecessary tools are not going to be the solution. There are concrete ways to address radicalization and terrorism. First of all, we need to give more resources to people on the ground. Huge cuts are being made to important programs. For instance, the Conservative government did not renew the $400 million that used to go directly to police forces in Quebec. One of the things they used that funding for was to tackle the problem of radicalization in our street gangs. This is extremely serious. 
In recent months, police forces have been telling us that they are seeing people become radicalized, but they do not have the resources to do anything about it. It is all well and good to give them a nice, big tool box, but if they do not have the personnel needed do something with it, it is pointless. We are not tackling the problem directly, and that is extremely serious.
We can also address radicalization and terrorism by working on the ground with people from certain communities, regardless of their nationality and their field of work. However, this government has never included this solution in any of its bills or plans. We need to look at what is happening on the ground and understand the needs that exist in order to come up with a consensus. The Conservative government does not do that. 
I am very disappointed in this bill, which has many flaws and is probably unconstitutional. It does not improve civilian oversight of CSIS and only introduces measures to further protect CSIS when it finds itself in hot water. 
I would like to stress how very disappointed I am, because I wanted to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Following the events that shocked us all, I thought we would be able to agree on a positive measure that would still allow us to preserve civil liberties. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure the public safety of the communities and people we represent.
Unfortunately, the official opposition cannot support this bill because of how it was put together and the blatant lack of consultation of experts and communities. I am saddened to see that we have once again been presented with an omnibus bill and, even worse, that the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and CSIS employees are not being given the resources they need to address the real problem of radicalization. Their budgets keep getting cut, which decreases the number of employees on the ground who could do the work and properly use the tools.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan. I especially want to thank her for explaining what happened in committee because we are not necessarily privy to what happens at every meeting. She spoke of the abysmal process in committee.
That reminds me, for example, of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where the deposition of the minister who appears before the committee is considered to be that of an actual witness, whereas in reality it is just the minister's statement. 
I am pleased that she explained this flaw in the system and the Conservatives' use of this absolutely dishonest method.
I also thank her for reminding us that Bill C-44 was drafted before the incidents that took place in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and elsewhere.
That incident directly concerns my riding and so I would like the member to remind us that Martin Couture-Rouleau, who was dealing with mental health issues, was already being monitored by the RCMP. He was assessed just a few months before he committed this crime. In the assessment, the RCMP concluded that he was no longer a threat.
Can my colleague explain how amending a law that governs CSIS would not have prevented this tragedy or changed it in any way? In fact, this person was already being monitored, he had been assessed and the assessment had concluded that he was no longer a threat.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his question.
I know that these incidents have had a direct impact on the people that he represents and that this has been a very tough time for him. It is an extremely sensitive subject and for that reason, I thank him for asking that question in the House. I believe that this is an extremely important topic.
That brings me to the fact that the Conservatives are using these incidents to promote the idea that bills like Bill C-44 are very important.
We need to talk about this for the good of the people that we represent. If we do not look at the specifics of the bill and do not talk about exactly what it contains, people will not know. They will think that Bill C-44 is about CSIS and that it will actually have an impact should other other similar incidents occur.
My colleague from Saint-Jean is completely right: this bill has nothing to do with those incidents. It is sad that the Conservatives are using those incidents to promote this type of bill, which ultimately does not have the proper focus.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and the previous question.
One of the things we do need to emphasize is that even though there might be some concerns regarding Bill C-44, it is a step in the right direction. It does provide clarity on a number of different issues, in particular by allowing for a greater sense of comfort with CSIS and the individuals it has to deal with. It provides some greater sense of security.
As a whole, Canadians are very concerned about the issue of terrorism and want to see the government bring in necessary legislation that will to make a difference and allow CSIS and other security measures to be more effective. We in the Liberal Party recognize that this bill is somewhat of a step forward and therefore will be voting in favour of it.
Do the New Democratic members recognize that our security agency is also looking at what is being provided through this legislation? Do they recognize that at the very least, even though there are shortcomings in the legislation, it has some value and that Canadians as a whole recognize that value and want to see the bill passed?
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the difference between the NDP and the Liberals. At the beginning of his remarks, the member said that Bill C-44 provides clarity on a number of issues. I strongly disagree with that statement simply because most experts that we heard from told us that they did not know whether the bill was constitutional or whether it could even be used.
What is happening with Bill C-44 is not necessarily clear. It does not necessarily address all of the issues associated with radicalization and terrorism in Canada and throughout the world. I would like to talk a bit more about the lack of clarity concerning the direction the Conservatives and the Liberals want to take. What is their position on the tools and resources available to ensure public safety and national security?
I do not think that we can talk about clarity here because the bill does not address civil liberties, does not protect Canadians from CSIS and does not allocate the necessary resources. What is more, the bill deals with issues that are not necessarily even related to the general subject of the bill.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. On matters of public safety and civil liberties, the NDP is at the forefront and will do everything in its power to ensure that a bill such as Bill C-44 helps as many people as possible. We will make sure that there is a truly democratic dialogue among all members to further this very important cause.
Regarding the relationship between radicalization and terrorist acts, my colleague showed that this bill lacks concrete measures to create conditions that will prevent radicalization from taking root in our communities.
Can my colleague comment further on that and give the House some ideas for dealing with the phenomenon of radicalization?
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert for raising that question in the House. I think it is very important because the time is right. We will be talking about public safety and national security a lot in 2015. This issue is extremely important to most Canadians. It is important to talk about it now in the House, to try to find a consensus and to come up with good ideas for the solutions we need. 
The first step is to look to our communities to see what is happening there. Many of our colleagues want to know what is going on in their community. Is radicalization happening? Are things different on the ground? There are also people who go to observe what is happening outside the country. The Charlie Hebdo attacks had a profound impact on us. The French are going through similar experiences to ours. People went to see what was happening there and to talk to people in these communities, and they realized, in the end, that the problems we are seeing here are very similar to those experienced by our French colleagues, friends and cousins across the ocean. Our fight against radicalization should be founded on an understanding of exactly what is happening on the ground .
Furthermore, we need to place more trust in our police forces, whether we are talking about the RCMP, provincial police forces, border services officers or CSIS agents. These people work on the ground and they understand the dynamics. We must give them the tools they need.
In conclusion, my colleague mentioned at the beginning of her comments that the NDP is a champion of balancing public safety and civil liberties. We demonstrated this in committee with the various amendments we proposed to ensure that there would be a balance between the two.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Malpeque, I will let him know that there are only five minutes remaining before we go to statements by members at 11 o'clock, but he will get started and will have the remaining time in his 20 minutes when the House next resumes business on the question.
The hon. member for Malpeque.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assume that the House is continuing the discussion on this bill following question period. My remarks then will certainly be curtailed because for some reason the government has called a briefing on the new combating terrorism act, or whatever it may call it, at 11:30, which is halfway through question period, and that will go through to 12:30 p.m. Because of the actions of the government, I will not be able to conclude my speech. It is startling that the Conservatives would call a briefing during question period when members are supposed to be here.
Instead of taking time to duplicate the discussion, the member for Alfred-Pellan talked about what happened at committee. I agree with her comments. The ability of the committee to do its work was certainly curtailed. I think we had six witnesses, which is just not adequate to do the job, especially with all the pomp and ceremony by the government and its line that it is fighting terrorism and that the bill is so important. We will see what is in the new bill coming forward this afternoon.
This bill really does absolutely nothing to address the national security concerns that resulted from the recent events in Quebec and Ottawa. It simply amends legislation to meet current CSIS practices and expedites amendments to citizenship and immigration from Bill C-24. We raised with the minister in the House and at committee the point that the government must explain why it is not using existing legislation and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. Here I refer to preventive arrest and section 83 of the Criminal Code, whereunder someone, if they are planning, attempting to, or leaving the country to operate with a terrorist entity abroad, can face from 10 to 14 years in prison. We have never had an answer from the government why those sections of the law are not being utilized, specifically subsection 83.18(1). Peace bonds have only been used very rarely, but they are another way of taking people off the streets. 
The bill contains provisions related to clarifying CSIS' ability to operate internationally, although according to the deputy commissioner of CSIS in testimony to the Senate national security committee, it will not alter its ability to operate internationally, which it has been doing historically. The bill as well does provide protections to sources abroad. These are similar to the protections provided to informants in domestic cases. We are supportive of that. We have to be supportive of those who work with CSIS in carrying out its duties.
I will close by saying that we will be supporting the bill. We have some concerns about the bill in that the Minister of Public Safety is not required to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence on activities abroad. That is a concern we raised and we stand by it, but we will be supporting the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Malpeque will have 15 minutes remaining in his time for his speech when we return to this question, likely later this day.

Statements By Members
Mental HealthMrs. Pat Perkins (Whitby—Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week Bell ran another successful Let's Talk campaign to raise money and awareness for mental health. 
During this campaign, I was reminded of the veterans who have fought and sacrificed for this country and who suffer from a mental illness. Our veterans need to have easily accessible facilities where they can talk to qualified professionals about mental health.
Our Conservative government supports the existing 17 mental health clinics across Canada, soon to be joined by eight additional ones. Our government has also partnered with the True Patriot Love Foundation, which has now given the largest single philanthropic donation to mental health research in Canadian history.
When we talk of mental health, I call on all members of the House to please remember and support our veterans.
SeniorsSadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday a resident of the Jazz Longueuil seniors home jumped from the ninth floor of her building. This act of desperation has shaken the entire city of Longueuil and everyone in my riding.
With National Suicide Prevention Week just around the corner, this terrible tragedy reminds us of the scope of the problem among seniors. Every year some 150 seniors in Canada, feeling isolated and abandoned and with nowhere to turn, commit suicide. The situation is urgent and is getting worse.
In my riding alone, the number of seniors will increase by 80% in the next 10 years. Community organizations in my riding such as Action-services aux proches aidants de Longueuil and Les Petits Frères are doing remarkable work, but they have been abandoned by the federal government.
The NDP is not turning its back on this problem. That is why we are the only party to have proposed a national aging strategy.
Everyone has a right to age with dignity. We need to act now.
Veterans AffairsMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when I think of veterans, I am often reminded of many of the elderly men and women who march proudly on Remembrance Day in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia.
Many of our veterans now include young men and women who also have sacrificed for our country. The age of a veteran now spans from 19 to 100, with the majority being younger. That is why our government has cut red tape and worked to accommodate our younger veterans by making access to many of the Veterans Affairs benefits easier. 
We have moved to digitize veterans' medical records. We have sped up adjudication and access to benefits. We have launched the My VAC Account, an online portal giving veterans more information than ever before. 
These are some of the ways our government is cutting red tape, and under the current Minister of Veterans Affairs, we will continue to do so.
Tom Miller Human Rights AwardHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the human rights work done by Archbishop Vincent Waterman from my riding. 
Mr. Waterman ministers to St. Philip's African Orthodox Church in Whitney Pier, which is the only African Orthodox Church in Canada and is designated a provincial heritage property. He volunteers as a chaplain at the Royal Canadian Legion branch 28, as well as the Cape Breton Naval Veterans Association and countless other community organizations. 
Mr. Waterman's dedication to promoting human rights is truly an inspiration. In 1983, he came to Cape Breton to take over from his father-in-law, George Francis, who was the longest-serving rector of St. Philip's Church, from 1940 to 1982. Mr. Waterman exemplifies a strong work ethic, and he has brought great pride not only to his family and friends but also to Cape Breton at large. 
I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Archbishop Waterman on being awarded the Tom Miller Human Rights Award and I thank him for his many years of tireless service to our community.
Veterans AffairsMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and pay tribute to the hard work and sacrifice of our veterans. Our veterans have sacrificed and fought for our freedom, our democracy, and this great country. I think all of us in the House know a veteran. 
Under our Conservative government, we have worked to assist our veterans to make the transition from the Canadian Forces to Veterans Affairs Canada easier. Among our government's many initiatives, we have hired more staff to help transfer medical files more quickly and more efficiently from National Defence to Veterans Affairs. We have significantly reduced the number of pages on the application forms, thus reducing red tape, and through eight successive budgets, our government has earmarked over $5 billion in new funding to improve the benefits and services we provide to our veterans and their families. 
We listen to veterans and we deliver results.
Energy East PipelineMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the National Energy Board's public hearing process, which is too rigid, too restrictive and too short. 
As a result of the Conservatives' mismanagement and the changes they have made, today we have a completely inadequate consultation process for the energy east pipeline that does nothing to inspire public trust.
Fortunately, initiatives such as the one taken by the Autray RCM are making up for the government's shortcomings. The municipalities of Berthierville, Lanoraie, Lavaltrie, Saint-Gabriel and Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon, to name a few, commissioned the first independent environmental study done in Quebec on the energy east pipeline. The report was released on Wednesday and was prepared by the independent firms J. Harvey Consultants and ÉCOgestion-solutions.
I congratulate the officials in those municipalities. By commissioning this report, they are showing that they are concerned about the safety and well-being of their constituents. Moreover, the findings of this report apply to almost all the municipalities that the pipeline will go through, which means that the Autray RCM is helping other municipal officials in Quebec and Canada.
Ekjot SwaghMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness for the tragic loss of a bright young man, Ekjot Swagh, who passed away this past weekend. 
Ekjot was a world champion in Brazilian jiu-jitsu, a well-decorated fighter renowned both internationally and in Brampton.
He learned many of his fighting skills locally, joining the wrestling team at Heart Lake Secondary School and the DoggPound Mixed Martial Arts Club.
He became a world champion in Brazilian jiu-jitsu and received an invitation to train with some of the best coaches at one of the world's top training centres in San Diego. During his fights he had a reputation as a fierce grappler and a skilled technical fighter. He was renowned as having a humble spirit and an astounding sense of sportsmanship.
This great fighter's life was tragically cut short when a rare arterial disease took his life last weekend in his sleep.
We keep Ekjot and his family in our thoughts and prayers as the entire community mourns this great loss. 
Mental HealthMr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to highlight the great work being done on the issue of mental health in my riding of Don Valley West.
 We have a number of national organizations and centres of excellence making great contributions in this area. 
One of these is Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, which is developing the future of care for people suffering from brain-related diseases, such as PTSD, dementia, and others. Sunnybrook is also home to the largest veterans centre in Canada, with nearly 500 beds. It is establishing a brain sciences centre to transform the way illnesses are detected, prevented, and treated.
Other centres doing great work include the Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute's Lyndhurst Centre, the Bob Rumball Centre for the Deaf, the CNIB, and the Canadian March of Dimes.
I would like to thank each of these organizations for their tremendous work and wish them continued success in 2015.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this weekend the board of the Native Communications Society of the Northwest Territories meets to decide whether to shut down a northern institution that provides daily Dene language programs through the Northwest Territories.
NCS is in this position because of a fight over funding with the Conservative government, which caused their station to lay off most of its staff in July, cut all local programming, and limit broadcasts to preset music. This is jeopardizing radio station CKLB, which has been on the air for 30 years.
I have also heard that the Inuvialuit Communications Society came close to shutting down due to funding delays and that the Aboriginal Voices Radio Network has had funding problems as well.
The two objectives of Heritage Canada funding for aboriginal radio are to ensure availability of significant amount of radio and television programming and to contribute to the protection and enhancement of aboriginal languages and cultures.
Aboriginal media give a voice to Canada's first peoples to tell their stories and preserve their language and cultures. Petty funding delays endanger this vital fabric of Canada. 
Will the minister get this together immediately?
TaxationMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government pledged that we would balance the budget, and we will. 
Now we are in a position to help Canadian families balance their budgets also. That is why our family tax cut plan will give 100% of families with kids an average of more than $1,100 per year to spend on their priorities. 
When this is partnered with the expansion of the universal child care benefit, families in British Columbia and across Canada will receive nearly $2,000 per year for every child under six and $720 per year for every child between the age of six and seventeen.
The Liberals and the NDP have said that they will take this money away from moms and dads to pay for expensive and burdensome programs through big government instead. We cannot let this happen.
The Liberal leader seems content to push a typical Liberal tax-and-spend agenda at the expense of Canadian families. Only our Conservative government can be trusted to keep their money where it belongs: in their pockets.
Jordan's PrincipleMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, February 2 will be the 10th anniversary of the death of Jordan River Anderson. Jordan never got to live in a family home, spending his whole life in hospital because governments could not agree on who should pay for his care.
His story inspired Jordan's principle, the simple idea that when a first nations child needs services, the government will provide them as needed and figure out who should pay for them later. In the 10 years since his death, the House voted unanimously to support Jordan's principle. We all agree that the most vulnerable children should not be left waiting while someone argues over the bill.
However, implementation proves elusive. Policy decisions by the Conservative government have narrowed the principle until only a few circumstances qualify. In April 2013, the Federal Court decision found the federal government narrowing Jordan's principle to apply only to children with complex medical needs and multiple service providers to be unlawful.
Internal federal documents show that children on reserve continue to be routinely denied or delayed receipt of vital health, education, and social services available to all other children. When will the federal government ensure that Jordan's principle applies to all first nations children and all government services?
Public SafetyMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to hear that the Liberal member for York West said that it was our Conservative government's strong stand against this barbaric self-proclaimed terrorist caliphate known as ISIL that has increased the threat of terrorist attacks in Canada.
ISIL has been threatening Canada and other western countries since well before the campaign against it began. We must work with our allies to stop this terrorist threat.
It is time to stop trying to justify violent terrorism. Yesterday the Liberal leader had an opportunity to denounce these comments from his own MPs, but he stood by them.
 Violent jihadists oppose everything about our society and our values. They hate pluralism, tolerance, and the freedom of others. We should condemn it instead of trying to justify it.
Injured Pakistani SchoolchildrenHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 2014, 132 Pakistani schoolchildren were massacred by the Taliban, and many more were injured. Of course, we all condemn this act unreservedly.
Khalid Usman, chair of Canadians of Pakistani Origin, has been working with the mayor of Markham and other community leaders to arrange vigils for the victims of this terrible crime. However, there is more that could be done. Many of these young victims have been left terribly disfigured by this attack and are unable to afford the cosmetic surgery they so desperately need. Mr. Usman and the Pakistani Canadian community want to bring some of the children to Canada for treatment.
The Pakistani community in Canada is currently raising funds to help pay for these procedures and for travel to Canada. However, consistent with Canada's humanitarian traditions, the federal government can help by ensuring that these families get their visas in a timely manner, and it should also consider further assistance.
TaxationMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while Canada's economy is better than many, we are still on the road to recovery.
 Yesterday the Liberal leader was with the Premier of Ontario, who is a staunch supporter of the implementation of a carbon tax. It is no surprise, considering that the Liberal leader has expressed his support in the past for a carbon tax.
This type of fiscal irresponsibility would raise the cost of everything and hike taxes on all Canadian families. Introducing a carbon tax would be detrimental on the road to economic recovery.
Our government believes in the importance of a strong economy and refuses to weigh it down with another tax on Canadian families. Bringing in a job-killing carbon tax is reckless. Our Conservative government is lowering taxes for all Canadian families. We will never punish Canadians with a job-killing carbon tax.
Manufacturing IndustryMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the NDP asked about 400,000 Canadians losing their jobs because the Conservatives failed the manufacturing sector, the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam rose in his place and denied it was true. He has an entire department to help him, yet the Minister of Industry never even bothered to check his facts. He used an inaccurate media story to mislead people about the number of manufacturing jobs lost under the Conservatives' watch.
After noticing his mistake, the journalist who wrote the story graciously corrected it. He offered an apology. Not so for the Conservative minister: he has yet to apologize for his Twitter tirade based on make-believe numbers.
Canadians deserve better than an industry minister telling 400,000 out-of-work Canadians that they do not exist. They deserve a government led by the leader of the NDP, an honest government ready to take concrete steps to kick-start manufacturing and get Canadians back to work.
Public SafetyMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal member for York West suggested that if ISIL is coming here, it is because the Prime Minister put us in that position.
 Let us be clear. It is the terrorist jihadis of ISIL who declared war on Canada and our allies, not the other way around. The terrorist attacks that took the lives of two of our armed forces members are definitive proof that our nation is at risk, and we must defend ourselves. This is precisely why we are not standing on the sidelines and letting others do the heavy lifting. That may be the Liberal way, but it is not the Canadian way.
When asked about his colleague's suggestion that if Canada should be attacked again it will be because we asked for it, the Liberal leader had no answer. All he could say was, “...I'm not going to get into a discussion of tactics and perspectives”. 
The Liberal leader has proven that he has neither the resolve nor the determination to stand up to this threat. Thankfully, Canadians can count on our Prime Minister and our government to keep them safe.

Oral Questions
Intergovernmental AffairsMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first ministers are gathering a stone's throw from Parliament Hill to discuss the most pressing issues facing our country. They will discuss critical issues like how to tackle the infrastructure deficit that has left communities with gridlock and crumbling roads and bridges. Premiers will talk about inadequate water supplies and the affordable housing crisis, but the Prime Minister stubbornly refuses to come to the table. 
How can the Conservatives justify that their response to these challenges is simply not showing up?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, our Conservative government is making record investments in infrastructure. The new building Canada plan has been open for business since last March. In less than a year, projects representing almost $5 billion have already been approved. These infrastructure projects are renewing infrastructure. They are creating jobs and prosperity. They are enhancing our growth and productivity.
HealthLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, they did not give us an answer as to why the Prime Minister is refusing to show up. 
The first ministers are also going to talk about improving access to health care, just as a new report shows that in every province, Canadian seniors are waiting longer for medical care than the international average. 
Federal leadership could help here, but only if they are at the table. Why are the Conservatives refusing to engage the premiers on the critical issue of timely access to health care?
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, transfers to the provinces for health care will reach a record high of $40 billion by the end of the decade. Our government has invested to reduce waiting times for all Canadians. When it comes to things like radiation treatment, we are on target and are meeting those wait times at 97%. 
We have also recruited additional physicians. There are more physicians per capita now than ever in Canadian history. We have also made sure that we are recruiting physicians into northern outlying communities by coming up with creative solutions, like waiving tuition and so on. We are taking concrete action.
Public SafetyLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the government is still not responding to the question. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to show up at the meetings with the premiers? 
The premiers will also be discussing the latest case of the government quietly downloading costs onto the provinces. The Conservatives' decision to slash disaster assistance funding was made with no consultation and will leave the provinces responsible for paying almost three times more.
 Why have the Conservatives refused to work with the provinces on disaster relief? Why are they leaving Canadian communities without federal help in times of crisis?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while the provinces and territories are responsible for disaster maintenance, our Conservative government will continue to support them by paying up to 90% of the response recovery costs for significant natural disasters. 
The reality is that this program has not been indexed to inflation since the 1970s. Our government is making a modest adjustment to ensure that costs are balanced fairly across Canada, with the federal government still covering up to 90% of most of these disasters.
Intergovernmental AffairsSadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, provincial premiers are meeting in Ottawa today to talk about the economic crisis our country is facing and job insecurity. The need to reinvest in our infrastructure and funding for health care will also be on the agenda. 
The federal government has an important role to play here, as it unilaterally cut $36 billion from provincial transfers.
Why is the Prime Minister boycotting the meeting of the Council of the Federation when it is discussing issues that are important to Canadians?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as you know, as I said yesterday, the Prime Minister has held over 300 meetings and calls with our provincial partners. The members of this cabinet and the members of Parliament on this side of the House frequently meet with our counterparts. I know that the GTA caucus, for instance, just met with the mayor of Toronto.
We are continuing to increase investments and transfers to provincial partners, unlike the Liberals, and we are doing that while balancing the budget and cutting taxes for Canadian families. That is the right direction to go, and we will continue on that path.
EmploymentSadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, shirking one's responsibilities is not showing leadership.
Speaking of leadership, our leader presented a credible and responsible plan this week to stimulate job creation in the manufacturing sector and small business. We have lost 400,000 jobs in this sector, and this cannot continue. Our plan has tangible solutions to stimulate innovation and modernize businesses.
When will the government support manufacturers that invest in research and development and create good jobs?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, my opposition colleague spoke about her party's plan.
Its plan is one that we adopted back when we came to power in 2006 and reduced corporate taxes. Lowering taxes for small businesses is something new for the NDP.
That is what we are doing. We are lowering taxes for all business owners so that they have money in their pockets and their coffers and they can invest that money. Business owners create wealth, not government spending.
TaxationJohn McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are counting on high oil prices.
Their forecasts have completely missed the mark, and they are preparing Canadians for more cuts. However, they still seem to have billions of dollars to put toward income splitting, which benefits only 15% of families. The Conservatives are making things up as they go along.
How can they justify this unaffordable tax break?
Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is what Canadian families can count on. They can count on this Conservative government to ensure that they have more money in their pockets, as opposed to the Liberals, who would not only end income splitting for almost two million families in Canada but would also end income splitting for our pensioners. The Liberals would raise taxes. They would create big bureaucracies.
We are going to fulfill our commitment to Canadians to keep their taxes low, balance the budget, and follow through on income splitting and our expansion and increase of the universal child care benefit.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is wrong and the Prime Minister was wrong when he said that the government was not in the business of raising taxes. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance tabled a document setting out $4.5 billion in tax hikes. Yesterday that same parliamentary secretary described this tax hike as “absolutely ridiculous”. How can the parliamentary secretary describe the tax hike as ridiculous, when he was the one who signed and tabled it in this House?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under our Conservative government, the tax burden on Canadians is at its lowest level in more than 50 years. On average, Canadian families are paying $3,400 less in taxes each year than they did under the Liberals. In addition, every family with children in Canada will stand to benefit from the latest tax breaks, including the increase and expansion of the universal child care benefit to nearly $2,000 per year for every child under six and $720 per year for every child between the ages of six and 17.
 The Liberals would take these benefits away and would increase taxes on Canadian families.
InfrastructureHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as oil prices plummet, the government has an obligation to mitigate the damage to the Canadian economy by responding to the urgent infrastructure needs of provinces, territories, and municipalities.
The Conservatives have slashed infrastructure spending by 90% this year, impeding jobs and growth. Will the Conservatives stop their cynical back-loaded promises and ensure that the badly needed infrastructure funds flow this year and actually do something that will drive jobs and growth?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely incorrect. Municipalities and provinces in this country know that they have the strongest partner they have ever had with this Conservative government. This year we will balance the budget.
How did the Liberals balance the budget when they were in government? They did it by slashing health care and education by reducing transfers to individuals and provinces.
Under our Conservative government, transfers to provinces have increased significantly, and infrastructure investments have increased significantly.
EmploymentMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, despite the NDP's warnings, the Conservatives supported Burger King's acquisition of Tim Hortons, a deal that will result in 20% of the administrative staff being laid off.
A Tim Hortons executive angrily noted that Burger King had told them that the company was there for them. We know what happened next. With the complicity of the Conservatives, 350 people have already lost their jobs. These workers feel betrayed.
Rather than condoning layoffs, when will the Conservatives do something to create jobs?
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case.
The company made a very clear commitment to us. The head office will be in Oakville, Ontario, and the number of restaurants in Canada will increase. What does that do? It creates more jobs for people in that industry. The new company will keep all of Tim Hortons' commitments to the Canadian community. 
It is a good investment for Canada that creates jobs.
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, thousands of layoffs are being announced everywhere: at Suncor, Shell, Bombardier, Target, Mexx, Jacob, Tim Hortons, and just this morning at Jones New York. Even CIBC has just announced 500 layoffs. That is a sign that things are not going very well at all.
While the number of job losses and bankruptcies is growing, why is the Prime Minister not at the meeting of the Council of the Federation? What does he have to do that is more important? 
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if the NDP had read the last budget, they would not ask this type of question. Our economic plan is working very well.
What is more, I would like to tell our opposition colleagues that Dan Kelly, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said that the NDP's plan was dumb and anti-business. That is what people in the private sector are saying about the NDP's plan and they are right. Their plan will not create wealth.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, that is why the Prime Minister is not at the first ministers meeting? That makes no sense.
In October, I wrote to the Minister of Industry urging him to seek commitments to protect Canadian jobs, but instead he signed off on a deal to fire 20% of the workers at Tim Hortons headquarters. This week, 350 employees lost their jobs, and the minister has the gall to claim somehow it is good news for Canada. He even makes up job numbers.
Why does the minister repeatedly fail to protect Canadian jobs?
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is talking as if Canada were in a recession. We are not in a recession. There is economic growth in Canada and businesses are creating jobs.
Just for example, Ford is creating 1,000 new jobs and has secured 2,000 jobs at its plant in Oakville. I have also the investment for Linamar, which will create 1,000 new jobs and maintain nearly 7,000 new jobs over 10 years. These are only two companies, but I have a long list here.
The goal is to explain to the NDP that when we lower taxes and give money to businesses—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): The real long list, Mr. Speaker, is the list of layoffs that have gone on under the Conservative watch, while they do nothing about it.
I want to give the Minister of Industry a chance to apologize for dismissing the 400,000 manufacturing jobs that disappeared under the Conservative watch.
 We have a jobs minister who relies on Kijiji. We have an industry minister who looks to magazines. In the face of these tens of thousands of job losses, we have the spokesperson for the Prime Minister who says that things are just spectacular.
Will the Minister of Finance whip out his old Ouija board to put together the next budget to help Canadians out?
The NDP leader offered concrete solutions to help the manufacturing sector, to help small businesses get Canadians back to work. When will the Conservatives wake up?
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, that is what we have been doing since 2006. However, I would remind my colleague that the NDP voted against our budgets and our proposals to help the manufacturing sector.
For example, the NDP voted against cutting the 15% corporate income tax rate, the return of the accelerated capital cost allowance program for small business, the automotive innovation fund, the implementation of the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, and so many other initiatives. They vote against proposals that create wealth in Canada.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the NDP voted against Conservative budgets and against the loss of 400,000 manufacturing jobs that took place under the watch of the Conservatives.
We would think the minister responsible for Canadian industry would actually know what is going on in, say, Canadian industry, but he does not. Therefore, let us help him out with some of the facts.
The fact is that jobs grew at almost half the rate of our population last year in Canada. The fact is that youth unemployment is at twice the national average. The fact is that Canada lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs while the Conservatives have been in power.
The Conservatives do not have to open a magazine or click on Kijiji to know their plan is failing Canadians. When will the government stop lying about the facts, face up to reality and present a budget that puts Canadians back to work?
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the real fact is that we have created more than one million net new jobs since the last recession. That is the reality.
This is the reality because we know it is the business sector that creates jobs and we have the right policies for entrepreneurs. It is not only me saying that. KPMG stated that the total business tax costs in Canada were the lowest in the G7, 46% lower than those in the United States.
When we have lower taxes and when we give money to entrepreneurs, they will create jobs and wealth in our country.
National DefenceMs. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have the right to know the exact nature of the mission that the Conservatives have launched in their name. Canadians also have the right to know the cost of the military mission in Iraq.
The United States and the United Kingdom publish their cost estimates. The government has acknowledged that it has the figures. Why is it refusing to disclose them to the public? What does it have to hide?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, there will be incremental costs to this mission, as there are for any mission. When we have actual costs to report, they will be reported through existing parliamentary procedures. Cost estimates are updated regularly due to the nature of the mission. We will not mislead Canadians by giving them inaccurate information.
 Let us not forget that we are fighting a terrorist group that has declared war on Canada and our allies. When it comes to confronting ISIL and protecting Canadians, we will spare no expense.
Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister solemnly told Canadians that our soldiers' mandate was to advise and assist, not accompany, Iraqi troops. 
We now know that that is false. Yesterday, the government gave us a lesson in semantics to explain to Canadians that, in fact, they are the ones who have misunderstood. The government is saying that the mission has simply evolved.
Now that the government acknowledges that the mission has changed, will the Prime Minister at least ask for the opinion of the House on what comes next?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, all activities being undertaken by our special forces in Iraq fall within the advise and assist mandate given to them by our government.
 We had a very good technical briefing yesterday with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of National Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff. The Chief of the Defence Staff was very explicit in describing that this was not a combat mission for our ground troops.
 The fact is that there is an international jihadist movement that has declared war on Canada and our allies. We must work with our allies to stop this terrorist threat. We have been clear from the start that this mission is not low risk, that it does have risk and that we have to complete our task against ISIL.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence offered few answers yesterday at committee, and that was clear to everyone. The one thing he did let slip was that the Conservatives would be seeking a new mandate to extend Canada's involvement in the war. Since approving the last mission, the mandate has gone from observers and air strikes to ground combat.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that he will be asking the House for a mandate to extend this mission? If yes, will it include ground combat?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberals and the New Democrats who would prefer Canada to sit on the sidelines and do nothing and sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to ISIL, we are going to do our job and we are going to participate with the international coalition to fight against the ISIL terrorists. All activities of our special forces fall within their advise and assist mandate.
 We must confront this terrorist threat head-on, and we must continue to work with all coalition partners to ensure that we continue to do so. We want to be clear that we have no problem with our special operations forces defending themselves and eliminating the targets.
Veterans AffairsMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one year ago, the Veterans Affairs office was closed in Thunder Bay as part of Conservative cuts to services, which have left veterans across the country struggling without the support they need. The minister has refused to reopen these offices.
 The government has a legal and moral responsibility to help veterans. Will the minister do the right thing, reopen these offices and start giving veterans the support and the respect they deserve?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is my first time addressing the House as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and it is an honour to serve in this capacity.
I joined the Canadian Armed Forces at the age of 17 and served for 20 years. As a member of the Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, I had the pleasure of serving with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, with 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group and with 1 Service Battalion.
With respect to office closures, this government is opening new offices to better serve our veterans. These are eight new front-line operational stress injury clinics, and they are focused on delivering mental health services to our veterans.
Intergovernmental AffairsHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, against all logic, the government is patting itself on the back for working with the provinces to address the enormous infrastructure gap, but that is not really what is happening. Three-quarters of the building Canada fund will not be handed out until 2019, but the provinces need to improve their infrastructure, stimulate the economy and create jobs right now. Why will the Prime Minister not convene a federal-provincial-territorial conference to gain an understanding of the need to take action now?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, that is another myth the Liberals continue to perpetuate. This is absolutely incorrect.
 This is a Conservative government that is making record investments in infrastructure. The new building Canada plan is the longest and largest infrastructure investment in Canadian history, $53 billion over the next decade. It is a long-term, stable, predictable commitment.
Already the new building Canada plan, open for business less than a year, has already approved projects representing $5 billion.
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, investments postponed to 2019, that is the truth.
The letters the federal Minister of International Trade exchanged with Newfoundland and Labrador on the CETA-releated seafood industry agreement are crystal clear. The minister promised a transition fund to help the industry, but never mentioned that it would be dependent on a demonstrated loss. That is pure invention.
In all my years in politics, I have never witnessed such a callous betrayal of a federal commitment to a province. Will the government honour its commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador, yes or no?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Free trade between Canada and the European Union will deliver tremendous benefits for businesses, workers and their families in Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada.
In the meantime, we fully intend to ratify free trade with the European Union, as is within our authority. We remain committed to the minimum processing requirements fund and remain open to receiving proposals from Newfoundland and Labrador on implementing that fund.
HousingAdam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, mayors across Canada have been absolutely clear. Thousands of Canadians across the country are languishing on housing wait lists which are getting longer because of government inaction.
In Toronto, 92,000 people are waiting for affordable shelter. Renewing the housing agreements is only sustaining the status quo, and it is absolutely unacceptable. It is in inaction.
To make matters worse, co-op housing residents are not only being told they are not getting their agreements renewed, they are actually having their rents jacked by the government. It is unacceptable. While it does that, the government is handing out billions to well-housed and affluent Canadians.
When the Minister of Finance presents his budget, we want him to immediately fund and renew the housing agreements. We want him to cut the funding for income splitting.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that member is absolutely making things up, and that is very disappointing.
Here is what our government has done. We have renewed agreements. The member might not like them, but the provinces love them. Let me repeat what Ted McMeekin, Ontario's minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, said:
 The renewed partnership between Canada and Ontario will help improve access to safe, suitable affordable housing, 
British Columbia minister Rich Coleman said:
 The extension of this agreement will help us to create more housing options for British Columbians. Over the next five years, this funding will help build new affordable housing, enhance our rental assistance programs and support partnerships that will contribute... 

Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the minister says that he maintained health care for refugees, he is playing with words. The fact is that he cut health care coverage for asylum seekers—people who have not completed the process but who will eventually become refugees. We are talking about basic care for sick children currently living in Canada. That is unforgivable. Instead of spending $1.4 million on legal costs in cases against these vulnerable people, why will the government not simply provide that health care and ease their suffering?
Mr. Chungsen Leung (Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are very happy with our reform of the asylum system, which is working much better than in the past.
It is incomprehensible to us that the opposition wants to give health care to failed and fraudulent asylum seekers. If that is what the opposition has asked for, we will continue to protect the interest of the health care system for Canadians.
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is because of the minister's policy that hospital admissions for refugee children doubled, pregnant women went without health care, and diabetics had to live without basic medication. Yet the minister had the gall to stand in the House yesterday and falsely claim that he has done nothing but support the health of refugees. He has spent more than $1.4 million fighting to keep his repulsive policies.
How can the minister justify using the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians to fight against a basic Canadian value?
Chungsen Leung: Mr. Speaker, Canadian health care is for Canadians and those refugees that we accepted. It is not for those who are failed refugee applicants or fraudulent ones.
We stand on this side of the House to protect our health care system and taxpayers' money.
Access to InformationJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are just poor managers. They are paying private consultants over $200 an hour to process access to information requests, when public servants could do the work at a fraction of the cost. It would be one thing if the consultants were getting the job done, but they are not. The system is slower and less functional than ever before.
Could the minister explain why so much money is being wasted, with such poor results?
Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government treats taxpayers' money with the utmost respect. Sometimes professional services are needed to acquire special expertise or to meet unexpected fluctuations in workload. In some cases, the government contracts with private sector companies to deliver or improve services without maintaining an expensive government bureaucracy. Professional services contracting means the government is only paying people when there is work to be done.
To that member's question, professional services costs are down $200 million since 2010-11, and temporary help services are also down $11 million since last year and $75 million since 2010-11.
I hope that answers the member's concern.
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives have been in power, Health Canada has spent millions responding to access to information requests. We now know that the steadily rising costs are due primarily to the use of external consultants who command top dollar.
Instead of letting professional public servants do the work, the department is hiring private firms for $250 an hour. That is obscene. 
When will the Conservatives understand that their culture of secrecy is clogging our access to information system?
Dan Albas: Again, Mr. Speaker, our government treats taxpayers' dollars with the utmost respect. Professional services costs are down $200 million since 2010-11, and temporary help services costs are down $11 million since last year and by $75 million since 2010-11.
In 2013-14, our government set a number of records for openness and transparency. This government processed a record number of access to information requests, released a record number of materials, and had an improved turnaround time.
We are investing where investment is needed to make sure that Canadians have better access than they have ever received before.
HealthMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a disturbing report out of Markham today about a marijuana grow op that is being allowed to operate beside, of all places, a grade school. Parents are being forced to deal with their kids literally coming home reeking of pot because of this grow op. Our Conservative government has made these home grow ops illegal, but the courts are being used to let them continue, causing risk to health and safety.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell us what our government is doing to fight this?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, let me say quite clearly that this case is completely unacceptable. We have moved quickly to try to end these grow ops in our communities, but the courts are fighting us every step of the way. What is incredible is that there are still some people who are defending this moulding rot in our communities.
Let me quote what the leader of the Liberal Party had to say:
 ...our worries are that the current hypercontrolled approach around medical marijuana that actually removes from individuals the capacity to grow their own is not going in the right direction.... 
 We don't need to be all nanny state about it..... 
My constituents and I do not believe that it is acceptable for kids to come home smelling of pot, and we will make sure they do not.
TransportationMr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Sherbrooke airport could be an important economic development tool for the region if it could accommodate commercial flights.
Our region is a major centre of innovation and research with Bishop's University, the university medical centre and the Mont Mégantic observatory. Our innovative businesses and even the manufacturing industry would benefit from better access to the rest of the world. 
We have been talking about this project for years, even decades. Residents and officials have made it a priority, but the Conservatives refuse to budge.
Why are the Conservatives neglecting job creation and economic development in the Eastern Townships?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's aviation security system supports economic growth. If screening has to be carried out at non-designated airports or if it is not required for security purposes, another source of funding must be established.
The minister asked her officials to develop a mechanism whereby non-designated, low-risk airports are able to obtain security screening services on a cost-recovery basis.
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, speaking of cost recovery, in 2013, the Minister of Transport promised to look into the possibility of establishing such a mechanism in order to allow non-designated, low-risk airports, such as the Sherbrooke airport, to obtain security screening services.
Her people have been working on this for a year and a half.
I would like to know where the department is at in terms of developing such a mechanism.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the minister sought from her officials to establish a mechanism. The member will know that, under the existing mechanism, it is the air transport security fee that currently funds the existing designated airports. There are some technical details to work out, obviously, as we are looking at this question. We thank the member for his input with respect to raising this matter and the process that we are under. The minister will report in due course.
Agriculture and Agri-foodRuth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, current fruit and vegetable producers are uniquely vulnerable against lost payments because, when a client goes bankrupt, they cannot just demand their product back. However, Conservatives' stubbornness has left them completely without protection. Conservatives have refused to introduce a payment protection program here in Canada, and as a result, the United States withdrew the protection it had extended to Canadians under its own program.
Why are Conservatives refusing to protect farmers with such an easy, simple solution?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that our government understands the vulnerability of Canada's fresh produce industry and its contribution to our economy. That is why we introduced clear legislation to provide a single dispute resolution body that would help reduce issues of non-payment faced by the fresh produce industry. 
We consulted widely on Canada's bankruptcy and insolvency laws, and we will share the results with Parliament in the near future. The fresh produce industry and other stakeholders will be able to participate in the parliamentary review process, and our government is committed to supporting Canadian producers and exporters and will continue to look at this issue.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, when Groupe Épicia declared bankruptcy this month, it owed vegetable producers $3.5 million. That is a lot of money for vegetable producers, who have no guarantee that they will get their money back since they still do not have a payment protection program.
For a long time now, the Fresh Produce Alliance has been calling for a program similar to the one that the Americans created to protect payments owed to farmers.
When will the government finally listen to farmers and bring in a simple measure such as this?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, we are listening to producers, and as part of Canada's economic action plan, we brought in clear legislation to provide fresh produce sellers with a single dispute resolution body, a clear promise we made to our horticultural sector. These changes will allow industry to manage its own system of effective trading rules. 
Meanwhile, we continue to expand our markets for fresh fruit and vegetable growers beyond the U.S.A. to new markets such as Europe and Asia. I expect when we do that we will get full support from the member.
International TradeHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, five years ago, the government set up a bogus corporate social responsibility office to deflect criticism of its own inaction. It was mandated to fail. During its long and illustrious history, it handled a total of six files. When the counsellor bailed from boredom, the government decided not replace her. Now instead of wasting a million dollars a year, the government only wastes $180,000 a year. Is this what the government calls “respect for taxpayers' money”?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, that claim is completely false. Following the departure of the former CSR counsellor, the office continued to deliver on the mandate of CSR counsellor workshops and regular meetings with industry, academia, and civil society. 
The search process to find a new counsellor is under way, with interviews scheduled for February. During the 13 years the Liberals were in power, they never had a CSR policy. It was this government that introduced this very important strategy.
Government SpendingJohn McKay: It is yet another false claim by the members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker.
If it only stopped there: $700,000 to sue veterans, which makes the lawyers pretty happy; $7 million in partisan ads during sports events, while members who are watching sports events go to the loo; $162,000 for a Toronto party, yet again to announce the CETA agreement—we cannot say Toronto is not a place to party; another $1.4 million for lawyers to fight refugees over their health care entitlements. No wonder the government is having trouble balancing the budget. 
Is this just party time for Conservative lawyers?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what is truly depressing. It is the legacy that was left behind by the Liberal Party: $40 million that we still have not been able to find; $50 billion worth of health care and education cuts by that party, a party whose only policy right now that it has put forward in front of Canadians is increased taxes and increased debt.
This is what we are doing. We are cutting taxes for families and doing it while balancing the budget. We have increased transfers to our provincial partners. Unlike the Liberals, we are going to continue to cut taxes, not hike them; and we are going to balance the budget, not run high deficits and leave that legacy for our kids.
Northern DevelopmentMr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the reality for too many northerners is seeing their seniors scrounging for food in garbage cans and being unable to feed their children nutritious food at a reasonable cost.
The Conservative solution is to continue to sing the praises of the nutrition north program, while everyone else, including the Auditor General, agrees that it has failed. Why are the Conservatives not acting immediately to address this crisis?
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course we have accepted the recommendations of the Auditor General and continue to make improvements to the nutrition north program, but do you know what northerners do not need? They do not need the policies of the NDP; they do not need an NDP carbon tax, which we reject; and they do not need the NDP long gun registry, which we reject.
We continue to make investments in the north, which are always opposed by the members of that caucus and the members of the Liberal Party. We will continue to deliver for Canada's north like no government in Canadian history.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, nutrition north is working so well that average Canadians now are sending food parcels to needy northern families. However, nutrition north is just one of the ways the government's narrow-minded policies have failed northerners. The government's so-called streamlining of environmental protections has led to lawsuits with first nations, which have increased uncertainty for development. Internationally, the government has chosen confrontation over co-operation in the Arctic.
When will the government realize that its northern policy is harming us in the north rather than helping?
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, no government has done more for the north than this Conservative government. We have invested, whether it is in the Canadian High Arctic Research Station in Cambridge Bay, which that party voted against; whether it is taking down the long gun registry, which was an offence to northern Canadians and aboriginals living in the north—we have dismantled it and they will bring it back; or whether it is standing up against an NDP carbon tax, which would increase the cost of everything in the north. We will reject that and continue to deliver for northerners, as we have done since taking office in 2006.
TaxationLaVar Payne: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, if given the chance, the Liberals and the NDP would take away our family tax cut. This is because they would rather impose higher taxes, like a carbon tax, on families. 
Would the Minister of State for Social Development please update the House on how our government's plan is benefiting Canadian families?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Medicine Hat for the strong work he does to fight for tax fairness for Canadian families.
Almost two million families are looking forward to our family tax cut, which will benefit middle- to low-income families primarily. Every single Canadian family in Canada with children is looking forward to our increase and expansion of the universal child care benefit. Canadians know that this government will keep those things, to put more money in their pockets. The Liberals and the NDP would create bigger bureaucracies, more debt, and more taxes on Canadian families. The choice is clear. They can deny it, but Canadian families know what they would do.
Citizenship and ImmigrationJohn McCallum: Mr. Speaker, with mushrooming processing times for family-class immigrants and too many unwarranted denials of visitor visas, it is hardly surprising that Conservative MPs hear complaints when they meet constituents on this topic. At one such meeting, the member for Willowdale actually told Iranian Canadians to go back to Iran. 
Apology or not, will the Minister for Multiculturalism acknowledge that such comments have no place in Canada, let alone coming from his own parliamentary secretary?
Chungsen Leung: Mr. Speaker, during a three-hour-long meeting with the Iranian community, many comments were made and some of them might have been misunderstood. That is obviously not what I meant. As an immigrant to this country, no one understands better than me the great opportunity that Canada offers to so many.
TaxationMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my constituents have been clear that they cannot afford another tax hike. Families are trying to save to help pay for their children's education and the everyday expenses incurred in raising a family. 
Would the Minister of the Environment please update the House on our government's plan to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is lowering taxes and providing money directly to Canadian families with the family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit.
However, the Liberals and the NDP want to impose a carbon tax on hard-working Canadians. This tax would be very harmful to northerners, raising the price of things like groceries and fuel where the cost of living is already very high.
 I am proud to be part of a government that is standing up for Canada's north. We will continue to do so by opposing the reckless job-killing carbon tax.
HousingMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the fact that the federal government is withdrawing its funding for social and affordable housing is shameful.
Agencies in my region are concerned about the end of federal assistance for underprivileged families. The waiting list with the Office municipal d'habitation de Saguenay may well get longer. 
Will the government renew investments in social housing, or will it continue to make those less fortunate pay for its ideological budget cuts?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, we have invested in affordable housing in a number of ways, including direct funding in previous budgets to help renovate and retrofit social housing. We have expanded and extended our investment in affordable housing. Because provinces are directly responsible for housing, we provide the funding and they match that funding, which they use for a wide variety of things, like rent supplements, new affordable housing, and a host of other things. We are grateful that we can work with them. We will continue to work with them and allow them to do what is within their jurisdiction, which is housing.
Public SafetyMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety keeps talking about how urgent the situation is regarding the fight against terrorism.
However, the only thing he has done since realizing that urgency is to make cuts to research programs and to CSIS. No additional resources have been given to the RCMP and there has been no additional funding to prevent and counter the violent radicalization of young people.
Does the Minister of Public Safety realize that none of his new laws are going to stop jihadist groups from recruiting our young people, and what is needed instead are additional resources for prevention, research and intelligence?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, our government has taken strong action to combat radicalization. In fact, this is a key pillar of our counterterrorism strategy.
However, when we look at the history of what has happened here and globally around the world, just recently, in October, we had terrorist attacks in Quebec and here in Ottawa against our institution of government.
This government is moving forward with strong legislation, which we will actually be debating in the House today, Bill C-44. I would like it if, for once, that member who stands in the House and asks us questions about how we are going to counter terrorism actually stood up and supported measures that would keep Canadians safe.
Foreign AffairsMaria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec let the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia know that Quebec would be prepared to take in Raif Badawi, whose wife and three children are living in Sherbrooke.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs declared the sentence inflicted against Mr. Badawi a violation of human dignity.
When will the Prime Minister intervene with his Saudi counterpart to ensure that Mr. Badawi is pardoned and reunited with his family in Canada?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite is well aware, the minister and our government have taken a very strong stand on this issue. We consider the punishment of Mr. Badawi to be a violation of human dignity and of his rights.
We continue to call for clemency in his case, and we will continue to promote human rights around the world as part of our government's policies.

Routine Proceedings
Anti-terrorism Act, 2015Hon. Peter Van Loan:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsCathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. 
The first petition is requesting that Parliament pass a new firearms act that contains a provision for licensed handgun owners to carry a sidearm for protection from predatory wildlife.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty; to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers; and to protect the rights of these small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds, which, as members may know, was done in our recent legislation.
Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition to ensure the dignity of Canada's veterans. 
The petitioners note that Canadian Forces veterans and their families deserve our deepest gratitude and to be taken care of, but that many veterans and their families still cannot access adequate health care, pensions, and other vital services and are now dealing with the closure of front-line Veterans Affairs offices.
The signatories further note that the NDP has a plan to end service pension clawbacks, to re-open shuttered Veterans Affairs offices, and to widen access to quality home care, long-term care, and mental health care. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to implement the NDP's plan to improve services for Canada's veterans and their families.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
In the first petition, the petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn the discriminatory practice of sex-selective pregnancy termination of girls.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call on Parliament to put in place tougher laws against impaired driving, so that a person convicted of impaired driving causing death will receive a mandatory sentence. As well, the petitioners want to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter. 
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, the petitioners are against the approval of genetically modified apples for growth in Canada.
Maria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents calling on the government to respect the right of small family farms to store, trade and use seed. 
The petitioners are calling on us to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers. They are also calling on us to ensure that the policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers and that the policies protect the rights of small farmers in southern countries to store, use and freely trade seed.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions. In the first, the petitioners reference a CBC documentary revealing that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn child so that parents can then choose to terminate the pregnancy if that unborn child is a girl. In view of this gendercide and violence against women and the human trafficking of girls, I think it is a sad and shameful thing that the three deadliest words in the world are “it's a girl”. Females are full image-bearers and therefore should be treated with full respect and dignity.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the second is a related petition. The petitioners note that a high percentage of prostitutes are forced into the sex trade and trafficked. The petitioners are requesting that the House of Commons legislate that it be 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 dehumanizing sex trade.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, my last petition is from almost 300 petitioners in the Saskatoon area and 30 from elsewhere in the country. The petitioners are expressing concern about multinational seed companies gradually replacing the immense diversity of farmers' seeds. They are calling on the government to consult with small-farm families and to preserve the right to use and freely exchange seeds. 
Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people across the country, particularly in Quebec and eastern Canada, asking Parliament to vote in favour of Bill C-626, an act to amend the Statistics Act, and to bring back the long form census, which would protect the integrity of the data and information collected by Statistics Canada and protect Statistics Canada from the political imperatives of the government of the day.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition signed by British Columbians who believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are too lenient and should be strengthened by implementing mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.
I am very pleased to be here today to join in the debate on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Before I go into the particulars of the bill, I would like to speak about how our government has been committed to keeping our streets and communities safe by supporting the global fight against terrorist threats since we were first elected in 2006. 
As we have seen, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. In fact, several hundred Canadians have been killed or injured in terrorist attack incidents in Canada and abroad over the past number of decades. This includes the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, which was planned and executed on our soil and killed 280 innocent Canadians. It also includes the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in which 24 Canadians lost their lives.
To guard against these domestic and international terrorist threats, our government is using a multi-pronged approach. For example, in 2007, our government implemented the passenger protect program, which identifies individuals who may pose a threat to aviation security and disrupts their ability to cause harm or threaten aviation by preventing them from boarding aircraft. 
As we are all aware, on October 7, 2014, the House passed a motion to support the government's decision to join coalition efforts to counter ISIL. Canada's military mission is in addition to the significant humanitarian, development, and security assistance Canada is already contributing to Iraq. Like all peace-loving nations, Canada has put a clear focus on countering terrorist acts and on working together with our international allies in all aspects. 
Over the past several years, global conflicts and the factors that drive terrorism have continued to evolve. Our efforts to combat terrorism include strengthening our laws to deter terrorist-related activities within our borders and to support Canadians who fall victim to these acts.
 For example, our government has listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. This sends a strong message that Canada will not condone terrorist activity. We also passed the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and related amendments to the State Immunity Act, which allows victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators of terrorism and those who support them, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world. 
Canada continues to work hard to secure its borders at home while also working with international partners to combat terrorist threats overseas. These actions are laid out clearly in Canada's counterterrorism strategy, launched in 2012, entitled “Building Resilience Against Terrorism”. It speaks frankly about the terrorist threats we face at home and abroad and the importance of strong partnerships and collaboration with government, security agencies, law enforcement, and community groups, among others. It underscores our contribution to the global effort to counter the terrorist threat.
Canada's counterterrorism strategy is composed of four elements: prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorism. It sets out a clear approach for Canada to address terrorism, with a focus on building community resilience. A resilient society challenges and rejects the ideas and values associated with violent extremism and works together to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack. 
While governments today are better prepared to detect and prevent these acts, terrorist groups continue to evolve and develop their capabilities just as rapidly and to plan attacks against new targets and interests. 
Without a doubt, the threat posed by homegrown violent extremists, individuals who seek to harm others in pursuit of overtly political, religious, or ideological objectives, is an important challenge facing many democratic nations today, not just Canada. There is a real concern that new and evolving conflicts in the world may lure young people to engage in violent extremist activities at home and abroad. 
Canada, like all nations, has a responsibility to guard against its citizens travelling to areas of turmoil and to prevent its citizens from participating in terrorist acts abroad. 
We must also be prepared for those who return home. Battle hardened and imbued with real-life terrorist ideology, some of them will be highly skilled potential domestic terrorist actors. Perhaps more importantly, they will have tremendous legitimacy in the eyes of other aspiring foreign fighters. They will have acquired both the credibility and charisma required for them to act as guides, mentors, and radicalization agents in their own right. 
That is why our government passed the Combating Terrorism Act, legislation that ensures that Canada has the tools it needs to combat crime and terrorism to protect its citizens.
 Particular to that legislation was a provision intended to deter persons from leaving Canada to attend terrorist training camps or to engage in other terrorist activities abroad. Through this provision, our government closed an important gap in the current laws. 
 Recent court decisions, however, necessitate that we amend the CSIS Act to address important questions that have been raised about CSIS's mandate and investigative authorities. That is why we have introduced Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.
 By amending the CSIS Act, Bill C-44 would do a number of things. It would confirm both CSIS' s authority to conduct its investigations outside of Canada and the Federal Court's jurisdiction to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain activities abroad to investigate threats to the security of Canada. It would clarify that the Federal Court only needs to consider relevant Canadian law when deciding whether to issue warrants that give CSIS the authority to undertake certain intrusive activities to investigate a threat to the security of Canada from outside our borders. It would also protect the identity of CSIS human sources from disclosure, akin to those same protections afforded to police informers, and it would protect the identity of very important CSIS employees who are likely to become engaged in future covert activities. 
 Additionally, Bill C-44 introduces technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that would enable the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism, high treason, and treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.
 Our government believes that this legislation will help us uphold the fundamental rights and liberties of Canadians and that these powers will be used judiciously. 
The reality is that no government can guarantee that it will be able to prevent all terrorist attacks each and every time. Nevertheless, we are taking strong action through our counterterrorism strategy and through legislation that is before us today, Bill C-44, to address terrorism in its many forms to ensure that our streets and communities are safe.
 I therefore urge all members to support the swift passage of this legislation. 
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there was a briefing this morning, I believe, on this legislation. Of course, on a Friday morning, as anyone familiar with Parliament would know, a third of all members are here and at least two-thirds, from all sides, are not in the city. We tend to return to our ridings. 
The briefing also took place during question period, so of those members who were actually in the capital, I would imagine that almost all of us were engaged here in question period doing our job holding the government to account. 
My question is twofold. One, is the government open and available to having a briefing for MPs that could happen at a time when MPs are actually able to attend so we can understand what is often a complex piece of legislation?
The second piece is a more broad question. I listened to the hon. member's comments, but I did not hear this aspect. It is about the radicalization piece and stopping the flow of sometimes Canadians, sometimes young people, who end up radicalized. This has been a struggle that has perhaps had more conversation in Europe and among some of our other allies yet not necessarily as much as it needs to here in Canada.
We have heard some of the aspects of the bill. I still have to read the briefing report, because I was here in question period, on denying travel and intervening for those who seek to go abroad. Yet we saw that the incidents, as best we know, that happened here on Parliament Hill and at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu did not have those elements of international radicalization. They were, as we say, homegrown terrorists.
The first question was around the government's willingness to provide a briefing that MPs can actually attend, including Conservative MPs, of course. The second is around the idea of how we stop the radicalization of people in the first place, be they from Canada or abroad.
[Interjection]
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, the question speaks to the fact that the New Democrats are not attuned to the real threat of terrorism in this country.
The member asked about a briefing that he said took place today regarding the bill. There was no briefing on this bill today. We are here in the House debating Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.
 I will go back to the reasons that this bill was brought forward. 
The bill was actually supposed to be tabled on the same day that the terrorist attacks took place in Ottawa. Sadly, events unfolded, and the legislation was brought forward a short time thereafter. The bill seeks to clarify the act to allow and give the authority for our Canadian Security Intelligence Service to continue operating overseas.
Can members imagine for a moment if our Security Intelligence Service were limited by the borders that surround Canada? In committee, members of the opposition voted against this bill, and I am sure they are going to vote against it again when it comes to a vote in this House, even though the opposition members bring up questions about radicalization overseas. 
There was a question brought forward by an NDP member on that committee with regard to revocation of a passport from someone who has travelled overseas. The question asked was, “What if they wanted to come back?” 
Terrorism is not about a day at the beach. This is a serious issue, and I wish that the New Democrats would actually take this serious issue—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, if there is one issue for which we would hope partisan sniping would be suspended, it is this one. All of us in this House want to make Canada more secure. 
The issue in front of us is that we know there is a second piece of legislation that is supposedly being tabled and perhaps unveiled in another part of the country today. The briefing for this companion piece of legislation was held simultaneously with question period and at a time when most members of Parliament from all sides of the House are not in Ottawa.
A legitimate question that did not get an answer was this: will you hold a second briefing so that we can understand the complexity and the nature of the legislation, legislation that you are talking about outside the House and outside the capital region? It is a fair question, and it deserves a fair answer, rather than a cheap shot back.
My second question is very similar to my colleague's as well. The critical issue is trying to figure out what is creating this circumstance. What is creating the conditions that lead to radicalization, which in turn leads to acts of terrorism? This is a significant question. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party has often spoken about dealing with the root causes of terrorism, as opposed to simply dealing with the symptoms of terrorism. 
What would this bill do about root causes, and why, when your party talks about root causes, is it proactive, but when we do, is it something to be criticized?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I would just remind hon. members again to direct their comments and questions in the third person and through the Speaker.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Interjection]
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as that member knows, we have already publicly said that we would offer additional briefings on the future bill, which is certainly not the one we are talking about today in the House, which is a bill we have been debating for quite some time. I would like to make sure that all members who are present are aware that we have already said we would offer additional briefings. 
The briefing that was offered was offered out of courtesy, and it was offered today with regard to the future bill, which has been tabled, in order to avoid offending the conventions of parliamentary privilege. I think everyone in the House already knows that.
With respect to the bill we are debating today, it is important to complete this bill and have it receive royal assent. We have to do everything possible to ensure that our security agencies have the authority to operate overseas and to protect their informants in the same way as other police and law enforcement agencies do across this country. 
The measures that are included in Bill C-44 are common sense measures. The bill is a result of recent court questions that called into question the authority of CSIS to do these types of things. The reality is clear. This act had not been changed for almost 30 years. 
The bill that is before us is important. Why the NDP continues to vote against something as common sense as the measures included in this bill, I have absolutely no idea.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to clarify that we are discussing Bill C-44 today. Bill C-51 was recently tabled, and we look forward to some very important debate on this complementary legislation for protecting Canadians.
I rise in support of the protection of Canada from terrorists act, which is another important step taken by our government to protect Canada against terrorism. We are looking at amending two key pieces of legislation. This bill would strengthen our response to so-called extremist terrorist travellers and confirm the tool kits of our security agencies.
Before highlighting the most important amendments, let me situate this legislation within a global context and explain how it would build on our existing legislation and policy.
 The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, has become a household name around the world. It is destabilizing Iraq and Syria while carrying out horrific acts against innocent people. As members know, as part of international coalition, Canada's CF-18 fighter jets are targeting ISIL forces in Iraq. We have joined our allies in this fight because we know that groups like ISIL pose a serious threat not just to regional security but to the citizens of Canada as well.
However, the fight against terrorism does not take place only under foreign skies. Every day, along our borders, in front of our computer screens, within our communities, and with our partners, Canada's intelligence security and law enforcement agencies are standing on guard against terrorism. They carry out their work guided by the four tenets of Canada's counterterrorism strategy, which are prevent, detect, deny, and respond. They are supported by legislation passed by Parliament, which includes the Combating Terrorism Act, for example, which makes it illegal to leave or attempt to leave Canada with a view to committing certain terrorism offences outside the country. Indeed, the RCMP laid its first charges under that act last summer.
The landscape for terrorism, however, is rapidly evolving, and our agencies need better tools to keep Canadians safe and secure. Members may want to consider the findings of the 2014 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada. In 2013, Canada added six groups to the list of terrorist entities, bringing the total to 53. Moreover, as early as 2014, the government had identified approximately 145 individuals with terrorism connections who may have been involved in terrorism-related activities in foreign countries. These are Canadians that groups like ISIL are trying to recruit through sick propaganda.
When Canadians are lured into fighting for a terrorist cause, they can inflict harm on innocent people in a foreign country. What is more, with the training that they receive and the propaganda that they are subjected to, extremist travellers may return home motivated to carry out terrorist acts on our own soil. Thus, while our brave men and women take part in combat missions overseas, it is our responsibility here to prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorism in all of its forms.
This brings me to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. 
This act addresses two key pieces of legislation that are essential in our fight against terrorism. As members will recall, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act received royal assent in June and expanded the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship. It also streamlined the process for making those decisions. Once in force, there will be authority to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism, high treason, and treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence that is imposed. It will also provide authorities with the authority to revoke citizenship from those who have served as members of an armed force of a country or an organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict against Canada. 
Those convicted cannot get time off for good behaviour. These individuals will never be allowed to become Canadian citizens again.
The amendments of Bill C-44 introduced technical changes to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that would allow the government to bring into force the revocation provision of the act earlier than, and separate from, the remaining provision.
I would also note that there is a second important change included in the strengthening Canadian citizenship bill. It relates to the process for revoking citizenship. Without these new provisions, the process for revoking citizenship can take up to three years, which I believe, and I believe many Canadians believe, is much too long. Let us imagine a dual citizen who has been radicalized. We may have the evidence to revoke citizenship, but we cannot do it in a timely way because the process is so lengthy. It was vital to streamline the process for revoking citizenship, while respecting the rights of the people involved.
 To that end, depending on the grounds for the decision, once the provisions are in force, there would be authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Federal Court to decide on revocation cases.
These amendments to our citizenship laws introduced in the strengthening Canadian citizenship bill would protect the safety and security of Canadians and value and safeguard of value of Canadian citizenship.
Bill C-44 would also amend another piece of legislation, the CSIS Act. We heard earlier that when the CSIS Act was introduced 30 years ago, the expression “extremist traveller” was not part of our lexicon, and neither was “social media.” Who could have imagined that messages of intolerance and hate would one day be transmitted without filters to a mobile telephone? Who could have foreseen how this propaganda could turn someone with mainstream views into an extremist?
 However, this is the world we now live in. We must adapt, and adapt quickly, to ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats in a new world. To do this, we must affirm key elements of CSIS' mandate that have been brought into question by recent court decisions. That is really what Bill C-44 is all about. It is not about new powers. 
First, this bill would confirm CSIS' existing authority to undertake investigative activities outside of Canada in relation to the security of Canada or to security assessments.
Second, it would confirm the existing jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants to authorize CSIS to undertake certain intrusive investigative activities outside of Canada.
Third, it would clarify that in determining whether to issue warrants for activities outside of Canada, the Federal Court need only consider relevant Canadian law.
Fourth, it would ensure that the identities of CSIS' human sources would not be disclosed in legal proceedings, except in certain circumstances. This provision is similar to the common law privilege protections that already exist for front-line police informers.
In addition to protecting the identity of CSIS sources during legal proceedings, it would also protect the identity of CSIS employees who are likely to become involved in future covert operations.
Taken together, the amendments proposed in Bill C-44 address recent court decisions related to CSIS and ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to fulfill the mandate it was given by Parliament 30 years ago.
Canadians depend on our government to protect them from terrorist activities, and we must not fail them. I urge all members to join me in offering unconditional support for Bill C-44, a much-needed response to a rapidly changing security environment.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will have the honour of speaking to this debate a little later this afternoon. I thank my colleagues for their remarks. I will have the chance to explain why the NDP is opposed to this Conservative government bill, even though we supported it at second reading.
I would like to ask my Conservative colleague why the Conservative government refused to accept any of our amendments in committee.
Why did the government refuse to consider comments and criticisms from stakeholders and experts? Why did it refuse to enhance oversight of CSIS, which is a major flaw in this government bill?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, what we created with Bill C-44 is a strong piece of legislation that needed all its elements to do the tasks we set out for it. The opposition proposed amendments, but in general the amendments would have eroded the ability of this piece of legislation to take on the responsibilities it needed in responding to the court decisions.
I note that there are complementary pieces of legislation. The member talked about some gaps and some additional needs; I welcome her response, and I also look forward to the support that I hope we get from the NDP on Bill C-51.
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, on what legal opinion did my colleague base her assurance that creating two classes of citizens—based on whether they have dual citizenship or not—for something as serious as revoking Canadian citizenship would not be considered by the courts to be inconsistent with the charter?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the benefit of being a lawyer, as I believe my colleague on the other side is. The Minister of Justice has a number of lawyers within the justice department and all legislation that we bring forward has had a full analysis in terms of the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.
Since the Conservatives keep referring to the murder in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu committed on October 20, 2014, can my colleague explain how, to her knowledge, a change in the way CSIS operates would have prevented the act committed by a person who was being tracked and assessed by the RCMP, which found that this person was no longer a threat to the public?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange how the NDP cannot look at the definition of terrorism and call a spade a spade in what happened in both events in Canada last October.
More important, lone wolf attacks are difficult to prevent and our law enforcement agencies need modern tools to do the job that we want them to do with respect to protecting us.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
I am speaking today to Bill C-44, a terrorism bill. However, before I get into the more technical aspects of my speech, I want to talk a bit about the threat of terrorism in Canada. 
I have heard my colleagues across the way describe the events of last fall as being one of the most egregious terrorism acts that we have seen in Canada, but I do not think it actually deserves that title. The most egregious act of terrorism that occurred in Canada was Air India in 1985. It was a very tragic occurrence. CSIS at the time was tracking the terrorists, and we did not have very good oversight over CSIS and its operations then. For many years, Parliament was unable to get to the bottom of it, and required quite extensive action on the part of government to do that. What we saw in 1985 was a large act of terrorism, in which hundreds of people were killed. That is, in my mind, the primary event of terrorism in Canada in the time I have been here.
We have seen other acts of terrorism. We have seen it in the Alberta gas fields, where people have blown up gas wells on numerous occasions. We have seen acts of terrorism on the west coast against hydroelectric facilities. Terrorism has shown up in Canada quite often over the course of our lifetimes. 
Only today do we see this kind of knee-jerk reaction to incidents for which we have much difficulty understanding as pure terrorism, because the individuals involved had mental and social issues. They may well have been influenced by ideology from one ethnic group or the other, but they were not driven or coerced by that. They acted on their own and in some ways acted haphazardly and in a way that suggested they were simply emotional outbursts. To me, that is not the same type of thing as a carefully planned and executed destruction of an airliner, killing hundreds of people. That is truly a definition of, if not terrorism, the relative degree of importance of the acts that take place. 
It is unfortunate that in the events we have seen in the last few months, we now will make decisions about the way we run Canada that we did not choose to make in 1985 or at other times when we were faced with acts that we could justifiably call terrorism. Therefore, why are we doing it now? Why are we taking these actions now? What is the larger threat that we see and perceive that will curtail more human rights and the basic freedoms we have in Canada, those that we have worked very hard to maintain? What are we doing?
With the latest bill, we would increase the powers of Canada's spy agency. We are offering it up as another international body to engage in espionage and spy on other countries. We have created this situation in the law. Clause 8 of the bill calls for enabling “the Service to investigate, within or outside Canada, a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16”. The important words are “outside Canada“. Now we will give our intelligence service more latitude to pursue its objectives outside of Canada.
Section 21 of the act asks that we also give the agency the ability to act without regard to any other law, in other words, any other law of another country. We are asking our intelligence service to open up the opportunity to spy on other countries, to disregard the laws that other countries might have toward their citizens and pursue our intelligence system in that regard. We are taking a step to a more confrontational approach to other nations based on one single perceived threat of ISIL, or al Qaeda, or those foreign agencies that we see as being the prime international threat to the stability of the world right now.
We are on a fairly slippery slope and this is simply the first piece of legislation that the government is coming forward with, and we are going to see some more. We were given public notice of another bill today, and I have not had the opportunity to review it. However, certainly we are moving in that direction. It is something that we have to take very seriously. It is not simple. It is not simply to jump on the bandwagon and let us go after increased surveillance abilities our intelligence service overseas. Within Canada we will see our intelligence service taking other kinds of actions which would not have been permitted in the past.
Is the threat of that significance why we need to move in that direction? I would argue that after the larger incident of terrorism that occurred in 1985, we made some changes to our airport security system. We did some things to help reduce that threat. We did not really provide that same coordination within the country that perhaps was required. I think we are all in favour of greater coordination between our protective services. However, at that time, we did not see the need to give our intelligence service these types of powers to take out of the country. Yet we have seen incidents far less serious than that which are now driving us in that direction. Why? Is it simply by politics? 
That is a concern that we all have on this side of the House, that we are moving ahead with restrictions of the rights and privileges of Canadians based on the political necessity of creating this threat in the Canadian political process. It is unfortunate that we would then choose to change our laws, laws that have been in place for a long time. 
In some ways, politics is important in terms of our international relationships. When we see a Canadian foreign minister abroad being pelted with eggs and shoes, that is an unusual occurrence for Canada. Perhaps we should look at the politics of what we are doing rather than simply looking at ways that we can intervene militarily. We have moved away from a Canadian position of enlightened centralism into one that picks sides. That is the greatest threat to Canadian security in this day and age. 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I want to better understand what the member said. In his speech, he said that he was uncertain whether ISIL, or ISIS, was a real threat to Canadians, both at home and abroad. He was also arguing about the degree to which an event or a terrorist act should cause us to strengthen our security services. 
I wonder if the member could clearly identify for me at what level of death, destruction, and terror does he suggest that Canada should begin to strengthen its laws. Would it be if 300 people died, or one person, or 50 people? 
Specifically, since he is suggesting that the attack on Ottawa and the death of Corporal Cirillo do not necessitate this and that Air India was not at a level he believed warranted our strengthening the laws, what level of terror, death, and destruction does this member and his party believe would warrant the Government of Canada reviewing and strengthening the security laws and apparatus?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, to put a number on it in that regard is really difficult. 
However, what I was trying to point out was that after the Air India incident, in which 300 people were killed, we did certain things. Most of them dealt with the physical security of our airports. We tried to better coordinate the agencies engaged in dealing with terrorist incidents within our country. We took some actions there; we did not change the law. We took actions within the services that we provide to Canadians to protect them to ensure that we did manage to maintain the same level of personal liberties and freedoms through that time.
Now, we are in a different time and we have had a number of deaths. They were terribly unfortunate and no one wants to see any of this happen, but, of course, it is part of any society that these things do happen. Now, as a result, are we going to make these changes? Now, are we now going to reduce these freedoms? Now, will we send out our intelligence agency to play a larger role in the international community? I do not find that appropriate.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, my question is about the oversight of CSIS. Bill C-44 would give significant new powers to CSIS, yet significant new oversight is not proposed.
 In fact, I remember that when I was finance critic, in one of the many omnibus budget bills the Conservative government brought forward, one of the provisions was to eliminate the position of inspector general, the person charged with full-time oversight of CSIS. We heard expert testimony—ironically at the finance committee, even though it was a national security issue—from the person who had been in charge of setting up the machinery of CSIS when it was first created. The witness warned the government not to remove that position because it was the government's eyes and ears on CSIS. The witness said it was the only way the government could prevent the people charged with securing and protecting the public, people who had unique powers, from not exceeding their powers.
Would the member comment on the lack of oversight of CSIS, especially now that the government wants to increase the powers of CSIS?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of greater oversight of these bodies by Parliament in a fashion that would provide us with quicker answers than we received in regard to the Air India incident. That showed me how important it is to interact continually with the intelligence agency to understand what it is doing, why it is doing what it is doing, where its shortfalls are, and how the agency can be improved. Without that, I think there is extreme danger to Canadian values because it simply does not give the intelligence agency the opportunity to look carefully at what it is doing and to ensure it is doing things according to every law we have in place now. I think that goes without saying.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have spoken in the course of this debate, since I spoke at second reading of Bill C-44. If members would like to know more about my feelings on this bill, they can have a look at my other speech.
I would also like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for the work she has done on this issue. She made an excellent speech this morning. Anyone watching at home should watch my colleague's speech if they want more information.
Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts essentially makes three substantive changes with regard to CSIS.
 First, it clarifies the legal authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad to respond to threats from outside Canada.
Second, it confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada.
Third, it provides for protection of identity for CSIS human intelligence sources in judicial proceedings.
The NDP does not deny that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act is in need of some changes. We do not deny that the world has changed in recent decades and that Canada's commitments abroad have also changed. The realities we face have changed. Naturally, we need to amend this act so that CSIS can act abroad in a way that is adapted to today's realities. 
That is why we voted in favour of this bill at second reading. We had hoped to work with the government to improve this bill and make amendments, because even at second reading we saw some huge flaws in the bill. We had a lot of concerns about the bill, especially with respect to protections, civilian oversight of CSIS and the fact that the government does not give CSIS adequate resources. 
I would like to point out that the NDP participated in the committee's study in order to improve this bill so that it would meet Canadians' criteria for civilian oversight.
We moved several amendments in committee but, unfortunately, even though we wanted to work in good faith with the government, it rejected all our amendments without even studying them. That is truly deplorable.
The amendments we proposed addressed the concerns expressed by witnesses and experts who appeared before the committee. With respect to warrants for overseas covert actions, we moved an amendment that would require the director, and not an employee designated by the minister, to make the application in every case. It is simply a question of transparency.
I know that all Canadians want CSIS to be as transparent as possible. The purpose of our amendment was to ensure that covert activities do not become routine. We wanted the director to be accountable.
I listened to the debate very carefully today, and the Conservative government has still not explained why it rejected this amendment, which would have resulted in more transparency and accountability.
 Additionally, we put forward an amendment to delete the following from clause 8(2):
 Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state,... 
It is important that we remove this part of the bill because we wanted to remove any contradiction with international law and the explicit granting of power to Canadian courts to authorize illegal activity in other states. Canadian activities must comply with international law. Unfortunately, the government also rejected this amendment without consideration for the opinions of experts.
We also proposed another amendment to add specific accountability for the use of warrants to authorize activities of CSIS abroad to the CSIS director. We would like the director to submit an annual report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee specifying the disposition of all such warrant applications and the activities carried out under the warrants.
In my opinion, this is simply about accountability. That is why MPs are elected. It is our job in this place to ensure that there is accountability. The committees are an important mechanism for ensuring that the government is accountable to Canadians. That is why we moved this amendment, which once again was rejected by the Conservative government. 
Lastly, in order to prevent possible abuse regarding surveillance warrants, we asked the government to accept one of our amendments, which was about clarifying exactly when a foreign surveillance warrant was necessary. That is very important.
This is a concern not only for Canadians, but for citizens of the United States and other countries who are worried about the extent of surveillance and activities of organizations like CSIS.
If the investigative activity was supposed to take place in Canada and required a warrant under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or if the activity violated international law or the laws of the country where it was to take place, the Federal Court of Canada would have to issue a warrant for that activity to take place outside of Canada. 
We examined this bill very carefully and, unfortunately, we cannot support it as it stands, because our amendments were not accepted.
I would also like to explain to the House the criteria we use to assess all legislative measures intended to combat threats to public safety. 
Our analysis is based on three criteria. The first criterion is enhanced civilian oversight. It is absolutely crucial that enhanced civilian oversight accompany any new powers for CSIS. The second criterion is the protection of civil liberties. Having spoken with my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I know that they are very worried about this. They strongly believe that civil liberties must be protected. Yes, we need to increase security measures, but not at the expense of civil liberties. This is an important criterion. The third criterion we use to assess public safety legislation has to do with adequate resources. We know that the Conservative government continues to cut resources in terms of funding and personnel. CSIS can definitely be given the tools it needs to do its job.
However, if CSIS does not have the resources and staff it needs, this whole exercise is pointless, and the agency will not be able to properly tackle the problem of terrorism.
Some cuts have been made. The Conservatives have cut as much as $600 million and $87.9 million from our public safety agencies. There have been cuts everywhere.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
She mentioned something that I believe is critical to democracy. When a power is granted, there must be control over it. We need a balanced approach between security and the ability to make sure that there are no abuses once that power is granted.
I would like my colleague to comment further on the need for a balance between granting powers to ensure security and the ability to ensure that there are no abuses of those powers.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, that is actually a concern that many of the witnesses raised in committee. We have to take a close look at that issue. During the committee's study, the Conservative government prevented officers of Parliament, such as the Privacy Commissioner, whose job is to protect Canadians' privacy, from appearing before the committee. He was unable to appear before the committee to express his concerns about Bill C-44, and I find that deplorable.
This also shows the Conservative government's contempt for officers of Parliament and the people who are responsible for protecting Canadians and their privacy. The government also refused to accept their submission. It acted in bad faith at the committee stage. Unfortunately, the government did not take a balanced approach, and the bill does not contain enough measures to protect Canadians' privacy.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, of course all of the laws we have introduced, and this bill specifically, balance the rights and privacy of Canadian citizens. They also do something that Canadians have asked us to do, which is a full commitment and full responsibility of any government, and that is to protect citizens from threats, whether from abroad or direct threats right here on Canadian soil. 
Although the New Democrats in one sense talk about protecting Canadians, when it comes to supporting strong legislation like the bill we are introducing today, they will not support it with their votes. 
How dire would the situation have to be and under what circumstance would the New Democrats support giving our law enforcement the tools they need to fight threats, whether at home or abroad? What would they see as warranting this kind of protection for Canadians? 
We believe it is warranted and warranted now. We need it. It is disappointing that they will not support it. Under what circumstances would they support this kind of legislation?
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, frankly, I find the question by the hon. parliamentary secretary insulting. The government's rhetoric on how many deaths there would need to be before we would act, frankly, enrages me. They seem to suggest that we did not deeply grieve the events that happened in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. 
This rhetoric is extremely problematic. The government is presenting legislation that is not balanced. It does not protect the private life of Canadians and it does not actually ensure civilian surveillance of our security organizations. The government bill is completely problematic and yet at the same time the Conservative members are accusing us of being complicit with terrorists. That is completely inappropriate rhetoric for this kind of debate.
In closing, I would like to quote Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien, who expressed serious concerns over this bill. He said:
 It is understandable that the government would want to consider boosting the powers of law-enforcement and national security agencies to address potential gaps. 
 But any new tools should be accompanied by a beefed-up role for the watchdogs who keep an eye on spies and police. 
The NDP agrees with Privacy Commissioner Therrien.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Resuming debate. We have about a minute and a half left in the time provided for government orders this afternoon.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.
If Canadians have been listening for the last half hour or so, or even longer, they will have heard the official opposition, the NDP, and the Liberal Party members become increasingly more concerned about the conduct of our security agencies than they are about the conduct of terrorists and terrorist threats to Canadians.
That is not the case with our government, our Prime Minister and our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who work every day to ensure that Canadians are kept safe, that our security agencies have the tools they need to investigate threats, and that our police agencies working in concert with them have the tools they need to apprehend and ultimately successfully prosecute those who are threats to our country.
The clarification in the bill being brought forward is important, particularly in light of a recent court case, which if one can imagine—and I will put it in layman's terms for Canadians to understand very clearly—rendered our security agency effectively an island with respect to the rest of the world. That is, it was not able to share intelligence with other foreign intelligence agencies or receive it and, therefore, able to successfully investigate threats abroad or receive intelligence on threats against Canada here at home.
We are clarifying that, to ensure they can ultimately do the job they need to do and keep Canadians safe. The opposition should get on board, not worry and obsess about the wrong priorities. They should get with Canadians, give our agencies the tools they need, and support this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, January 28, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
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. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 2, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you will find consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Child Poverty[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 17, 2014, consideration of the motion.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, setting up and speaking to this bill is of extreme importance to those of us who represent urban areas and municipalities, in large part because the need to deal with these issues defines the quality of life in our cities. Without a concerted effort on this, what we will end up with is a scattergun approach that will, quite frankly, leave sectors in our cities in a great deal of trouble.
The issue of housing is an example that has been raised here several times. We know that the housing agreements have been renewed across the country, but they are sustaining the status quo and providing a dribble of new housing. In my city, perhaps 60 units of housing per year will arrive out of the new renewed arrangements. With a 92,000-person waiting list, 60 units of housing per year is effectively a 1,500 year waiting list.
Without a new era of co-operation and without new programs to address poverty, the urban strategies, and struggles that cities and towns have across the country, we will be in significant trouble in Toronto. That is one of the reasons why child poverty is growing at such an alarming rate, while the city takes its place as one of the wealthiest places in Canada, if not the world.
The ranking of Canada as a safe place to live comes as cold comfort to those communities where housing conditions are so deplorable, access to social services like child care and education is so limited, and isolation due to poor transportation infrastructure is so profound. To call it one of the greatest places in the world to live leaves families and, particularly, young people gobsmacked. Something needs to change here.
What needs to change is not simply cutting taxes for people without incomes and providing income splitting and billions of dollars to affluent communities and individuals, as low-income communities struggle. What we need is a series of programs that deliver on the urban agenda.
As the urban affairs critic for the Liberal Party, I have had the privilege of meeting with dozens of mayors across the country in the last six weeks. Contrary to what we hear from the government side, mayors across the country are asking for just this kind of legislation. They are asking for a return to the kind of advanced thinking that defined Paul Martin's tenure as prime minister, when the gas tax was created, when infrastructure funding was stepped up and committed to, and when a housing program was put on the table. Even the plight of urban aboriginals was part of a national dialogue to resolve issues, rather than simply believing that a tax cut could build a bridge, get a subway delivered, or suddenly make day care appear even if people had an extra $100 in their pocket.
Something needs to change, and what this bill would do is highlight the areas that need to be focused on to build stronger communities right across Canada. As someone who sat on the municipal council for eight years and who has come to Ottawa to try to strengthen this partnership, I am challenged that it is simply a plan to have a plan. Cities cannot wait for thinking on this issue. They need action.
It is all well and fine to propose theoretical solutions and to aspire to strong language, but what we need are strong programs and specific programs that fit directly into municipal budgets on an ongoing basis and in a consistent way that delivers these programs. We need this particularly for housing and transit, but also for the management of water.
One of the challenges that municipalities are having right now is that climate change has happened. It is not a theoretical possibility. If we listen to Fox News, we hear it is not even a reality. Sometimes, when we listen to the Conservative government, we hear it is beyond its grasp as well. Nevertheless, climate change has happened, and it is doing extraordinary things to civic infrastructure and civil engineering.
We had a flash storm in one part of Toronto, while another part of Toronto was in sunshine, which drove so much water into the sewer system that it blew a 40 feet by 100 feet by 4.5 feet reinforced concrete cap on a sewage capacity holding bin at the waterfront 60 feet into the air and flooded the entire waterfront of Toronto. This was in downtown Toronto, while Scarborough was in sunshine.
These sorts of thing are not happening every hundred years, as predicted by the insurance models or by civic engineering standards; they are happening once every two or three years. Sometimes, they are happening every six months in some parts of the country. The government needs to step up and address the infrastructure needs of Canada and assist cities on all of the other fronts, including transit and housing. If the support is not there, the partnership is not built, and the money is not defined and delivered in a direct, predictable, and robust way, cities and municipalities will not have the capacity to deal with the fundamentals of urban living, which are the delivery of water and the picking up of garbage.
We need a comprehensive approach to municipalities, we need a comprehensive approach to dealing with poverty and we need a comprehensive approach to setting the stage for a stronger relationship with our country. Infrastructure needs must be led by housing. They need funding programs that directly deliver dollars to cities, without complex subscription models and costly subscriptive programs that require pages of applications to simply fund and get the state of repair attended to and housing built. We need to ensure that co-ops in particular are protected, that their agreements are renewed with other affordable housing providers and that the subsidies are sustained. We need to lean on the co-op model to deliver more capacity, not shrink our footprint and our federal program in that area.
We also need to pay attention to the social needs of cities as we build the physical infrastructure. That is why things like daycare are so critical. Arts funding and recreation funding are also critical. Without a solid perspective and a platform on these issues, cities struggle.
 We have been critical of the Prime Minister this week for not having met with the premiers. However, the Prime Minister should also be sitting down on a regular basis with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at its annual conference. He should also should be pulling together the big city mayors conference, which was a program initiated under Paul Martin, to talk about where some of the significant economic challenges are emerging in large urban centres. That is where most of our immigrants settle and where most of the social problems are embedded in affluence and therefore not directly attacked under some of our national programs. It is where the majority of Canadians live.
We have the most urbanized country in the G7 and yet we are the only G7 country without urban strategies on some critical files. It is time for that to change.
 I have talked to mayors in Kitchener and Waterloo, Cambridge, Burlington, Oakville, Regina, Calgary and Vancouver. They are meeting soon in Toronto with the new mayor of that city, with whom I have also met. There is not a mayor among them who thinks the federal government is stepping up and meeting its obligations. One of the critical areas pronounced daily in question period is on the question of infrastructure. The funding is back-end loaded.
Cape Breton and the city of Sydney have not had a penny from Ottawa in two years. They have no hopes of getting money this year, and the money they need for a $450 million infrastructure rebuild of their water plant is not even part of the 10-year capital program. In fact, if Sydney, Nova Scotia had to build that water plant itself, its annual budget is only $140 million. That is its annual tax draw. The project will cost $450 million to build to give clean water to people living in the regional municipality of Cape Breton. It would have to shut down the city for three years to build this by itself. The reason it needs to rebuild this is that federal standards changed on water supply. 
The federal government is side-loading and downloading and not meeting its responsibilities. Small towns and big cities are all falling behind on the infrastructure file. When they do, the social dynamics and the social status of the lowest-income Canadians are hurt the most. Housing, transit and social services are fundamental to the health of cities. They are as important as the roads, the bridges and the rail, yet the federal government has walked away from all of those capacities and has not funded them properly. 
The back-end loaded infrastructure program is a joke in city halls and town halls across Canada. There is not a mayor, or town reeve or city councillor who does not understand that the money is not coming for 10 years. That money was needed yesterday. It was needed last year. Instead what we get are $29 million worth of billboards. Frankly, sleeping under a billboard is not what I call a housing policy.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the motion of my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River. I want to thank her for all of her work on eliminating child poverty, the subject of the motion today. 
Because this is the second hour of debate, I would like to refer to the text of the motion, which reads: 
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should work in collaboration with the provinces, territories and First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities to eradicate child poverty in Canada by developing a national poverty reduction plan that includes: (a) making housing more affordable for lower income Canadians; (b) ensuring accessible and affordable child care; (c) addressing childhood nutrition; (d) improving economic security of families; (e) measures that specifically address the unique needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; and (f) measurable targets and time lines. 
In other words, it is about accountability.
It has been 25 years since Ed Broadbent's motion aimed at ending child poverty was passed unanimously by the House, and yet successive Conservative and Liberal governments have failed to act on this promise. With almost one million children living in poverty, almost half of whom are indigenous, surely it is time to end child poverty.
Dr. David Hulchanski, a professor in Toronto and a constituent of mine, has documented very precisely what is happening with the declining middle class and the growing polarization in our city of Toronto. He calls it a “three city” situation, where some at the very top are getting more wealthy, an increasingly shrinking group is staying at about the same level, and a growing number of people are falling further and further behind.
Childhood poverty is costly not only for the children affected in terms of their childhood experience of inequality, but also in terms of lost potential and social costs. 
I should point out that Canada ranks 23rd on child poverty among countries in the OECD, which is a shameful record. If we want to set records, surely this is not one. One out of seven children in Canada lives in poverty, but if one is born aboriginal, there is a two in five chance that one will live in poverty. These are shameful numbers.
UNICEF Canada has written a report and recommends creating a children's commissioner and making the UN convention on child poverty enforceable in court. Canada ratified this international agreement in 1991, but progress remains very slow and spotty. 
The UNICEF report makes a number of recommendations worth noting. As I said, one is to make the convention enforceable in courts. It also recommends developing a national action plan aimed at bringing Canada into compliance with the UN convention; holding a parliamentary review on the recommendations of the UN committee on child rights and the recommendation of the Senate's report on children; and including in child protection legislation everyone under the age of 18; and developing a program to educate children and others on the convention rights. 
I would like to speak specifically to the subelements of this motion. 
First, there is an alarming situation now from the lack of affordable housing. There are 92,000 people in Toronto on the waiting list for housing. In my community of Parkdale—High Park, we see families who have to make the gut-wrenching decision to either pay the rent or put food on the table. They are going to keep a roof over their heads, and therefore we have community kitchens and food banks bursting at the seams. A number of children go to school hungry every day. This is shocking in a city as wealthy as Toronto. 
I see families with two or three kids living in a one bedroom apartment because that is all they can afford. I see people living in Toronto community housing in substandard housing with serious maintenance problems with mould, water leakage, and appliances that do not work. 
There are buildings in our community where the elevators do not work. We have serious problems. 
We also have problems with the lack of effective rent control legislation, and companies get around the legislation. They get people out of the buildings and jack up the rent. The upshot is that people cannot afford to find a decent place to live. There is an explosion of new homes being built, but they are mainly private condos. Low-income people do not have the ability to buy these condos, and there is no affordable housing being built for them.
We also have a problem with co-ops that are finishing their housing agreements. These are not going to be renewed. We have people who were getting a subsidy, who were able to live in a decent place, a co-operative housing development, because they got a bit of a subsidy, and those subsidies have been lost. That is a huge dilemma for many in the city of Toronto.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives have abandoned their social housing responsibilities. One in four Canadian households, that is 1.5 million Canadians, families and individuals, spend more than a third of their income on housing. Canada is the only G8 country without a strategy for affordable housing. It was under the previous Liberal government that the national housing plan was abandoned. It is shocking that in a northern country, with such high needs, we do not have effective housing or even a plan to get to that housing.
When it comes to public spending on child care and early learning, Canada ranks last among developed and comparable countries. For years Liberal and Conservative governments have ignored this pressing need of Canadian families. There are over 900,000 kids in need of care in Canada, with no access to quality, affordable, child care spaces. The Conservatives promised 125,000 new spaces, but just like the Liberals, they did not create one single space.
In my community, child care spaces can run up to $2,000 per month, per child, which is clearly far out of the reach of most families. Noted economist Pierre Fortin has said that the Quebec model of child care, which is affordable, accessible, and high quality, has allowed more than 70,000 mothers to join the workforce and generate the return of $1.75 for every dollar spent on child care. That is clearly an important investment.
When it comes to indigenous children, they are the fastest growing demographic in our country. Investments made to reduce indigenous child poverty would have huge benefits for Canada. We have alarming rates of poverty and huge housing problems. Even Mike Holmes is saying that we have to build better quality houses for indigenous communities. It would be a better investment and more cost-effective. They also face huge food security issues, far more so than people do in the south. 
I remember that noted Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, in answer to the question, “What is the best thing Canada can do to create innovation, boost our economy, and boost competitiveness and job creation?”, said to invest in children. Invest in child care. Invest in post-secondary education. Invest in kids. That is the best bet for a strong, innovative economy.
We want the federal government to make the elimination of child poverty a priority. We need to develop an anti-poverty plan with timelines and measurable benchmarks that would include the key components of taking on the crisis of poverty for indigenous children, making housing more affordable for lower-income Canadians, creating an early childhood and childhood education program, addressing childhood nutrition, and improving the overall economic security of Canada. We owe Canadians no less. It is our duty as parliamentarians to act. We should all be supporting this important motion.
Jim Eglinski: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on private member's Motion No. 534, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River. Her motion asks that the federal government work in collaboration with the provinces, territories, first nations, Inuit, and Métis to develop a national plan to eradicate child poverty in Canada.
As I am sure the member opposite is aware, there are already significant government measures in place that are helping to address poverty across this country. A recent UNICEF report backs up the action by this government, stating that child poverty has been reduced to an all-time low under this government.
 In fact, changes our government made to Canada's social programs cushioned many families and their children from falling into poverty during the global recession. That being said, our government does not think it is enough to simply help people keep their heads above water in tough times. The best strategy to address income equality and to help people in low-income situations is to create more jobs and to grow the economy. 
As demonstrated over the past nine years, our long-term goal is, and always has been, to consistently improve economic conditions and to in turn improve the quality of life for all Canadians all the time. Our government's pan-Canadian approach includes working with the provinces and territories to help Canadians get the skills and experience they need to find jobs and take advantage of the opportunities.
It goes without saying that to address such an issue as complex as poverty, all levels of government, as well as the community and not-for-profit organizations, need to work together. In this matter, we have had a great deal of success. Take, for example, the yearly Canada social transfer. Our government provides funding through the Canada social transfer, which provinces and territories may use to support poverty reduction initiatives. Funding for the Canada social transfer is at an all-time high, at over $12 billion in 2014-15, an increase of $4 billion since our government took office in 2006.
The Canada social transfer also helps fund specific provincial and territorial programs targeted to families with young children and represents a federal commitment that will rise to $1.3 billion in the next fiscal year. This funding supports provincial initiatives in early child development, early learning and child care, and post-secondary education. It also supports social assistance and other social services for low-income families with children.
Furthermore, the national child benefit, also known as the NCB, is an example of federal, provincial, and territorial governments working in partnership to deliver benefits to families with children. The NCB has been enormously successful at delivering support for low-income Canadian families. By reducing the number of families with children living in low-income situations, our government continues to show that we have taken action to help those Canadians who need it most.
Thanks to our government's stewardship of the NCB, the low-income rate for children was 1.8% lower in 2011, which is the most recent data we have. This represents 118,000 fewer children living in poverty than there were under the previous government. With all our benefits combined, our government provides over $15 billion a year in benefits for families with children. Even better, just last month, the Prime Minister proposed new support measures to improve the lives of families and their children. 
Under these proposed changes, the universal child care benefit will be enhanced to provide $160 per month for each child under the age of six and $60 per month for children aged six through 17. This means that parents will receive more than $1,900 annually for each child under the age of six and $720 for each child aged six to 17. 
Every single family with children under the age of 18 will benefit from these new benefits announced by the Prime Minister. These proposed changes also include the proposed family tax cut, a tax credit that will allow a spouse to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket. They also include the proposed increase of the child care expense deduction limit and the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit. As members can see, we are committed to helping families prosper and to making life more affordable for all Canadian families.
 Of course, having proper shelter is also essential. That is why the government has invested more than $16.5 billion in housing since 2006 through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, also known as CMHC. Working with its partners, CMHC has helped nearly 915,000 Canadian individuals and families find adequate and affordable housing. This measure will support new affordable housing and existing social housing needs.
 Let us not forget that there is also a great deal of work being done by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It funds a number of programs that seek to create safe and affordable housing; improve access to high-quality child care, childhood nutrition, and the economic security of families; and meet the unique needs of first nation, Inuit, and Métis communities. 
In addition to targeted support for those most in need, the government has also provided almost $160 billion in tax relief for Canadian families and individuals in the past eight years. 
We know that many Canadians still face a variety of financial challenges. The major government initiatives I have just talked about will continue to help more and more people move up the income ladder. Our government has achieved tangible and measurable progress in the fight against poverty. More importantly, our support has changed the lives of Canadians for the better. 
Since 2006, there are 225,000 fewer children in poverty thanks to our government. According to David Morley, president of UNICEF Canada, it is really impressive. He said, “It's better than the majority of other countries did during the recession”, and we will continue to do even more. 
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members of what many of my colleagues have already pointed out: it was 20 years ago, in 1989, that the House of Commons held this debate and that the members unanimously voted in favour of Ed Broadbent's initiative to eliminate child poverty. Today's debate has already happened and the members came to a conclusion. They decided to take action.
I would like to share a little about my riding, which covers a large part of eastern Longueuil. For those who are not familiar with Longueuil, it has a reputation of being a comfortable suburb. However, this reputation conceals some deep-rooted poverty. The wealthier neighbourhoods, such as Vieux-Longueuil and Parcours du Cerf, border neighbourhoods with much different daily realities: the neighbourhoods of Sacré-Coeur, Carillon and Fatima.
This is a Longueuil we do not hear much about and that some even try to keep quiet. I have lived in Longueuil for 15 years now, and I thought that after living there all this time I knew my city. I thought I was aware of how people around me lived. 
Since I became a member of Parliament, I have spent the past few years getting to know another Longueuil: communities and neighbourhoods that do not fit the image normally associated with our part of the south shore. These are neighbourhoods where life is often tough, where people work hard to earn a wage that often does not afford them a decent lifestyle, and where parents work hard to feed their kids, send them to school, teach them to read and count, or give them the tools that they themselves did not necessarily have.
Longueuil is made up of people who are no strangers to homelessness, insecurity and poverty. People in Longueuil are also no strangers to illiteracy and, sometimes more than elsewhere, unsafe housing. In Longueuil, families—often single-parent families—spend troubling and unusually high percentages of their income on housing.
In Longueuil, immigrant families sometimes feel as though they are on their own in an unfamiliar country. There are food deserts where quality food is out of reach, too expensive, and hard to access on foot or by public transit for far too many people.
It could be called the hidden side of Longueuil, but it is the day-to-day reality for so many women, men and, of course, children. Nearly 37% of the children in Longueuil belong to families that are below the poverty line. That is a deeply disturbing figure. We are not talking about a depressed single-industry town; we are talking about a suburb known as the south shore. 
What I just shared is not the exceptional part, however. Longueuil has become known for its response to poverty in its community. It is responding with the kind of powerful and exceptional solidarity that shows what Quebeckers can do when they roll up their sleeves and pull together. Longueuil is also responding with a tightly knit community network, the largest in the region, led by an army of volunteers. 
An entire critical infrastructure has been created, an infrastructure of help and support developed by Quebeckers with initiative and the desire to build community and to support people facing day-to-day challenges—basic challenges such as health, safety and education. 
Neighbourhood life committees are giving our communities a future by creating real community and promoting citizen participation. We have dynamic and indispensable youth centres, food banks that achieve the impossible but that, unfortunately, cannot keep up with increasing demand, and initiatives that are amazingly courageous, just like the enterprising organizations that struggle to run them. 
I have been privileged to contribute to some of these initiatives through volunteer work with my team. We have had touching, eye-opening experiences. For example, we spent time at the Partage de l'entraide chez nous store, helped build a community garden in the Carillon neighbourhood, distributed Christmas hampers with kids from the Gérard-Filion high school, worked on Auberge du coeur l'Antre-Temps's fundraiser, Opération Tirelires, and more. 
The motion before us today is about what the federal government can do to ensure that these organizations are not abandoned but receive government support because they do such critical work to improve society and economic conditions, and that is good for everyone. 
The motion gives expression to our desire to see Canada adopt a plan to reduce poverty. That would be a first step in responding to the resolution passed unanimously 20 years ago by MPs in this place. We are calling for an action plan to reduce poverty that addresses the need for affordable housing for low-income Canadians. We want the plan to address childhood nutrition. We want a poverty reduction plan that addresses the economic security of families. 
In short, we are proposing that the federal government bring people together and, rather than just watch, lead the fight against poverty in Canada and Quebec. We are also proposing that it co-operate with Quebec, the provinces and territories and aboriginal communities to achieve real results that will allow us to meet our international commitments and fulfill our moral obligations to children, who are the most vulnerable members of our society. Children do not just represent a percentage of our population; they represent our entire future. 
I spoke about all the initiatives undertaken by organizations and individuals to make life better for the neighbourhoods and the people in Longueuil. Most of these initiatives have this in common: they invest the majority of their hopes and efforts in children and youth.
A federal plan to fight poverty that is properly funded and has measurable targets and timelines would definitely be beneficial not just for Canadians, but also for the community network that is already working on affordable housing, nutritional and financial education, help for families and social reintegration.
That kind of plan must support their work. They know the lay of the land. They are part of the social and economic landscape. They are the experts.
I am thinking about the Cultivez nos savoirs project in Longueuil, a community engagement project that combines growing a community garden and homework assistance. Residents of the neighbourhood are working together for the good of their community. It is an initiative of the Carillon/Saint-Pie-X neighbourhood life committee. Once again, we see what a pivotal role these community organizations play.
In addition to the Carillon neighbourhood life committee, the Sacré-Coeur and Notre-Dame committees play a key role in citizen participation and social involvement. Through initiatives such as community gardens, a mural and homework assistance at the Accorderie, where residents can exchange services, these community organizations make our neighbourhoods a better place to live. They create a sense of pride and belonging in our young people.
The community network also includes other organizations, such as Le Fablier, a literacy group that gives mothers and families the tools they need to help their children learn at home as well as at school.
There are so many other unique and wonderful initiatives. Take, for example, Maisonnette Berthelet, which, despite major funding cuts, continues to work hard year after year. Once again this year, this organization held its Mission des anges de Noël program in order to sponsor children so that they can receive s gift from Santa Claus. This initiative helps 500 Longueuil residents in need, 300 of whom are children. Without Maisonnette Berthelet, these young people would not have the opportunity or the joy of receiving a gift at Christmas.
I am also thinking about Isabelle Caron's project, which she calls Semeurs d'étincelles. This is a fantastic project that encourages high school students to stay in school and pursue their dreams. There is also the Bleu Blanc Bouge skating rink, a refrigerated NHL-sized rink that opened last month in Lionel Groulx park in a neighbourhood that sorely needed some good news. This initiative, sponsored by the Canadian Tire Jumpstart foundation and the Montreal Canadiens Children's Foundation, is greatly appreciated by residents, who need to remain active, get moving, exercise, and above all dream a little.
Other organizations' mission is to provide support for young people who find themselves in vulnerable situations. These incredible organizations are pillars of their communities, including the Maison Tremplin, for which I had the honour of serving as ambassador, and the Maison de Jonathan, which is right near my office. All of these organizations are making a real difference in our community.
I am talking about all these efforts and all these workers in the community sector who work behind the scenes because it is important to understand that in my region, in Quebec and in Longueuil, we have taken it upon ourselves to combat poverty. We have developed the means to tackle poverty so that one generation at a time, one family at a time, one child at a time, we are giving young people a future.
By sending a cohort of NDP members to Ottawa, Quebeckers are sending a message that the work is not done. The NDP has a duty to be the voice of the fight against poverty and all the work that remains to be done. The federal government has a duty to support those efforts and wholeheartedly back that work. 
Doing anything else would mean ignoring our greatest strength. Our young people need to know this, because I have the pleasure of crossing paths with them every day in Longueuil. Our greatest strength is our youth.
Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for her motion to reduce poverty in our country and welcome the opportunity to comment on the government's progress in this regard.
On a national basis, we have had a great deal of success. The rate for children living in poverty was 18.4% in 1996. That rate dropped to just 8.5% in 2011. That translates into about 730,000 fewer children living in poverty at the end of the period than were living in poverty at the beginning.
Unlike what happened in previous economic downturns, the low-income rate for children remained stable during the 2008 and 2009 global recession. The fact is that Canada's social programs cushioned the impact of the global recession and prevented many more Canadian families and their children from falling into poverty.
Our government is taking a comprehensive approach to reducing poverty and is focusing on getting Canadians jobs and opportunities to achieve self-sufficiency, while providing increasing targeted support for those in need.
 Helping to level the playing field with lower-income Canadians and moving more families and children out of poverty also includes direct support to families from the federal government. For example, we provide support through the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit supplement, the universal child care benefit and the child tax credit. This year the increase in the universal child care benefit will help families even more and the program is even broadened to cover children from the ages of 7 to 17. In all, the government provides over $15 billion per year in benefits for families and children.
 We also work closely with governments in the provinces and territories, as well as with aboriginal organizations and voluntary group sectors to reduce poverty.
The annual Canada social transfer helps fund specific provincial and territorial programs targeted at families with young children, and represents a federal commitment that would raise to $1.3 billion next fiscal year.
The government is also helping families make better choices in areas such as nutrition. For example, proper food and nutrition are essential to growing children, no matter what their family income. Unfortunately, those living on lower incomes face particular challenges on that front.
Through Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, the government is spearheading several initiatives that will improve nutrition and enhance food security for children. Child nutrition and food security is linked to a variety of factors and meeting these challenges requires the contributions of multiple sectors working together.
Our government is working with aboriginal partners, provincial and territorial governments, and other sectors to look at how to best address these factors and to provide Canadian families with the information and tools they need to make healthy choices.
Having proper shelter is also essential.
Through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, also known as CMHC, the government has invested more than $16.5 billion in housing since 2006. Working with its partners, CMHC has helped nearly 915,000 Canadian individuals and families find adequate and affordable housing. Targeted groups include low-income seniors, persons with disabilities, recent immigrants and aboriginal Canadians.
Over the next five years, CMHC will invest a further $10 billion in making housing more affordable for all Canadians, particularly lower-income Canadians. This will support new affordable housing and existing social housing.
There is also a great deal of work being done by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I can recall that when we first became government, our first minister addressed this with a $2 billion contribution to housing on reserve and off reserve, especially in northern aboriginal communities.
The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development funds a number of programs that seek to create safe and affordable housing; improve access to high-quality child care and childhood nutrition and improve the economic security of families; and meet the unique needs of first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities. 
In addition to targeted support for those most in need, the government has also provided almost $160 billion in tax relief for Canadian families and individuals in the last eight years. Canadians at all income levels have benefited, but the greatest benefit has been to low- and middle-income Canadians. Overall, personal income taxes are now 10% lower, and more than one million low-income Canadians have been taken off the tax rolls altogether. 
We know that many Canadians still face a variety of financial challenges. The major government initiatives I have just talked about will continue to help more and more people move up the income ladder. 
In that respect, we are doing a great deal better than all our major competitors in the G7 or the OECD. Since the 2008 global recession, we have created over one million new jobs. That is 675,000 more jobs than we had before the economic downturn started, and a vast majority of those are new jobs. Over 80% of all jobs created have been full-time positions, and over 65% are in high-wage industries. We have weathered the global recession much better than most, and our economy continues to grow and provide good jobs for Canadians.
Both the IMF and OECD report that they expect Canada will have one of the strongest-growing economies in the G7 this year and next. We will also have a balanced budget next year, well before any of our trading partners. This is another sign that our economy is on the right track. 
Again I would like to thank the hon. member for the motion. I hope that all members of the House will support it. I hope that all members will recognize the enormous strides that we have made in reducing poverty in this country and support our continuing efforts to do even more.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: -Mr. Speaker, it is said that a bad start in life translates into inequality during childhood and is associated with the underutilization of individual potential. The motion on eliminating child poverty, despite its wording, focuses on the socially vulnerable aspects of the parents or guardians.
I will now introduce the 2013 social statistics indicating that two out of five children living in an aboriginal community grow up in poverty. There are nearly 15,000 aboriginal constituents in Manicouagan, my riding. Out of a population of 90,000 that is quite remarkable. Some communities are remote and cut off from the rest of the world. I am thinking about Pakua Shipi, Unamen Shipu, Matimekush-Lac John, Kawawachikamach. It takes a 12-hour train ride to get to the latter two communities or thousands of dollars in plane tickets. Communities like Unamen Shipu and Pakua are simply cut off from the rest of the world. There are no roads to get there. 
When I was working for Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-utenam, my own band council, the numbers brought to my attention indicated that more than 60% of the population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on Mitshim Shuniau, in other words social assistance, for money to eat. That was roughly six or seven years ago, when I was working for my band council, that more than half the working-age adult population was directly or indirectly dependent on transfers from social assistance.
Some might say, and perhaps rightly so, that the amount of social assistance paid to aboriginal communities is a bit higher than the base amount in Quebec. Nonetheless, if we take into account the cost of food and the cost of living in the remote regions, this amount is not enough for properly raising children.
Beyond the financial considerations, it is also important to address the shift in the parental model within many communities affected by the clear deterioration of the social fabric. 
I believe that a massive injection of funds into dysfunctional clans should not be seen as the only solution to child poverty. The Conservatives like to talk about how their action plan focuses primarily on massive injections of funds. They toss out staggering numbers—hundreds of millions of dollars invested in communities. What I am saying is that massive injections of funds will not necessarily solve the problem once and for all. It can be part of the solution, but we certainly cannot think of it as the only answer to all of the problems in socially dysfunctional communities.
When I talk about the absence of parental models, dysfunctional parental models or even dysfunctional guardians, I am referring to statements that I made here in the House when we talked about issues related to street gangs. Members of Parliament with good memories will recall that, at the time, I pointed out that street gangs crop up when children do not have parental supervision and are forced to meet their own needs themselves. They band together and take over a house. 
I am thinking about life on the reserves. Gang members take control of a house on the reserve because the parents have gone off somewhere. They often decide to turn to questionable methods to meet their needs, to feed themselves. The result is that there are houses with about fifteen young people, all minors, living together. It is a bit of a free-for-all. This happens because many parents or guardians are simply not there to supervise these children. 
It is important to mention that this is not the case with all families. These are somewhat isolated cases, but they still need to be mentioned in the House. When parents receive social assistance, they revert back to being adolescents themselves. They go join a group of adults who, one might say, have veered off course, and children, particularly those who are 10, 11 or 12 years old and fairly independent, are simply left to fend for themselves. Sometimes older members of the family, often the grandparents, will decide to take care of these children. However, many children are left to fend for themselves and turn to crime.
That is unfortunate, but that is what is happening. A 10- or 11-year-old child has no other choice. These children start by stealing from malls and then it all snowballs as the years go by.
The fundamental findings of developmental psychology have shown the negative, long-term impacts of growing up in a home that does not have the financial resources required to meet the family's basic needs.
I will now talk about the insidious nature of daily exposure to negative influences within dysfunctional social units. Even children in my community who come from a functional, educated, relatively well-off family are nevertheless exposed to the same negative influences as all other children, especially in isolated communities where transportation costs are high. 
When I talk about negative influences, I am referring to hardened criminals who have been incarcerated in several federal institutions. This includes sex offenders, murderers who ride around on their bicycles in the community and known HIV carriers. Promiscuity being what it is in communities, people know who is who and what everyone is doing.
In a community of just a few thousand people, such as Uashat-Maliotenam, which has a population of about 3,000, it does not take long to learn everything there is to know about each and every person. In the summer especially, because everyone lives outside, children can be exposed to all kinds of behaviours. It is not uncommon to see an alcoholic sleeping with his head on a case of beer beside the corner store, someone urinating in his pants or people who are in a toxic psychosis because they have taken PCP and need to be talked down by paramedics.
When I was a teenager, I used to invite my Quebec friends over on the day people received their social assistance cheques to have some fun. I had lost my moral compass and I considered that entertainment. On Mitshim Shuniau day, I would invite my friends over to have fun watching my neighbours consume just about anything. I would tell them that the paramedics would be coming and going all day and the show would be worth their while. That is what I thought back then.
Today, I see that it was wrong and detrimental to everyone's personal affirmation and societal betterment. However, at the time, I thought it was quite funny. Thus, on Mitshim Shuniau day, I would give my friends a bit of a guided tour of my community. We saw all kinds of things, like people walking around naked because they had taken PCP in public. Nothing mattered.
Children are exposed to these harmful influences and might consider this to be normal by the time they are 12, 13, 14 or 15 years old, especially those who do not have the opportunity to leave the reserves. They may believe that it represents the norm in Canada, which is really not the case. There are dysfunctional communities just about everywhere in Canada. However, broadly speaking, most of the Canadian population is not dysfunctional and we do not find this type of anything-goes behaviour.
A child's environment and the people around him have a great influence on his brain development. It has also been proven that just a few years of poverty can have a lasting negative impact on a child's development. The negative effects of poverty on a child, from the prenatal stage through to age five, can be especially harmful and lasting.
When I say prenatal stage, I am of course referring to fetal alcohol syndrome. Children who are victims of fetal alcohol syndrome have a lesser quality of life starting at birth. It is not always the case, but most often, there is a correlation between alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the possibility that the young person will join the workforce in the future and stay far away from alcohol use.
The NDP believes that to eliminate child poverty, we must improve the economic security of families and provide them with access to child care services, culturally integrated psychosocial services, housing and affordable nutritious food.
Today I asked a question about the nutrition north program, but we also need to focus on culturally integrated psychosocial services. Too often, the psychologists who are sent to communities to address their pressing needs have the academic training but not necessarily the tools to deal with the adversarial nature of the realities on reserve.
On July 1, Mitshim Shuniau can sometimes turn the whole community into a zoo. Every month, a single social worker might be doing the work of two to five of them, depending on how many kids are referred to the youth protection branch. Safety cannot always be guaranteed. I have seen cases in which a social worker was hit in the head by a client who was not happy to have her children removed. It was simple: this meant less money for her. When she saw the social worker at the grocery store, she hit her in the head with a can of Chef Boyardee.
That is the reality. Violence is everywhere in these communities, and social workers need to be well equipped and prepared before they show up there; otherwise, we are just throwing them to the wolves.
I submit this respectfully.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There being only five minutes remaining in the time provided for private members' business, at this point in the day we are going to go directly and invite the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for her right of reply.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my hon. colleagues in the House who have spoken to my motion to eliminate child poverty in Canada. 
I also need to thank all of the local agencies and not-for-profit organizations and advocates who are supporting this motion across this country. I thank my constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River, who have spent hours and days and weeks supporting my motion by making sure there were increasing conversations in our community and signing our petitions and spreading the word within our community and neighbourhood.
An umbrella organization called Campaign 2000, through its vibrant network of national, regional, and local partner organizations. has done so much work to get the word out about the motion to end child poverty in Canada. I must also say a very special thanks to the campaign called Keep the Promise, because it is 25 years ago that we in this House, as members of Parliament, made a promise to end child poverty by the year 2000. Now 25 years have come and gone, and we have not kept that promise.
I would like to speak very quickly about a report that has come from the Conference Board of Canada. It says that Canada is 12th out of 17 compared to our peer countries with respect to income inequality. Income inequality in our country has grown over the last 20 years. The gap continues to grow. Since 1990, the richest group of Canadians continues to get richer while the poorest group of Canadians continues to get poorer in our country. That is absolutely abhorrent and unfair, and it is not Canadian values.
Andrew Saxton:  It is also untrue.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan:  Mr. Speaker, I hear a Conservative colleague saying that it is not true, but I am citing a Conference Board of Canada report.
Poverty today affects three million Canadians. That includes children, seniors, indigenous persons, people living with disabilities, single parents, and recent immigrants. These are the groups of people who are more likely to be living in poverty, and today 967,000 Canadian children are living in poverty.
Canada ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries when it comes to child poverty. Once again, I am stating the Conference Board of Canada statistics. It is imperative that we, as a have country not a have-not country, invest in our children. I spoke about the motion of November 1989 that was brought forward by the then NDP leader Ed Broadbent to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. In 1991, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that every child has the right to a decent standard of living, clean water, nutritious food, a clean environment, and good-quality health care.
For 25 years, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have ignored the problem or have not done enough to alleviate it. As a result, today we have almost one million Canadian children living in poverty. In 1989, when this House made the promise to end child poverty, the LIMAT, the low-income measure after tax—which I will use as my comparator so that I am comparing the same numbers in 1989 to now—was 13%. The child poverty rate was 13% in 1989, and today it is sitting at 21%.
I have heard many members in this House saying that there have been many changes and improvements. That is wonderful, but the problem is that there are far too many children who continue to live in poverty, and that is a serious concern. It is a serious concern that we as parliamentarians and legislators need to make sure we are working toward the eradication of poverty in this country, especially among our children, because we have that responsibility to our children. We made a promise 25 years ago, but “We have been doing our best to keep that promise” is what I have heard.
My plea for my hon. colleagues in this House is that we have not been doing enough. We need to do better. We need to be investing in affordable housing, accessible child care, and child nutrition programs. We need to make sure they are sensitive to our different first nations communities and their cultural requirements. We need to ensure that we have measurable targets and timelines and that we actually act on them, because just making a promise is not enough; we need to keep the promises we make.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The time provided for debate has expired. 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. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 4, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:18 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:18 p.m.)