2015-05-29

Government Orders
Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42, which would amend the Firearms Act, the Criminal Code and the Customs Act, thereby changing the legislation governing firearms licences and the transport and classification of firearms and limiting the powers of provincial and territorial chief firearms officers.
I do not have enough time to discuss all of the provisions in this bill, so I will focus on two specific elements.
First, what baffles me about this bill is that it gives the Minister of Public Safety the power to decide how to classify firearms.
Basically, if memory serves, in 2014, after conducting an analysis that got a lot of press, the RCMP decided to reclassify Swiss Arms Classic Green and CZ858 firearms. These firearms were originally classified as restricted, but the RCMP reclassified them as prohibited. Why? Because the RCMP determined that these firearms could easily be converted into automatic weapons.
What did we find out a few weeks later? We found out that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was not very happy about that decision and granted an amnesty for individuals who already owned those guns. Then, to ensure that such a situation does not happen again, since the minister did not have the power to reverse the decision, he introduced Bill C-42 to grant himself those powers.
At this time, all ammunition and firearms, regardless of the type of gun, whether prohibited or not, are classified by the RCMP, then approved by the minister. When the RCMP makes a decision, the minister cannot reverse that decision.
Furthermore, standards governing the classification of new products—in other words, new guns—the modification of firearms or ammunition, and even the review of information on classification are set out in the Criminal Code. Bill C-42 grants the minister another new power whereby, by regulation of course, and through exceptions, the minister can determine on his own, in his infinite wisdom, how firearms will be classified, obviously bypassing the RCMP and the Criminal Code.
What does this mean, in concrete terms? This means that the minister could decide, by regulation, to classify guns that would normally fit the definition of a prohibited or restricted weapon as non-restricted firearms. He could even decide that weapons that are normally prohibited could be restricted or non-restricted. He could therefore decide that even automatic weapons could be classified as restricted or non-restricted. Basically, this bill puts the power to decide whether a weapon should be prohibited in Canada into the hands of a politician, the public safety minister.
If the RCMP no longer has a say in firearms classification, then who is going to advise the minister? The RCMP is the appropriate body to do so and has the experience with firearms, having seen a few. Is the firearms lobby going to advise the minister as to whether or not a firearm is prohibited? Will Gary Mauser, their big expert they keep talking about here in the House, step in? He wrote a very good book that I invite my colleagues to read, entitled “Manipulating Public Opinion”. I do not know whether there is a link between public opinion and guns, but there could be because we have been watching the Conservatives since 2006 and they are pretty good at manipulating public opinion. In that sense, I have to hand it to them that Mr. Mauser is a good advisor.
That brings me to the next point. Currently, the provincial and territorial chief firearms officers are responsible for implementing the Firearms Act and setting standards for licences and authorizations to carry and transport, transfers of firearms, and record keeping. 
This bill would limit by regulation the authority of the chief firearms officer. The premier of Quebec and also Mr. Fournier are completely opposed to the bill. Thus, Quebec is opposed to the bill, but it is not the first time that this government has not listened to the provinces.
If this government is really concerned about public safety and wants to do something intelligent about it, it should instead quickly implement the firearms marking regulations, which it has delayed since 2006. I have been closely following this file since 2006. Firearms marking would make it possible for us to know where firearms in Canada are coming from. Information such as the place or date of manufacture, the manufacturer and the series number is described in detail in the regulations. 
It is ridiculous that we currently have marked firearms in Canada because of the United States. It is not a Canadian government initiative, but a U.S. initiative that has led to the mandatory marking of firearms by the manufacturer. The U.S. honours the contracts and agreements it signs with other countries. We have still not implemented that decree, and we do not always honour the agreements that we have signed. We have delayed this one every year.
We have the U.S. government to thank for the fact that some of the firearms that come into Canada are marked, since they come across that border. However, some firearms that come in through channels other than the U.S. border and from some European countries are not marked. Unmarked firearms are extremely difficult to track, so they are the most tempting to the criminal world.
I listened to the debate on Monday, and I have been listening to the Conservatives talk about firearms since 2006. They always talk about the illegal trafficking of firearms. We all agree that we need to combat the illegal trafficking of firearms, but if firearms are unmarked, how can we start to combat illegal trafficking?
Here is a little lesson in criminology: marking is a theft prevention mechanism. A marked firearm is easier to track and is therefore less attractive to criminals. Furthermore, marking is also used to protect firearm owners. Marking is certainly necessary in the fight against gun trafficking, but border controls are also important.
Let us have a little criminology 101.1 lesson: 80% of illegal weapons in Canada come through the United States. The Internet gives people access to all sorts of ways of buying weapons and bringing them to Canada. Nevertheless, since 2006, this government has done nothing but cut the CBSA's budget and shut down a number of border crossings in the regions. The CBSA's budget for 2014-15 will be cut by $143 million. That means that 1,351 jobs will be cut, including those of 325 border officers and about a hundred intelligence officers.
If we want to crack down on the smuggling of firearms, we simply need to allow our agencies to trace these weapons and stop the traffickers. If there is no one at our border crossings and cuts are being made, we are not going to be able to solve this problem.
In closing, I would like to show how ridiculous this situation is. The Conservatives are passing laws that will put more prohibited weapons in circulation. They still have not done anything regarding firearms marking, and they are cutting the CBSA's budget. Then they are wondering why there are illegal firearms in Canada.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, and there might have been some information in there that I do not believe to be quite accurate.
As I understand, the United States did not actually ratify the treaty. I also understand that every single imported firearm has unique identifiers. I would hope she would ensure that this is clarified, because I understand that to be the accurate information in terms of both unique identification and treaty ratification.
[Interjection]
Maria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague and I do not have the same information. The information that I have clearly indicates that the United States has ratified the agreements and that the weapons that are arriving from the United States are marked by the manufacturers. We therefore have all of the information we need when a weapon crosses the border between the United States and Canada. That is the information I have. If my colleague has something different, then I would be pleased to exchange information with her.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member raised issues such as marking and serial numbers and the importance of being able to track. Does she have a sense of how we would record this? How would we know that serial number X goes to person Y?
[Interjection]
Maria Mourani:  Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and a very complex one. My understanding of the process is that if Canada were to issue an order for firearms marking, for example, and if manufacturers complied, the manufacturer's name, the serial number, the date of manufacture and the importing country would be engraved on the firearm. All of that information comes from the manufacturer.
Suppose a crime is committed and the weapon is found at the scene of the crime. The RCMP told me that if the weapon is marked by the manufacturer, it is easier for officers to trace that weapon because they use international databases. They can contact Interpol and a number of other international agencies to find out where the firearm was made and trace it from the manufacturer to the buyer. That is why it is important to issue that order. That would enable Canadian authorities to know who manufactured a firearm, when and where, regardless of the country it was intended for or who made it. That would apply to all firearms, not just those from the United States. For example, we would know if it was sent from Russia to the United States and ended up in Canada. We would be able to trace it. That makes police investigations much easier, and that is what police officers want.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She talked a lot about marking as a tool that could help us, probably because it could help with prevention. However, it is difficult to obtain. 
I wonder if she could comment further on what other elements, besides marking, could help us be able to trace firearms and give our police forces the most effective means to combat crime. 
[Interjection]
Maria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Marking is indeed a very important tool. Not only does it allow police to trace a gun, but more importantly, it makes that gun less appealing to criminals. A marked gun can be traced, and therefore criminals will not want it because they too can then be traced.
As for other methods, we did have another tool, but it no longer exists. That was the gun registry. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle did everything in their power beginning in 2006 to destroy that registry, which contained very specific information, besides marking, of course. The information included the number of weapons in a residence, the owner of a weapon and the owner's address. With a few keystrokes, police officers would know how many guns were located at a given address. That was important for intervention. It was another way to prevent crime, because criminals were not interested in stealing guns from their owners' residences, because the guns were in a registry. That tool is gone. The registry died and its carcass is still smoldering. I heard my colleagues speaking on Monday, and I do not think the NDP has the power to bring it back yet.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Sault Ste. Marie. 
It is certainly an honour for me to stand to address Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This is a matter that is very important to a large group of people in the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
 Before I speak to this bill and some of the specifics, I want to say that as members of Parliament we represent Canadians and our constituency, but we are also here to make decisions for all Canadians. One of the things about making decisions for Canadians is to recognize that there are many differences. Whether it is in regard to the lobster fishery in Prince Edward Island, the transit needs in some of our urban settings, or the common sense that some of our rural communities want, it is incumbent on us to try to understand the desires of the constituents, to respect and reflect that in terms of our culture and heritage, and to have a very common sense and practical approach to the things we put in place.
In this case, the only party that our law-abiding firearms owners can count on to ensure their rights are protected and respected is our Conservative government. We have seen a succession of Liberal governments design policies that treat firearms owners as criminals. This bill represents a balanced approach that would see to it that lawbreakers are punished but that law-abiding firearms owners are rewarded, by cutting the red tape. 
I want to reflect a bit on the differences among the parties. Certainly the New Democrats have a paradoxical approach to this in terms of the civilian ownership of firearms. We have many members of the NDP who represent rural areas, from Timmins—James Bay, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Churchill, Sudbury to many others. In their hearts, they clearly knew what their constituents wanted, but they were unwilling to represent their views, especially when it came to the long gun registry. That is an important example.
The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River told the local radio station that he was ready to break party ranks again if it came to it, that he was ready to draw the line in the sand. However, he did not. It is important to know that the NDP leader was unequivocal, that if he were to form government, he would bring in something that would allow police to track every gun in Canada. He would bring back the long gun registry.
Although the member for Timmins—James Bay tried to reassure his constituents by stating “We're not talking about going back to get every single gauge shotgun up in the attic put into some kind of registry”, it is clear that this is not the case. It is clear that is what the intention is, and that is what the New Democrats' votes reflected when it came to getting rid of the long gun registry.
Of course, the leader is not the only one who is focused on this crusade. The member for Newton—North Delta, for instance, claimed it is bizarre that in the common sense firearms licensing act there would be a six-month grace period when someone's licence expires. This means that the member is perfectly comfortable with turning forgetful Canadians into full-blown criminals. They could face years in prison, even though they are law-abiding citizens who have done due diligence and followed the rules up to the point that they missed the deadline for renewing their licences.
I do not know that there is anyone in this House who has not had car insurance or house insurance, or a gun licence, expire. Does that make them criminals because they miss a deadline? According to the member for Newton—North Delta, it absolutely does. It has to be clear that this grace period would be for protecting law-abiding Canadian citizens.
 These people have nothing to do with the gang members in the member's riding. They are people like us who might not have renewed their car insurance. Under the proposed legislation, individuals would not be allowed to purchase new firearms or ammunition, or even use their firearms during that time, but they would not become an overnight criminal as a result of a simple honest mistake.
That truly is common sense, in the same sense that people who forget to renew their car insurance are hopefully not driving their cars because it could be an issue. It is the same with this, but the person is not a criminal.
The legislation treats actual lawbreakers accordingly. It would make firearms prohibition mandatory for serious crimes of domestic violence. We believe that the best indicator of future criminal behaviour is past criminal behaviour. In fact, nearly two-thirds of all those convicted of spousal homicide have a previous history of domestic violence. Hence, it only makes sense to add these prohibitions. It is a very common sense approach.
This legislation would also require that first-time gun owners receive basic firearms safety training. That is absolutely sensible. I do not know that anyone in the opposition should disagree with that. However, opposition members cannot seem to agree among themselves that the long gun registry was ineffective and wasteful, so it is not surprising that even firearms safety training for first-time gun owners would be hard to agree on.
The legislation would also create powers for an elected government to overturn bad classification decisions by the Canadian firearms program. Mistakes have been made, and there needs to be a way to correct them in a way that is respectful of firearms owners. Clearly, the first of such measures would be to return the Swiss Arms family of rifles and the CZ 858 to the classifications they had prior to February 25, 2014. 
People have spent their hard-earned money to buy either Swiss Arms rifle or others, and it makes no sense to turn them into criminals overnight. Again, opposition members seemed to think that was okay to do. It was crushing to people who had done the right thing, the legal thing, under a government bureaucratic decision. I do not see how anyone can believe that this reclassification, which changes and devalues people's firearms, is okay.
What would this do? It would end the arbitrary authority given to chief firearms officers. The previous rules have resulted in a nonsensical patchwork across the country. Does it make any sense that it was different between Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario? We need some harmonized standards. 
There are eight elements to this bill. We call it the common sense firearms licensing act because there are issues around protection and common sense. This is important to the constituents in my riding.
 I had an opportunity to speak to the bill at second reading, and in that speech I relayed that had I only ever lived in an urban setting, I would not have understood the importance of this. I talked about a couple of personal examples in my life, where the farmers who live near me had some life-saving interventions in terms of a cougar and another incident. I would ask people who live in urban areas to try to understand what it means to people in rural areas.
 I will be presenting a petition later today, which to me makes some sense. It is not part of this legislation, but it talks about people who spend a lot of time in the woods. We hear about cougar and bear attacks. There is very restricted ability under the Firearms Act in terms of what licensed handgun owners can do. That is perhaps something that we can look at in the future.
I could go on, but the fact is that this legislation would cut red tape for law-abiding firearms owners and punish those who break the law. That is what Canadians expect. Our government has and will continue to stand up for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners while enhancing public safety.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not mind speaking to the bill, although I find that the Conservative position on this is sometimes rather odd.
I was one of the NDP who voted for the first private member's bill that was going to eliminate the long gun registry, so I am speaking from a position of having done that. However, I did not support when the Conservatives would not amend the new bill, because they were destroying the data. Basically, by allowing provinces to have the right to do what they want with firearms, the Conservatives would take firearms out from under the classification of the Criminal Code and put them into civil code. This means that infractions under civil code would not make people criminals, which is a very distinct difference here. 
However, I want to talk about safe storage. Over the last 30 years, the best thing that has happened for firearms, in my mind, is safe storage. It means that guns are not available to be used by someone other than the owner or in disputes, which means that we save lives. 
Does my colleague not agree that continuing to provide safe storage of firearms is one of the most important aspects of our laws?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, this bill absolutely continues to ensure safe storage. It is critical, and the bill does maintain that.
 I have been in a rural community for many years, and I know how the constituents in my riding feel about the long gun registry, Bill C-42, and indeed perhaps some other adjustments that could be made. I think that if the member for the Northwest Territories were to reflect the wishes of his constituency, not only would he have voted to get rid of the long gun registry, he would be voting for Bill C-42.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, as has been pointed out during the debates, there is a significant change in the way in which guns would be put on the prohibited list, and there is a great deal of concern by Canadians that the government is politicizing it. 
Prior to this, we had the professional organization, the RCMP, who had a very good sense of what the community was thinking on the potential benefits and drawbacks of certain weapons with the current system. It could always use some improvement, but the government took the responsibility away from the RCMP in terms of how a weapon or gun would be listed.
 Does the member have any concern that we are politicizing something that need not be politicized and that is what Bill C-42 would in fact be doing?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, we are not politicizing anything. However, I would ask the hon. member if he thinks it was okay to reclassify the Swiss arms family of weapons? People who had bought something in good faith, who had significant value invested in terms of that purchase, were turned into criminals overnight.
We have tried to create a balance in terms of ensuring that as we move forward the reclassifications would have a good, thoughtful, rounded process.
Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. As its name suggests, it would restore a good deal of common sense to our firearms laws.
For too long, hunters and sports shooters have been treated like criminals for simply wanting to take part in their hobby. These activities are a shared part of our Canadian heritage, and a huge part of my northern Ontario heritage. Although I did not move to northern Ontario until the age of 23, I did not realize how huge a part of the heritage it was until it came time for moose, deer and bird hunting season. Life in northern Ontario really revolves around that, the drive to get that moose tag, and the number of American visitors who come to northern Ontario to take part in that, as well as the number of Torontonians who come to northern Ontario in the hopes of bagging a moose. Therefore, it is an incredible part of our heritage.
It is shameful that decades of previous Liberal governments took steps to try to dissuade people from becoming involved in these activities, whether through needless red tape, the possibility of jail time for good faith errors or processes that stigmatized. These measures did nothing at all to keep Canadians safe. I am proud to be part of a government that rejects this idea and has adopted a safe and sensible approach to firearms policies.
What precisely does this mean? It means that we crack down on dangerous criminals who use guns to commit crimes. That is why we have passed tough new measures to combat drive-by shootings. It also means that we reduce needless burdens for those Canadians who work hard and pay by the rules. That is why we ended the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry once and for all.
 It is clear that our approach is working. According to Statistics Canada, the firearms homicide rate in Canada is at its lowest point in nearly 50 years. There has been a 30% decline in the rate of handgun homicides since 2008. In fact, in the year after the gun registry was ended, firearms crime was down by more than 80% in Toronto. This is a strong record of which our Conservative government can be proud. The commons sense firearms act builds on that strong record.
 There are three strong measures that will improve public safety.
First and foremost, firearms prohibition orders will be strengthened for those convicted of domestic violence offences. It is clear that having a firearm in a volatile situation like that is dangerous. This change makes good—
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you inform the House as to what the quorum requirements are for the House on Friday?
The Deputy Speaker: They are the same as they are every other day of the week. Is the member calling for a quorum call?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: We will ring the bells.
 And the bells having rung: 
The Deputy Speaker: According to the count we now have quorum.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off.
Second, we will be making firearms safety training courses mandatory for first time firearms owners. Currently, approximately 35,000 people per year get their firearms licence without taking a training course. This legislative change will ensure that all new gun owners have a common understanding of safe firearms handling practices.
 Third, we will make a technical change to allow information sharing between CBSA and the RCMP on the importation of restricted and prohibited firearms. This is a change that our provincial partners have been requesting for some time. 
I would like to point out that during quorum call there were only two Liberals in the House, and now I believe there is only one Liberal in the House.
We are also making five changes to make our firearms laws—
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only can the member not count, there is more than one Liberal MP in the House. However, with all due respect, there were only two Conservatives, including the Speaker at the time when quorum was actually called. There are well over 100 members of Parliament on the Conservative side. If they were more in a position to ensure that the House business would be able to proceed, maybe it would not be as embarrassing for the government.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that ever got to a point of order, in fact, I know it did not get to a point of order.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, first, we are merging possession only licence and possession and acquisition licence. This will give 600,000 experienced firearms owners the ability to purchase firearms.
Second, we are restricting the authority of the Chief Firearms Officer because the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats have been exercising their powers willy-nilly for far too long. The bill would bring oversight to these bureaucrats.
Third, we will create a grace period at the end of the five-year licence. This will prevent otherwise law-abiding gun owners from becoming overnight criminals due to an error in paperwork.
We will also end needless paperwork around authorizations to transport restricted and prohibited firearms by making them automatically issued with a firearms licence. If people are qualified to have a gun in their homes, they are qualified to safely transport it.
Last, but certainly not least, we will create an ability for the elected government to oversee the classification of firearms.
As we all remember, in February 2014, tens of thousands of Canadians became criminals overnight when the Canadian firearms program unilaterally decided to reclassify the CZ858 and the Swiss Arms family of rifles. It did this without seeking approval and without so much as a heads up to their elected boss, the Minister of Public Safety. This is completely unacceptable, and we will create a process so this never happens again.
I can confirm that as soon as the bill receives royal assent, we will move to restore these firearms to their previous classification of non-restricted. 
This is clearly good legislation, but do not just take my word for it.
 The National Post editorial board said that the common sense firearms licensing act was: “good news for responsible gun owners, and good news, as the name suggests, for common sense” 
 Greg Farrant of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said: 
 The changes proposed in Bill C-42 will make life easier for these people because there will be less needless paperwork....Bill C-42 proposes reasonable amendments to sections of the Criminal Code that make sense, that eliminate red tape, and introduce additional public safety measures. It does not make guns easier to get. It does not allow firearms owners to transport them at will wherever they want, and it does not put guns in the hands of the “wrong people”.. 
 Tony Bernardo, the Executive Director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, said:
 The Canadian Shooting Sports Association supports Bill C-42. Our members believe it's a positive step toward fairness for lawful firearms owners, and it has absolutely no negative impact on public safety. 
Despite this wide range of support from experts, the NDP and Liberals still oppose these common sense measures. Both parties are evidently still dead set on returning to the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. 
The NDP leader was unequivocal that if he were to form a government, he “We will bring in something that allows the police to track every gun in Canada”. The Liberal Leader has said, “If we had a vote tomorrow, I would vote once again to keep the long-gun registry”.
Clearly, neither party understands the realities of rural Canada. Our Conservative Party will always stand up for the rights of rural Canadians and for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
I know firearms owners are interested in this legislation and are following these debates very closely. Websites like Gun Owners of Canada are very useful tools for spreading information and these individuals will be judging how they will vote in the upcoming election accordingly.
 I hope members opposite can cast aside the orders of their big Ottawa bosses and vote the will of their constituents, and vote for the common sense firearms licensing act.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to the member's speech and his comments about the interests of hunters and farmers.
Given that there are large rural areas in the north that do not have locations where people can take the Canadian firearms safety course, does the government have a contingency plan to provide this course to those people so they can actually use their firearms legally?
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, there are courses available all over.
I had the opportunity to sit on the public safety committee during the debate on this legislation. That did come up. One of the concerns was that people used to be able to challenge it, and now they could not. The reality is that to even challenge the course, people actually have to travel to challenge that course.
At that time when the question was posed to me in committee, we talked about it. In my mind, as a chartered professional accountant, I sense that there may be a business opportunity here. I am certain the course will be delivered in areas that need it.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the fact that there were many who tuned in to follow the debate on Bill C-42. I can understand and appreciate why.
There seems to be a mixed spin coming out of the Conservative government, the Prime Minister's Office and from many of the member's colleagues, which does not necessarily speak to truth. Let me give a couple of examples.
On the one hand, members are saying that the Liberals want to bring back the gun registry, and we know that is just not true. The leader of the Liberal Party has been very clear on that issue. A Liberal government would not bring back the gun registry. That is one aspect.
Then there is another aspect that I find really interesting, and that is the lack of general knowledge that the Conservative government does not promote. Kim Campbell, who was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, along with a Conservative senator, came up with the idea of the gun registry, put it on the table and supported it.
Could the member explain why most people are not aware of that fact? Could he also explain why Conservative members are misspeaking inside the House, trying to give a false impression of the Liberal Party's position?
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, on the Liberal Party position, the Liberals are out there saying that because of this legislation, people will be able to bring restricted firearms to grocery stores and shopping malls. They are using that as a donation tool on websites. That is in fact not true. It is a myth that is being spread by the Liberal Party.
There is a myth that the Liberals are stating that this bill would take the power to classify firearms out of the hands of police, the experts in keeping Canadians safe, and put it in the hands of politicians. The fact is that the RCMP does not classify firearms; Parliament does and did so in 1995 under a Liberal government.
The Canadian firearms program interprets this legislation, and sometimes it makes mistakes such as with theSwiss Arms guns. In these cases, the common sense firearms licensing act would allow elected officials to fix these situations.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a difference in position among the Conservative Party and other parties across the way about how we view hunters, anglers and sport shooters.
On the Conservative side, we see them as friends. I am a sport shooter. I have my own firearms that I operate safely. My children have all shot my firearms safely. I think that happens across the country.
Could the member explain the difference between the Conservative position for hunters and anglers versus the other side?
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, our position is that law-abiding gun owners, hunters and sport shooters are not criminals.
I understand that fully. I am not a licensed gun owner, but moving to northern Ontario, as I mentioned in my speech, I became very aware of the great quality of that industry in my riding. I have tremendous friends who are hunters and sport shooters. This is part of our Canadian heritage.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from York South—Weston.
I want to say at the outset of this debate that one should always be suspicious of legislation from the Conservatives that bears titles such as “common sense”, because we know that there may be a bit of an issue with the packaging and marketing of what they are doing.
 I listened as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification and the member for Sault Ste. Marie began their debates in this place, and it was very clear from the outset what this bill is all about. It is about trying to create a wedge issue. They are trying to slam the Liberals for their apparent support of a long-gun registry, which has been denied; trying to suggest that the NDP would somehow bring back a long-gun registry, which is not the case; and mentioning by name many of the members of the NDP in northern ridings to suggest that this is what a common sense firearms licensing act is about. We know what this is about. It is another example of partisan politics and the creation of a wedge issue by the government for no particular purpose.
When I say no particular purpose, and therefore oppose this bill, it is pretty clear why this bill has been criticized by so many. It is not just by the usual suspects, if I can call them that. What about Mr. Jean-Marc Fournier, the Quebec minister for intergovernmental affairs? He said, “It goes against the concept of public safety and security.... I find it extremely inconsistent that the federal government should claim that this is being done for the sake of public safety”. 
 It is not being done for the sake of public safety. It is being done in a pre-election period for clear partisan purposes, demonstrated so clearly by the two Conservatives who spoke before me this morning.
Let us put that at rest and talk about the bill itself. Bill C-42 would give the cabinet new authority to override firearm classification definitions in section 84 of the Criminal Code by way of regulations that would carve out exceptions. Now, by regulation, the cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise be captured by the definition of prohibited and restricted firearms to be non-restricted firearms. That is a great example of taking away from legislation the authority that was given by Parliament and giving discretionary authority to the cabinet to do what it wishes and to be open now, for the first time, to lobbying by gun interests to make arbitrary changes, should it wish, for political purposes.
That is what we do when we take away from legislation certain powers that are there and provide discretion to the cabinet. It is very clear that this is what is there, and of course, many people talked about that in the committee hearings that led to this legislation at third reading.
The bill would basically transfer the authority over the definitions and classifications to cabinet, rather than leaving it with the public safety emphasis that was previously there. That was so clearly put by the member for Sault Ste. Marie just a moment ago when he talked about the chief firearms officers as bureaucrats and talked in a very pejorative way about the role they play in our system. He would rather have the cabinet make those decisions, I assume, because they are obviously all wise on matters of firearms registration and so forth.
In terms of firearms licencing, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification talked about the grace period as somehow being irrelevant. Much of the testimony talked about how problematic the grace period of six months is. The standard firearms licence is for five years, and then there is a six-month grace period. As part of the process for licence renewal, firearms owners are screened for mental health issues, gauging risks to themselves and others. This assessment can identify potential issues early and assist police in reacting for public safety. Simply providing a grace period of additional time can lead to a delay of the information going to law enforcement, and that is inconsistent with public safety. That is why the witnesses talked about that.
The other part of the bill that has been criticized is the difficulty for some of the people in northern and remote communities to travel to take the test. We certainly agree with this position and salute the government for requiring this mandatory testing, for which aboriginal people have been exempted, which we also agree with. However, there have been concerns expressed about the administration of these new requirements in that context.
There have been concerns, many expressed by the Toronto police department and others, about having the resources needed to deal at the borders with the smuggling of illegal firearms into Canada. What has the government done? As we have seen on television news this week, it has simply cut the Canada Border Services Agency's budget dramatically. For example, by 2014-15, the CBSA's budget will be reduced to $143.3 million a year, with a cut of 1,351 positions, including 325 front-line officers and another 100 intelligence officers. So much for public safety concerns.
I had the honour of going to high school with Wendy Cukier, who is the president of the Coalition for Gun Control. Her organization appeared before the committee that studied the bill. She had some very serious concerns about another aspect of the bill, namely the transportation issue, which we heard about earlier. She said:
 We believe that relaxing the controls over the authorizations to transport will increase the risk that these firearms will be misused. If you can transport your firearm to any gun club in the province, it means you can be virtually anywhere with it. 
There are people who have spent their lives trying to deal with gun control issues and safety who have expressed very serious concerns about public safety with Bill C-42. There are those who point out that the government talks about safety but at the same time cuts budgets in so many contexts. 
The fact that the Quebec government would have to tell us that this is not being done for the sake of public safety suggests that there are many people from many walks of life who have come to the same conclusion I have, and with which I introduced my speech. That is that the government is doing this simply as a wedge-politics issue, simply to draw a wedge, which is not there, on the issue of the gun registry. 
When we see words like “common sense” describing the bill, we know the jig is up.

Statements By Members
UkraineMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the honour to speak to the Ottawa-Gatineau branch of the Ukrainian National Federation on behalf of our government. The member for Ottawa Centre was also a guest speaker.
It was emotional to see Canadians from all across this country working toward assisting the Ukrainian people to maintain their independence and their democratic rights. Canada must continue to aid and assist the Ukrainian people to stop the Putin aggression.
In closing, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for most graciously giving me a ride back to the Hill.
Smoking CessationMurray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to observe World No Tobacco Day. Started by the World Health Organization, it is another reminder of the dangers of smoking and the urgent need to continue to update our laws to protect the public, to encourage quitting, and to never let up on our efforts to stop children from starting to smoke in the first place.
This year's theme is stopping the illicit trade in tobacco, which robs governments all over the world of the revenues needed to deal with this health epidemic. 
Tobacco-related illnesses are among the world's greatest health threats. Right here in Canada, smoking continues to be responsible for 30% of all cancer deaths. 
We must be vigilant in updating tobacco control strategies to combat an industry that targets young people and uses deceptive practices to increase profits. We have to ensure our health care system supports people in quitting. 
In closing, I would like to thank the Canadian Cancer Society, which has been relentless in pushing for public policy changes to stop smoking and to help Canadians lead healthier lives.
North Peace Historical SocietyBob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the North Peace Historical Society as they celebrate the grand opening of the newly renovated Fort St. John North Peace Museum. 
The North Peace Historical Society and the Fort St. John North Peace Museum play a vital role in preserving and sharing our region's unique history, and these renovations will now allow even more families and seniors to come and explore this important community resource.
Just last week the North Peace Historical Society hosted “A Night at the Museum”, where local volunteers like Larry Evans, Evelyn Sim, and Marjo Wheat dressed up as some of our region's more prominent historical figures to share their stories and interact with those in attendance.
I want to also send my best wishes to museum manager and curator Heather Sjoblom, North Peace Historical Society president Evelyn Sim, and all of the museum's volunteers, including my mom and my daughter Bobbie, as they celebrate the grand opening of the newly renovated museum. Congratulations.
BurundiHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Burundian diaspora in Canada, members of which are in the gallery today, is alarmed by the political and humanitarian crisis in Burundi.
Ever since President Nkurunziza declared his intention to run for a third term, with no regard for the Constitution, the country has been rocked by demonstrations and a violent campaign of repression perpetrated by the police and armed militia.
Opposition members, human rights advocates and journalists have been targeted, and the leader of an opposition party was assassinated on Saturday.
In Burundi, there are currently more than 100,000 refugees, as well as hundreds injured and dozens dead. A number of countries and international organizations have already cut off their financial aid to the Burundian government and are calling for the election to be postponed. 
Canada must fast-track family reunification and immigration applications, stop deportations to Burundi, and join in the efforts of the international community to ensure that human rights are being respected in Burundi.
Port Credit Legion Branch 82Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this opportunity to tell you about a small but important measure taken in my riding of Mississauga South recently, one that will affect many of my older constituents and one that will improve their quality of life in a meaningful way.
Last week at Port Credit Legion Branch 82, I was joined by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to bring word that this Conservative government, through the enabling accessibility fund, would help the Legion make its beautiful waterfront property on the Credit River more accessible for those in wheelchairs and those who need to get extra help getting into this great place where friends and veterans, young and old, gather to join in camaraderie and friendship and tell many stories, sometimes even over a beverage or two.
Even better, through the new horizons program, funds will also be contributed toward new fryers and a ventilation system so that the famous Friday night fish fries can be held once again. 
The Legion is a great Canadian place, and I will be delighted, as an associate member and as the member of Parliament, to take part in a few Friday night fish fries this summer.
George BradenDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to George Braden, the first elected premier of the Northwest Territories, who passed away Monday.
Born in Saskatchewan in 1949, he and his family moved to the Northwest Territories in 1964. From 1977 to 1979, George was an advisor to the hon. Bud Drury and was the prime minister's special representative for constitutional development in the Northwest Territories. In 1979, he was elected to the ninth Legislative Assembly. The MLAs voted George the first leader of the elected members of cabinet, a position that has become known as “premier”. He served as leader until 1989.
During his time in government, George promoted a new recognition of the Northwest Territories at the national level and a more prominent role in Confederation, including working to win a seat for the NWT at the first ministers conferences. George led the NWT's lobbying to have aboriginal rights included in section 35 of the Constitution.
George's strong support for an independent NWT was a major influence in my political career. He was the first of the new northern politicians to speak up for public government.
My deepest sympathies go to his wife, Lise, and the Braden family. George will be sorely missed.
90th Birthday CongratulationsMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when dawn broke 71 years ago, the enemy's stark view from their fortifications over the beaches of Normandy was a silhouette of war painted across the horizon. The Allied invasion of Europe had begun.
Among the vast Allied fleet poised to attack was a young teenage seaman of the Royal Canadian Navy serving on the HMCS Prince Henry, a landing craft carrier. Amidst bursting enemy shells and clouds of smoke from the ship's guns, Marty Jones provided artillery cover for the landing crafts laden with soldiers of the Royal Regina Rifles and the Canadian Scottish Regiment heading to Juno Beach.
After the war, Marty worked for 29 years for CMHC in Edmonton, retiring in 1985. He distinguished himself further and became the recipient of the Alberta Centennial and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.
Marty, his wife Pauline, and family and friends are all celebrating life's blessings and Marty's 90th birthday this Saturday.
Happy birthday to Marty. Good health, and God bless.
Road Today Truck ShowMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Manan Gupta and Minkle Mittal on hosting the 7th annual Road Today Truck Show and Job Fair at the Brampton Soccer Centre. The trucking extravaganza included plenty of activities, including an indoor trade show, a job fair for truck drivers, MTO road safety awareness, a driving simulator, and family entertainment.
The truck show was managed and hosted by the Road Today Media Group, which has served Canada's trucking industry for many years. This excellent organization puts a special emphasis on new Canadians who want to have a successful career in the trucking industry.
I would like to thank the organizers for making this event such a resounding success and for hosting an excellent day for families and tradespeople in our community.
Quebec Collective of Social Inclusion OrganizationsMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last night I had the pleasure of attending the gala held by the Collectif des entreprises d'insertion du Québec. It was an opportunity to mark 20 years of passion and support, because it was in 1995 that Quebec social inclusion organizations decided to form a collective. These organizations help thousands of people overcome poverty, and also contribute to the Quebec economy. However, the pride of all those who are able to re-enter the workforce is priceless.
On behalf of the NDP team, I would like to congratulate all the members of the collective. I would like to especially mention Grenier populaire des Basses-Laurentides in Saint-Eustache. I would like to thank the members of the board of directors, Yves Desforges, Raymond Lussier, Lise Savard and all those who do everything they can to ensure that their employees succeed. The Grenier populaire has an invaluable impact on the lives of our young people. All the residents of Rivière-des-Milles-Îles are grateful.
Together, we can build strong communities.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has just announced a major plank in his platform. He said, “We're looking at an expansion and a mandatory expansion of the CPP of the type that [his friend] Kathleen Wynne put forward in Ontario”.
He is promising to impose a payroll tax hike that would cost someone earning $60,000 over $1,000 out of their take-home pay.
The Liberal leader promises to raise taxes on the middle class and kill jobs. On this side of the House, we cut taxes and we create jobs.
Twenty-third Annual Celebration of New FranceJamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, next week, from Friday, June 5 to Sunday, June 7, Vaudreuil-Dorion will celebrate the 23rd edition of Les Seigneuriales, a history-themed festival that celebrates New France. There will be activities for the whole family, including traditional music performances, workshops, period games for children and interactive re-enactments. 
This year also marks the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the Carignan-Salières regiment. For me, this event is not just a historical fact; it is also the anniversary of my family's arrival in New France. My ancestor, Jean Desforges, known as Saint-Maurice, was part of that regiment. I am proud of my family heritage.
Vaudreuil-Soulanges was a meeting place for our three founding peoples, a place where people could trade, learn about each other's cultures and dream of a country that would become Canada.
I invite all of my constituents to come to this event to celebrate our heritage in the best region of the country, Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
TaxationMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Richmond Hill know that only this Conservative government will help families save more of their own money for their priorities. This week, the Liberal leader said that he favours a mandatory expansion of the CPP of the type that Kathleen Wynne put forward in Ontario. That is a $1,000 pay cut for every Ontario worker and indeed every Canadian earning $60,000 a year. That is just from their own pockets, in addition to what would be paid by their employer.
Families in York Region did not ask for that. Indeed, Canadians did not ask for that. They do not want it and they will never accept it. Under this Conservative government, Canadians can count on more money in their pockets at the end of the day.
Housing in ManitobaMr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nowhere has the current government's failure in housing become more obvious than in the province of Manitoba. While this is bad enough, it is even worse because the junior minister responsible for housing comes from Manitoba. One would think she would pay attention to the problems in her own province. She does not.
In Manitoba, housing for first nations is critical, yet a $300 million fund to produce housing has created just 99 houses. If all the government can show is $3 million per home, it is not indifference that is the problem; it is incompetence
As the minister and her government fail to build housing in communities across Canada, particularly in rural Canada, pressures build in big cities. In Winnipeg, shabby hotels are now being used to house homeless young people. These places are as dangerous as they are dismal. The minister's response: nothing.
The only real thing the Conservative government is doing on housing is pulling subsidies, and on this file the government is hurting seniors in Manitoba. As mortgages expire, so too do low-income subsidies for Manitobans on fixed incomes. 
No wonder the junior minister and her senior minister missed a major housing conference in Winnipeg in her own province. They are missing in action and—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.
TaxationMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want the most recent tax increase proposed by the leader of the Liberal Party. It would be $1,000 of extra payroll tax out of their own pockets for every employee who earns just $60,000 a year. My Saskatonian constituents and all Canadians want more money in their pockets, not less money. The small businesses that employ those workers would also have to pay the equivalent amount of extra payroll tax, which would kill jobs. 
We will vigorously oppose the Liberal leader's proposed tax increase, an increase that would punish workers. We will strenuously oppose it on behalf of all Canadians.
Canadian HeritageMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, here is a story that is played out many times around the world. 
The cabinet takes over prime real estate to build its leader's legacy project in the capital. It chooses a massive, imposing design. The plan creates local discontent. It gets a failing grade on cost and especially on location. Architects, the mayor and council, and even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court join the chorus of voices opposed to the plan. The public is opposed to it. Even the government's own partisans start asking for change, but still ministers gleefully promise to ride roughshod over everyone because nothing trumps their leader's vanity.
I am not describing a Communist dictatorship in its final days. This is the story of Canada's own “CommieCons”. The irony of it was funny for awhile, but enough is enough. The government's disregard for democratic voices is a slap in the face to the freedom fighters who are supposed to be honoured by this memorial. Let us tear down this monumental failure.
TaxationMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government disagrees with the statement of the Liberal leader, who said he supports “a mandatory expansion of the CPP of the type that Kathleen Wynne put forward in Ontario.” That plan would raise taxes by thousands of dollars on every worker and family earning $60,000 a year. We reject that. Our approach is a low-tax plan for a secure retirement. 
We have heard the Liberal leader tell us right here in the House of Commons that he and his family are not part of the middle class. My parents and their families are part of the middle class, along with millions of families across this country. The Liberal leader is intent on taking money from the middle class and paying for his programs.
This party and this government have lowered taxes to ensure that millions of families across this country enjoy the money that they have earned and deserve and spend it the way they believe it should be spent.

Oral Questions
Transportation SafetyMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been shocked by the lack of action in Canada on defective Takata airbags. Already we have seen six people killed and over 100 injured. 
The Americans issued a recall last week. Over one million Canadian vehicles have the same airbags, yet the Conservative government only issued a recall notice yesterday, and Transport Canada still does not even have mandatory recall powers. 
When it comes to the safety of Canadian drivers, why is Canada lagging behind the rest of the world?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians is a top priority. In 2014, we passed measures to strengthen Canada's recall system, measures which the member opposite and his party opposed. In budget 2015, we have committed to strengthening even further our recall system to give us the power toward recalls and levy monetary penalties. I expect the member will support that. 
To this point, Transport Canada has received no complaints related to this issue from Canadians and is not aware of any incidents having taken place in Canada.
The EconomyDavid Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, what exactly is the government waiting for, bodies to pile up before it takes action?
Canadians are waking up today to more bad economic news. Just two months after the Conservative budget projected a first quarter GDP growth of 1.2%, our economy actually shrank. Conservative mismanagement has meant more people out of work, more families struggling with household debt, and now an economy that is shrinking instead of growing.
Will Conservatives finally admit their approach is not working and present a real plan to create jobs and kick start our economy?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since coming to office, our government has had one of the best job-creation records in the G7, and we are leading in economic growth.
While we are focused on creating jobs, the Liberals are pushing a high-tax, high-debt agenda that will threaten jobs and set working families back. Their leader even said, “We’re looking at an expansion and a mandatory expansion of the CPP of the type that Kathleen Wynne put forward in Ontario”. For people earning $60,000, that means an extra $1,000 of tax that they will have to pay each year.
EmploymentDavid Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, a little less bragging and little more action is what Canadians are looking for.
It is no wonder Conservatives are failing on the economy. The Minister of Finance thinks the answer to our shrinking economy is to weaken labour protections and make it easier to fire workers.
The Prime Minister claimed that he was just talking about Greece, but the minister's office said, no, that he was talking about France. However, mixed-up Conservative excuses are not fooling anyone. 
When will Conservatives stop using attacks on workers and their rights as a smokescreen for their economic mismanagement?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said no such thing. He was talking about the situation in European countries like Greece and France where their liberal policies have resulted in out-of-control deficits and out-of-control spending. As a result, there have been tax hikes, massive layoffs and cuts in services, the same thing the Liberal government did in the 1990s because of its own financial mismanagement.
 In contrast, our government has balanced the budget, while giving benefits directly to families and reducing taxes on the middle class. However, the Liberals and the NDP want to take those benefits away and raise taxes on the middle class.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a nasty habit of attacking the middle class in international forums. In Davos in 2012, the Prime Minister announced that Canadians will have to work an additional two years before they can retire. At a G7 meeting on Wednesday, the Minister of Finance announced that employers need to be able to lay off employees more easily to create jobs. Unbelievable.
Do the Conservatives not understand that in order to have a strong economy we need to create jobs for the middle class?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said no such thing. As I said, he was talking about the situation in European countries like Greece and France.
Let me tell members what we are doing in Canada. While we are letting middle-class Canadians choose how they want to spend and save their money, the Liberals and the NDP want to raise payroll taxes. The Liberal leader announced that he would dramatically hike payroll taxes on middle-class Canadians. He even said, “We’re looking at an expansion and a mandatory expansion of the CPP of the type that Kathleen Wynne put forward in Ontario”. For people earning $60,000, that means an extra $1,000 in taxes that they will have to pay each year.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for the slow demise of the middle class.
Statistics Canada has confirmed that the Conservatives' unbalanced policies are undermining job creation and hurting our economy. Our GDP dropped 0.6% in the first three months of 2015. Canadians are working harder and harder, but they are struggling to make ends meet under the Conservatives.
Will the government get its priorities in order and create jobs for the middle class instead of trying to eliminate jobs?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, this is a further indication of global economic uncertainty and how it is affecting Canada, which is why we must continue with our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, a plan that is working. Since the depths of the recession, over 1.2 million net new jobs have been created. These are overwhelmingly full-time private sector jobs in high-wage industries.
However, the Liberal leader's proposed dramatic payroll tax would kill jobs in Canada. In fact, the CFIB survey of employers in Ontario said that 69% would have to freeze or cut salaries, and 53% would have to lay off workers if this were to happen.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should know that the Reuters' reporter himself confirmed that the finance minister's comments were not related to Greece.
We learned this morning that the Canadian economy shrank during the first quarter of this year. The Minister of Finance is in Europe, and he is saying that we need to cut jobs in order to grow the economy.
My question is simple. How many jobs does the minister think we need to cut in order to grow our economy?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the finance minister said no such thing. The GDP number is a further indication of global economic uncertainty, which is why we must continue with our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, a plan that is working. The Bank of Canada, the OECD and the IMF are all projecting another year of economic growth in Canada.
However, the Liberal leader is proposing a dramatic payroll tax hike that would kill jobs in Canada. As I mentioned, the CFIB survey of employers in Ontario said that 69% would have to freeze or cut salaries, and 53% would have to terminate jobs to cope with the added costs of an increase in the CPP.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while the finance minister lectures G7 countries on how to get economic growth by firing people, GDP figures here at home destroy his credibility.
Under the current government, Canada's economy shrank in March. It also shrank in February, January, last November and last August. Joblessness is up by 200,000 more than before the recession. Business investment is down. Exports are down. We have suffered 51 months of trade deficits. The government's plan is producing no growth and no jobs. Why does it not change it? 
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: helping families make ends meet by lowering taxes and protecting and creating jobs. Since coming to office, our government has had one of the best job creation records in the G7, and we are leading in economic growth.
 While we are focused on creating jobs, the Liberal leader's only solution is raising taxes. Members do not have to take my word for it, this is what he said, “We're looking at an expansion and a mandatory expansion of the CPP of the type that Kathleen Wynne put forward in Ontario”. For people earning $60,000, that means an extra $1,000 in taxes every year that they will have to pay under his scheme.
PensionsRalph Goodale: Well, the Hudak job plan did not work, Mr. Speaker.
In a chronically weak economy, retirement security is a big middle-class issue. Under the Conservative government, three-quarters of those working in the private sector do not have a company pension. The average 35-year old is saving less than half of what his or her parents did. Of those in their 50s, only a third have saved $100,000 or more, and another third, especially in the middle class, have no retirement savings at all. 
All of the government's gimmicks have failed. Why does it not work constructively with the provinces on a real plan?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, it is our Conservative government that has fought for seniors. We have increased the GIS by the largest amount in a quarter century. The opposition members voted against it. We have introduced pension income splitting for seniors. They voted against it.
 Economic action plan 2015 introduces even more support for seniors, such as the new home accessibility tax credit, more compassionate care benefits, and lower required RRIF withdrawals. Those members want to raise taxes on seniors. We are putting money back into the pockets of Canadian seniors.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation in northern Manitoba has been waiting 12 years for the approval of their treaty land entitlement.
The minister has given no reason for the delay, which is costing the first nation millions of dollars, money that could be spent to improve the lives of their people. They are among 15 first nations in Manitoba that are simply waiting for a signature from the minister.
When will the minister sign the ministerial order for the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation?
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we take the matter of addition to reserve and TLE lands very seriously, as we do improving economic conditions on reserve.
That is why we have continued to invest in on-reserve infrastructure. We have continued to invest in communities across the country. Every time we do, the NDP votes against it. It would be nice to have it on side for once.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, for thousands of residential school survivors, next week's report marks the beginning of reconciliation, not the end.
As former AFN national chief Phil Fontaine said, the Prime Minister's 2008 apology will be meaningless unless he takes action following the commission's report. Will the Prime Minister show that he is prepared to act in good faith by attending the final event of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission next week?
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the government will be represented at all TRC events. Our government remains committed to a fair and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian residential schools, as acknowledged in the Prime Minister's historic apology on behalf of all Canadians in 2008. There is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian residential school system to ever prevail again.
While the TRC is closing, the work to heal the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians needs to continue. Our government will continue to fulfill its obligations as set out in the Indian residential school settlement agreement.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, our question was about the Prime Minister. This is a national, historic event and we want to hear that the Prime Minister will be in attendance.
As for looking forward, reconciliation means not just saying “sorry” but changing behaviour. Twenty years after the last residential school closed, first nations children receive less funding for education than other Canadian children. They receive less funding for health and for social services.
More children now are in state care than at the height of the residential schools. We cannot promise reconciliation and continue to treat first nations as second-class citizens.
What is the government's plan to make its apology real?
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister made an historic apology on behalf of all Canadians in 2008, the government recognized that the Indian residential schools caused great harm and had no place in Canada.
While we cannot undo the past, we can learn from it. We have taken the steps necessary to bring in closure to the legacy of the Indian residential schools. We will continue to promote reconciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' dismal record speaks for itself.
Here are a few of many examples. We have the Conservatives' refusal to properly fund education for aboriginal youth, their refusal to hold a national inquiry on the fate of 1,200 missing or murdered aboriginal women, and, lastly, their completely ineffective housing program. However, in 2008, the Prime Minister personally made a commitment to reconciliation.
Was his official apology for Indian residential schools just hot air?
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it was our Prime Minister and this government that, after decades of waiting, delivered that historic apology on behalf of all Canadians. It was the Prime Minister who did that.
Speaking of shoddy records, the opposition has a lot to answer for because every time we invest on reserve, if we try to give matrimonial property rights to women on reserve, if we try to bring up waste water and water standards on reserve, it is always there to oppose us. Why does the opposition not get on board as we work with first nations to improve conditions on reserve?
Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of respect, to never forget all of the children who did not return home.
My colleagues, my leader and I will be attending the closing events of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which start on Sunday. We will be there to hear from survivors and to hear the commission's findings.
My question is very simple. Will the Prime Minister make the first gesture of reconciliation? Will the Prime Minister be there?
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did make the first gesture of reconciliation on the floor of the House of Commons with his apology to residential school survivors, in 2008. We continue to work with first nations across the country, and we will continue to be committed to a fair and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian residential schools. It was the Prime Minister and this government that took that step. We remain committed to that work.
Science and TechnologyLaurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is not only muzzling scientists across the country, but it is also imposing unnecessary rules that are paralyzing their research. For example, a Toronto research centre is having to meet absurd conditions in order to get new funding. This is jeopardizing the scientists' careers, the work in progress, and also Canada's reputation in science.
Will the minister of state fix this absurd situation immediately?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian federal departments and agencies produce over 4,000 science publications per year. Our economic action plan 2015 is positioning Canadian science to push the boundaries of knowledge, create jobs, and improve the quality of life of Canadians. In fact, since 2006, we have provided more than $13 billion toward research, development, innovation, infrastructure, and Canadian talent, including $1.5 billion in economic action plan 2015 alone. We only hope that the opposition parties would just once support us in those endeavours.
Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Conservative muzzling and reckless cuts to science are damaging Canada's research capacity. The Conservatives have cut one billion science dollars and fired 4,000 federal scientists since coming to power, and now a ridiculous federal funding condition requiring old grants to expire before scientists can access new funding is sapping lab capacity and threatening more jobs. That is precisely what is happening right now with the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto.
Will the minister immediately put an end to this unnecessary rule?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, our record on science is unparalleled in this country's history. We have increased funding to the granting councils by $5.4 billion, including $1.5 billion for the Canada first research excellence fund; $3 billion in cumulative increases to the granting councils; and nearly $900 million in funding increases for the research support fund. Again, I ask the opposition parties to just once support us in these endeavours.
InfrastructureMr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Conservative mismanagement has also made a mess of the Canada 150 community infrastructure program. Ontario is warning that the program rollout has been so rushed, and the funding allocation so politically motivated, that the provinces will not be able to participate in the program or match funds. The $150 million fund was announced on May 15, and the deadline for projects is June 9, three weeks. That is ridiculous. Why are Conservatives playing politics with the infrastructure funding that our communities so badly need?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that question is ridiculous. Our Conservative government is very proud to have established the Canada 150 community infrastructure plan. Had that member and the provincial government in Ontario read our budget, they would have known this program was coming. We are very proud to have the opportunity to celebrate not only the 150th birthday of our country, but to preserve and promote recreational infrastructure facilities in communities across Ontario and throughout the country.
Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a little cheque here, a little cheque there; the government keeps improvising. That is how the Conservatives are funding Quebec's infrastructure for Canada's 150th anniversary. Millions of dollars will be disbursed without any consultation, and the June 26 deadline does leave a lot of time to build the major projects people are hoping for. We have known for some time now that the 150th anniversary will be in 2017. This government has been in power for nine years. 
I am trying to figure out whether we are dealing with improvisation or incompetence, or a bit of column A and a bit of column B.
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, I know I speak on behalf of all members on this side of the House when I say we always appreciate the dramatic flare with which that member asks her questions. 
The Canada 150 infrastructure program would help to preserve and improve treasured cultural and community locations, allowing Canadians and their families to enjoy moments of sports and recreation for many years to come.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of Confederation, but Canada existed long before.
For over a year now, we have been asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage for a plan for the celebration of this 150th anniversary. Instead, the government throws together a disparate and haphazard Canada 150 program that has everyone so pressed for time that neither the municipalities in Quebec nor the Province of Ontario will be able to participate.
Will the Conservatives admit that this mad rush is just a way for them to hand out goodies before the election?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing significant interest and demand from municipalities and not-for-profit organizations in our Canada 150 infrastructure program in communities across Quebec and across Canada. 
Under the leadership of this Prime Minister, Canada has led all G7 countries with respect to investments in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP. Under the Liberals, they did not get it done.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, the celebration of the 150th anniversary of Confederation is supposed to bring Canadians together in a happy way. Instead, the government has confused provinces and angered municipalities. An infrastructure fund that was announced has different rules for different regions, different criteria for different provinces, different rules for different municipalities, and there is no funding formula. 
The Province of Ontario is furious. It was never consulted. The provincial minister in charge of infrastructure has said that this is just a public relations exercise, a glorified gazebo fund.
Will the government finally admit that is actually a slush fund for Conservative MPs who are facing defeat in this fall's election?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, that is really rich coming from that member. For months that member has been standing in his place, claiming that this government has not been moving quickly enough with respect to our infrastructure programs, and today, apparently, we are moving too quickly. There appears to be significant confusion over on that side.
As I mentioned earlier, had that member and his provincial friend read our budget, they would have known that the Canada 150 infrastructure program was coming. We look forward to delivering on our commitment to support communities in Ontario and across the country.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, I was asking for an infrastructure program. This is a joke.
Canada's celebration and Confederation do not belong to the Conservative Party. The funds that were announced a few days ago have a deadline to apply in just a few days from now. I could not find that in the budget, nor could I find a dollar amount.
What is worse is that the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex says to apply to his office for help, not to the government's offices and not to city hall. That is disgraceful. What sort of an inside track is being discussed here? Why is this pork barrelling not described as such?
The Conservative government is playing politics with Confederation, hurting cities in this country, and this fund is a disgrace.
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government's Canada 150 community infrastructure program will achieve two very important objectives: one, it will help all Canadians celebrate the 150th anniversary of our country's Confederation; and, two, it will help communities across the country renovate or expand existing recreational infrastructure. If that member wishes to forego both of those opportunities, that is his prerogative.
National DefenceMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as NATO considers whether to establish a permanent presence in the Baltics to counter Russian threats, the Minister of National Defence has already mused that Canada may be ready to send troops there. The minister did not do that here in the House, just like he did not bring the deployment of military trainers to Ukraine to Parliament either.
Does the minister really believe that consulting Parliament on military deployments, as his party promised to do, means discussing these requests here first?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. It is this government that, for the first time, brought forward the responsibility to consult Parliament with respect to military deployments, and we have done that on a number of occasions. 
Of course, we are very proud of the work that the Canadian Armed Forces are doing both at home and abroad, including in the Ukraine and in the Baltic states. We are very proud of the role of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the Baltic states. We have been at the forefront of providing assistance to the Ukraine, and we will continue to do that.
Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada should certainly consider requests for deployment, but those discussions should take place here in the House. Canadians expect better from the Minister of National Defence, who keeps getting himself into trouble.
After he falsely claimed that Canada was the only country with smart bomb technology and tweeted misleading photos, the minster's incompetence seems to know no bounds.
Will he at least have the decency to keep his promise and debate military deployments in the House?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, we have done just that. When serious deployments have been considered, our government has done so. Of course, we had a great debate with respect to the deployment of Canadian Forces in the fight against the jihadist terrorist regime, ISIL. We know that both opposition parties voted against that deployment.
 We know that when it comes to protecting Canadian interests at home and abroad, the opposition will consistently vote against it. That is why they voted against the increases we have had to military funding. That is why they voted against the new equipment that we bought for the Canadian Armed Forces. 
Canadians understand that when it comes to providing assistance and security, it is our government that they can rely upon. 
Public Works and Government ServicesÉlaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have completely bungled another file: military procurement.
From the F-35s to the Cyclone helicopters and the close-combat vehicles, the Conservatives' incompetence keeps reaching new heights. Wait times continue to grow and equipment is not up to standard and is costing too much. Now, we have learned that the joint support ships will apparently not be ready until 2020.
Does the government really think that creating a new committee will solve this problem?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member has her questions all wrong. She has her facts all wrong. In fact, we have been living up to our commitment to provide our men and women in uniform with the equipment they need to do the job we ask of them. We have delivered the new Globemasters, five of them, the C-17 tactical lift transporters; new battle tanks; LAVs; and new heavy artillery. We have been doing the refit and modernization of the Halifax-class frigate. 
Next month, we are also expecting to take delivery of the Cyclones, the new helicopters that will allow us to finally start retiring the Sea Kings.
Sadly, one thing that is consistent is that the member and her party voted against every one of these acquisitions. 
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' disastrous management of military procurement is having a major impact on our navy.
It will be years before the new ships are ready. The Davie Shipyard proposed a solution to meet our needs in the short term, but it has still not heard back from the government about it. Now, the government is telling us that it needs more time.
Can the government explain the reason for this delay, which is jeopardizing hundreds of jobs and putting our country in a difficult position?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the Halifax-class frigates. What is more, we are cutting steel on both coasts this year.
In Vancouver, we have cut the steel for the offshore fishery science vessel, and, in Halifax, we will be cutting steel later this year on the new AOPS. 
We are supporting our men and women in uniform by providing the equipment they need, and in a responsible way to taxpayers. 
However, I have to point out, the hon. member and his party have voted against every one of these initiatives. 
Canada Border Services AgencyMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, members in my riding of Oxford are concerned with foreign criminals abusing the generosity of Canadians. They want to be assured that action is being taken to address profiteers.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety update the House on what is being done to ensure that the integrity of Canada's immigration regime is protected?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oxford for the question. I would also like to commend the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, on arresting two more individuals who were on the “wanted by the CBSA” list. 
Today, as a result of the wanted by the CBSA program, Canadians have assisted in locating 62 individuals in Canada, of which 53 have been removed. Additionally, 18 other individuals have been located abroad. These are concrete and real results. 
Canadians know that they can count on our Conservative government to ensure their generosity is not abused by foreign criminals. 
Science and TechnologyMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, hundreds of our most brilliant francophone researchers are attending the last day of the 83rd ACFAS annual conference in Rimouski.
However, the president of ACFAS, Louise Dandurand, is worried about the Conservatives cutting research and muzzling federal scientists. 
She had this to say:
 The federal government's unenlightened approach is unfortunate and dangerous, and the consequences for the advancement of science will be felt in the long term in Canada. 
When will the Conservatives recognize the major contributions of our researchers and scientists?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, again, I wish that the hon. member would support some of the measures that we have taken to support world-leading research in this country.
Here is a quote from the president and CEO of the Canada Foundation for Innovation about this year's budget:
 This is the largest single investment ever made to support research infrastructure in Canada. 
 With this new funding, Canadian universities, colleges and research hospitals will be able to continue to undertake globally competitive research that is essential to the health, prosperity and quality of life of Canadians. 
I want to know why the hon. member voted against that.
Canada PostMr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, eight municipalities in my riding, Chambly—Borduas, have adopted resolutions calling for a moratorium on the installation of mailboxes. The municipalities are tired of this government making decisions that affect them without even consulting them. A certain minister's big initiative of just asking Canada Post questions is clearly not enough.
Will the government finally listen to the municipalities, like those in my riding of Chambly—Borduas, and require that Canada Post consult them and place a moratorium on community mailboxes?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, in 2014, Canada Post delivered 1.4 billion fewer pieces of mail than in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not have mail delivered to their door. Canada Post must balance its books without being a burden on Canadian taxpayers.
In the meantime, the NDP plan for Canada Post will cost taxpayers half a billion dollars a year, which means that the NDP will increase the tax burden of all Canadians to finance its plan.
That is not what we on this side of the House are going to do. We are going to keep taxes low, create jobs and put money in the pockets of Canadian workers.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are obviously not listening to municipal elected officials or individuals. Ending home mail delivery has a direct impact on municipalities, but the government did not find it necessary to consult them. The City of Laval will now have to go to court to say its piece.
Will the government finally show some respect for municipal elected officials and sit down with them to talk about this?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Canada Post delivered 1.4 billion fewer letters in 2014 than it did in 2006. It has a five-point plan to address that, which includes consultations with those whose postal delivery would be affected. The member well knows that.
What the member should also be clear about is that Canada Post needs to continue with its five-point plan. Last year, it did not make a $1.3 billion special payment to make up for its unfunded pension liabilities. The estimated payment this year as well would be $1.4 billion. That is in Canada Post's report on page 68.
The member should allow Canada Post to get on with its structural changes.
Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have served up the same tired lines about Canada Post over and over. It might be time for a new strategy.
More than 600 municipalities, including the City of Terrebonne, expressed their discontent. The NDP listened to people and elected officials, so it understands that home mail delivery is not a luxury; it is an essential service.
Instead of spending thousands on legal fees, why will the government not agree to a moratorium?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the member is fighting for a plan for only one-third of Canadians. She knows that two-thirds of Canadians currently do not receive door-to-door delivery.
I point her to page 68 of Canada Post's annual report in 2014. Allow me to quote:
 Without pension relief, the Corporation would have been required to make special payments of approximately $1.3 billion in 2014. The special payments without pension relief would amount $1.4 billion in 2015. 
Those payments would have to be made in subsequent years as well. Canada Post needs to continue with its five-point plan.
The EnvironmentHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after much hemming and hawing, we finally got the Minister of the Environment to commit to her new target of 524 megatonnes by 2030. Having done nothing for the last 10 years, she now asks us to believe that an additional 200 megatonnes will be achieved in 15 years without a plan.
What are her commitments in writing from the provinces? What are her commitments in writing from the industrial sectors? How will she offset the projected 180 megatonnes from the oil sands?
This target looks more deceptive and delusional than fair and ambitious.
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 has announced a fair and ambitious target for Canada that is in line internationally with industrialized countries. 
We plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, which is a reduction of 225 megatonnes, and we will continue to take a responsible and balanced approach.
Building on this, we will reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, regulate the production of chemical and nitrogen fertilizers, and reduce emissions from natural gas-fired electricity generation, and we will do this without forcing a job-killing carbon tax.
Citizenship and ImmigrationHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I sent a letter to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety about a young woman who was deported to Burundi yesterday and is currently in Addis Ababa.
At a time when they are asking Canadian citizens in Burundi to leave the country immediately, how can they justify deporting a young woman to that country? 
Will she be allowed to return to Canada where she will be safe, and will the government stop deportations to Burundi at least temporarily?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that these decisions are made by highly qualified officials after extensive review of the individual's file.
I believe if the member feels strongly about this, he could speak to me for further details after question period.
TelecommunicationsMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, although the Conservatives have announced money to provide high-speed Internet access to more regions, many areas in my riding are not benefiting from it at all.
In many parts of Chelsea, people are still having problems with connectivity and speed, and there are no solutions. We are not talking about the far reaches of the Arctic Circle; we are talking about a municipality that is less than 25 km from the Prime Minister's office. Clearly, the Conservative plan is not working. 
What does the government plan to do to get the people of Chelsea connected?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer this question. 
Last week the minister was pleased to announce that our government has exceeded the targets of the Connecting Canadians program. The Connecting Canadians program will connect over 70,000 more households to affordable high-speed Internet, for a total of 357,000 homes. We have achieved this goal with only 60% of the total Connecting Canadians budget.
For Canadians in rural and northern regions, access to high-speed Internet will unlock tremendous economic potential, leading to the creation of new jobs, products, and businesses across Canada. Again, I only wish the opposition parties would support initiatives like this.
EmploymentMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, more job losses can be added to the long list of Conservative failures when it comes to the economy.
In Longueuil, the Provigo Le Marché supermarket is the latest victim. The 80 people who are losing their jobs are not the only people in the community who will suffer. All the organizations that benefited from the generous support of the owner, André Tremblay, will also suffer.
As communities become generally poorer, people buy more foreign-made products, which are of lower quality but cheaper. They buy more and more goods from Walmart, stores like Provigo close, and the downward spiral continues.
Will the Conservatives finally acknowledge that their economic policies are having a serious impact on communities like Longueuil?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, we sympathize with those Canadians who have lost their jobs. 
Our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. Nevertheless, Canada's overall job growth record since the depth of the global recession is among the best in the G7 countries, with over 1.2 million net new jobs created, and they are overwhelmingly full-time, high-wage, and private sector jobs.
As we have always said, Canada is not immune to the global economic challenges beyond our borders. We will continue to reject the Liberal and NDP policy to hike payroll taxes dramatically, and also the NDP's risky high-tax and debt scheme, which would kill jobs and hurt the Canadian economy.
Social DevelopmentMr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, constituents from my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap are very pleased with our measures to help Canadian middle-class families.
Can the Minister of State for Social Development update this House on the impact the universal child care benefit is having on families from coast to coast to coast?
Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that great question and the great work that he has done for his constituents over the years.
I was pleased to be in Pickering over the last week and met with families to tell them about the expanded and increased universal child care benefit.
I met with Melanie. Melanie is a single mom with a five-year-old son, soon turning six. She was thrilled when I told her that our plan would increase and expand the universal child care benefit for her, because she counts on that support.
I also told her that the Liberal plan would be to completely end the universal child care benefit and that the NDP plan would not help her at all, because she is not using licensed day care.
Our plan helps all families with children, regardless of how they choose to look after their children. Melanie was very happy to hear that.
HousingMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an unprecedented crisis is gripping thousands of people whose homes are affected by pyrrhotite. Once again, the federal government is not there to answer the calls for help from Mauricie.
How does the government plan to address this regional crisis and limit the impact of this housing catastrophe in a region already heavily stigmatized by thousands of job losses in the primary resources sector?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, this member knows well that the pyrrhotite issue falls under provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the Government of Quebec launched a provincial program to provide financial assistance for homeowners dealing with pyrrhotite damage in August of 2011. 
I would urge those concerned to contact the Société d'habitation du Québec.
Northern DevelopmentBob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, our government's 2015 budget is focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs, lowering taxes, and providing benefits directly to families. However, the leader of the Liberal Party wants to dramatically hike payroll taxes on the middle class.
Can the Minister of the Environment explain to the House what our budget would do for our north?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Prince George—Peace River for that great question.
 Unlike previous governments that made cuts on the backs of the territories, our government is providing record-high transfer payments to the territories in health care, education, and social programs. We are investing in northern infrastructure, housing, tourism, and the economy, and we are also supporting meteorological and navigational warning services and enhancing safety of marine transportation in the Arctic. We are also securing a new market access for Canadian seal products.
 The Liberals and the New Democrats would eliminate the child care benefit program and raise the cost of living in the north with a carbon tax.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that permanent residents in my riding who were adopted and thought they received Canadian citizenship on their arrival in Canada have voted before. It was only when applying for a passport that they realized that they were not Canadians.
No proof of citizenship is required for getting added to the voter list. Applicants are simply asked whether they are Canadian citizens.
Does the government have any idea how many people who are on the voter list should not be? Does the government plan to tighten up the process to ensure that it takes more than just answering a yes or no question to exercise one's right to vote?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, the rules are very clear and specific. People have an opportunity to apply for the permanent residence cards through Canadian immigration streams. We have many, including economic streams, family reunification streams, and humanitarian streams . 
Once people apply for their permanent residence card, if they adhere to the rules by staying in the country for the period of time that they are expected to stay here, they can apply for their Canadian citizenship.
HealthMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, after years of negotiations among lawyers, doctors and Health Canada officials, thalidomide victims were finally made an offer that was deemed acceptable by the parties involved. The lump-sum payment of $250,000 seemed to be a fair compromise, but for unknown reasons, the government's final offer dropped to $125,000.
This morning, I spoke with a victim who told me that there was no justification for this arbitrary decision. The government has caused considerable harm by substituting its own decision for that of responsible and informed stakeholders.
Who at Health Canada made this decision?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, we have made a very unprecedented settlement. It was a tragic event in the 1960s that reminds us of how important drug safety is. 
It is important to note that, as was announced just last week, there will be tax-free yearly payments based on need and that over 75% of the people will receive $75,000 to $100,000 tax free. Of course, there is also going to be an extraordinary medical assistance fund. This is important support that will allow the victims of this crisis to live their lives with dignity.
TaxationMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Business  has good reason to be pleased because the tariff reductions on imports of baby clothing and sports equipment established in 2013 have been good for SMEs and consumers.
The price has dropped on almost all of the merchandise in these sectors. However, despite many promises, no new initiatives have been introduced.
Can the Minister of State for Small Business assure us that prices will continue to drop? When will SMEs and Canadians benefit from new tariff reductions?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has undertaken a number of initiatives to reduce taxes. Of course, the ones being referenced are ones that are part of a number of things we have done to help families by reducing taxes. In particular, the member spoke about sports equipment, where we did reduce tariffs where we did not have Canadians manufacturing in a field.
 More importantly for Canadians is the fact that we have, in the most recent budget, doubled the sports and fitness tax credit, which we originally introduced. Again, it is another thing that is helping families get by and keep their children involved and active in sporting activities. This is an example of our government taking action to help families. 
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should address my question to the the Minister of Finance. No tariff reductions were announced in budget 2015. However, former finance minister Jim Flaherty was intent on closing the price gap between Canada and the United States with measures such as tariff reductions. While previous tariff reductions made prices considerably lower for consumers, there are still tariff lines of up to 18%.
The testing was conclusive, so why did the Minister of Finance not introduce new tariff reductions in budget 2015?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, in fact, our government has cut literally hundreds and hundreds of tariff lines. Partly we have done it, of course, as part of our process of entering into free trade agreements, at an unprecedented level compared with any other government in Canadian history, but we have also done it through the implementation of our new policy of allowing inputs into the manufacturing process in Canada to enter tariff free. This helps reduce costs for manufacturing and helps reduce the cost of our manufacturing products in Canada. 
This has been a significant advance for us, which has resulted in massive reductions in tariffs. This is all good news for Canadians, for Canadian consumers, for Canadian businesses, and for creating Canadian jobs.

Routine Proceedings
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I know that on a regular basis, the member for Ottawa Centre and other members question the location of the communist monument. I would like, with unanimous consent, to actually enter into the record the map and diagram that shows the exact location of the monument when it will happen. I ask for unanimous consent to do that, for the record.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member have unanimous consent to table the document?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Colin Mayes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Main Estimates 2015-16”.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties. If you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the order for consideration of the Ways and Means Motion No. 23 be deemed read, the motion to concur deemed moved and seconded, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Monday, June 1, 2015, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
PetitionsStéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to present a petition sent to me by the organization Development and Peace. The petitioners believe that new rules for the use of seed are detrimental to small farmers because, in some cases, the preservation, use and exchange of seeds are illegal and could be punishable by law. This petition seeks to bring to the attention of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada the importance of respecting farmers' right to preserve, exchange and use seeds.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, there are number of constituents in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo who are licensed handgun owners. The petitioners are looking for a little bit of increased flexibility in terms of their ability to use their handguns for protection, so they are looking for some changes to our firearms legislation.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to present a petition signed by hundreds of people across Canada requesting that the Government of Canada extend a 0% GST rate to menstrual hygiene products.
 I think the letter they will get back from the government will show that the NDP pushed this motion and that we were supposed to have unanimous consent on it here today, but the Liberals have derailed that.
Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud to present this petition on behalf of Canadians who are asking the government to remove the federal tax on feminine hygiene products. The NDP is very proud to have convinced the government to remove this unfair tax. We now hope that the vote will be held soon, so that women can stop paying this tax, which makes absolutely no sense.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I also have the great pleasure of presenting a petition asking the government to eliminate the tax on feminine hygiene products. It is a tax that we consider to be truly discriminatory. The women who signed this petition are very proud that the NDP brought this issue to Parliament and was successful and that this discriminatory tax will disappear on July 1.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present five petitions from my constituents.
The first has to do with the future of CBC/Radio-Canada. My constituents would like CBC/Radio-Canada to receive stable funding.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, the second and third petitions have to do with creating a legislative ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining. My constituents want to see Canada take responsible action in the mining sector around the world. 
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition I am presenting today has to do with the abolition of the Senate.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, the fifth petition I am presenting, like others presented by some members, has to do with the elimination of the tax on feminine hygiene products. We would like to have a vote soon, but unfortunately the Liberals refused to give unanimous consent today. 
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw our attention to the fact that a high percentage of prostitutes are forced into the sex trade and trafficked. Therefore, they ask us to 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 nefarious sex trade. 
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition on ultrasounds being used in Canada to tell the sex of unborn children, and if the sex is that of a girl, the pregnancy is terminated. The petitioners draw attention to the fact that this is creating a global gender imbalance, resulting in girls being trafficked into prostitution. Therefore, they call on Parliament to condemn this worst form of discrimination against females.
Questions on the Order PaperPeter Braid: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that Question No. 1156 will be answered today.
Ms. Elizabeth May:  With regard to the proposed changes to the Health of Animals Regulations Part XII – Transportation of Animals: when will the updated Transportation Regulations be released? 
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC): Mr. Speaker, updates regarding the anticipated timing for the regulatory proposal to amend Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations can be found by consulting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Forward Regulatory Plan. http://inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/acts-and-regulations/forward-regulatory-plan/eng/1361986810905/1361986866978. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsPeter Braid: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if Question Nos. 1146 and 1157 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. 
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Mr. Mark Warawa:  With regard to government funding in the riding of Langley, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Elizabeth May:  With regard to amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in Part IV of 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: (a) how soon after the coming into force of these provisions does the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (the Service) expect to begin to use its new powers to intervene to disrupt terror plots; (b) what will the costs be to provide supplementary training to Service agents and employees so that they may safely use their new powers; (c) what will the costs be to provide additional equipment to Service agents and employees so that they may safely use their new powers; (d) has there been a projection of the total costs of implementing Part IV of Bill C-51, including, but not limited to, the additional cost of the preparation, issuance and execution of warrants under section 21.1, and, if so, what are the details of this projection; (e) will the Service's budget be updated to match these new powers; and (f) will the Security Intelligence Review Committee's budget be increased to match these new powers? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria had five minutes of questions and comments remaining.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for York South—Weston.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech earlier. Given the history the current government has had of not protecting the safety of Canadians in almost every endeavour where the federal government is supposed to protect the safety of Canadians, and given also that this bill, in our opinion, does not actually do anything to protect the safety of Canadians, is it the position of the member and the NDP that this bill is actually making safety worse in Canada?
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, as I said during my remarks, whenever a statute is introduced with verbiage like “common sense”, we know that there is something political going on. When we heard the interventions by the Conservatives, it confirmed that suspicion.
No, the bill does not make us any safer at all. Of course, that is the burden of the Coalition for Gun Control's argument and that of the Government of Quebec and of so many other interveners who pointed that out.
Moreover, when we look at the budget cuts the government has made to those who make us safe, such as the CBSA and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as I alluded to in my remarks, we see what game is being played here today.
Similarly, the decision to simply give more discretionary authority to the cabinet, rather than to stick with the classifications that are in the statute, suggests that there is an attempt to provide political cover for cabinet to make changes as it sees fit, dependant on the lobbying that is made to the cabinet on any given subject. That is also a matter that I think undermines the claim that this is somehow about public safety. It is about politics.
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer to my question just a moment ago, about whether this bill would make us any safer.
In fact, as I read the bill, the bill would do a number of things that would lessen gun safety. It would make it easier to transport guns in a manner that is not known to the police. It would make it easier for cabinet to unilaterally decide to change the definitions of firearms, for the cabinet, against the wishes of the various authorities put in place to decide what firearms should be restricted, to make those restrictions null and void.
 In addition, the bill would appear to give an ability for persons to have a six-month grace period to fulfill their licence requirements. Nowhere in Canada can I think of a place where someone has a grace period on a licence requirement, particularly on something as important as the ownership of a firearm. Right now, if I want to drive my car without a licence, I am in violation of the law. There is no grace period for driving my car without a licence or for not licensing my car.
Would the member like to comment on that?
[Interjection]
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The Coalition for Gun Control, for example, would agree entirely with the his concern about the transportation issue. That was the subject of great debate before committee.
The undermining by cabinet of the restrictions on firearms, given the authority it has taken for itself in this bill, is another example of the centralization of power by the Conservatives for obviously political purposes.
The last point the member made about the grace period and the unusual nature of the grace period has also been the subject of many people in the police community and others who wonder why on Earth we would have such a period in the bill.
As my hon. friend pointed out, usually a licence is for a fixed period of time. We do not then usually say that if we forget about our drivers' licences, we will have six months to drive around, just because we feel like it, and hopefully we will not get caught by the police, but if we do, we have a grace period.
It is kind of a bizarre position to take. Not only is it bizarre, but to the point of public safety that the member so cogently raised, people have talked about how the period, when applying for a licence, is used to screen people for mental health issues, potential risks to themselves and others. If there is some sort of grace period, that can delay the information being available to the police and others for safety concerns.
Finally, undermining the Chief Firearms Officer and referring to them, as Conservatives have done, as simply bureaucrats is a shameful position to take.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to what I view as not just a bad bill, but a dangerous bill. The bill talks about common sense and when we put “common sense” and “firearms” in the same sentence, one has to wonder whether this is really just a political bill and not actually something to make us safer. 
I wish I had a nickel for every time a member opposite said, “This is our top priority”. No matter what we are talking about, whether it is the environment, public safety, rail safety, drug safety or food safety, everything seems to be the Conservatives' top priority, yet the evidence is that everything has suffered budget cuts under the government. In order to provide Canadians with tax cuts, it has had to cut public services and make Canadians less safe. That is something the New Democrats do not support. In a few months' time, the NDP leader and the party, with their experience and plan, will be able to replace this tired government and actually fix the damage it has done, including the damage this bill would do to the safety regime of Canadians.
The bill should be titled “relaxing guns laws in Canada”, because that is really what it does. It would not make some common sense amendments or find some way to make more sense. It is designed to relax guns laws, and that caters to a particular lobby that the Conservatives like to cater to and have done so since they took office in 2006. They have done a number of things over the years to make it less safe for Canadians.
Bill C-42 would make it easier to transport guns. Canada has specific and very strict rules about how to transport firearms. We do not want to become like the people in the U.S., where the transportation of guns is allowed openly and without any restrictions whatsoever, in most cases. This bill would allow people much more freedom to transport their firearms without having to first know where they are going. The police will have very little way of knowing what is going on when people are transporting their guns.
In addition, and perhaps more tellingly, it would give the cabinet and the minister the power to change the definition of what is and what is not a restricted weapon. I think this in knee-jerk reaction to a decision that was taken by others than the Conservatives that they did not like. Bill C-42 would give the cabinet authority to override firearms classification definitions in section 84 of the code by the way of regulations carving out exceptions. By regulation, cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise by captured by the definitions of prohibited and restricted firearms to be non-restricted firearms. Similarly, cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise be prohibited firearms to be restricted firearms. It would basically transfer authority over definitions and classifications to cabinet, rather than putting the emphasis on public safety.
As we all too poignantly recall from the disaster at École Polytechnique, the classification system in our country allows very dangerous weapons to be in the hands of ordinary citizens and when those ordinary citizens are not stable, disaster can result. It would also limit provincial powers to attach conditions of licence. Why are we touching provincial jurisdiction? The government claims to want to leave everything to the provinces to decide, but as much as it can, it will get out of housing or public transit and just give money to the provinces and tell them to do whatever they want. Yet here, it would actually remove the right of the provinces to attach conditions of licence, which is not a good thing. It is not more safe.
Finally, it would grant a grace period to persons whose licences expire. Every year I get a notice from the Ontario provincial government that says my car licence is going to expire and I had better renew it. Every five years I get a notice from the provincial government saying that my driver's licence is going to expire and I had better renew it.
If the same thing were to happen with firearms licences, there would be no excuses. Is this because the government does not want to bother finding people? Is it because the Conservatives do not want to bother reminding people, because it is something that, maybe, needs a bit of a reminder. To actually grant an exemption or a grace period is dangerous, according to some witnesses.
We in the NDP put public safety first. That is very clear in all of our positions and our comments on the various budget decisions that the government has made and in all of our positions on issues like food safety. The Conservatives were in power when the listeriosis outbreak took place. Public safety was put at risk to the point where people lost their lives. This is something that we should not and cannot accept. To cut the budget of the department that is responsible for keeping people safe, such as the food safety department, is an unconscionable act of neglecting the public safety that we on this side of the House are so determined to protect.
There was the E. coli outbreak. As far as we know, no one died. People did get sick, and our reputation with the U.S. was seriously harmed. At the same time, it was the budget cuts to the health and safety of Canadians and to the safety of the system that caused public safety to be put at risk.
Rail safety is another point where the Conservative government has actually lowered the safety standards to the point where 47people in Lac-Mégantic lost their lives in July, 2013, and the centre of an entire town was decimated. The government said that it had better fix things, but since that time, there have been several other major train derailments that have taken place in other parts of the country. Only by good fortune and luck did the government escape yet another massive disaster. What do we know about the reaction of the government? We know there is one new inspector out of the hundreds of inspectors. There is no determination by the government to make our rail system safer.
In keeping with the notion of gun safety, we have learned that the RCMP is sometimes ill-equipped with its own firearms to go up against the firearms that are available to other Canadians. Some of them lost their lives as a result, and that is shameful. We know the government has cut the budget for the RCMP to the point where it has to abandon good programs in order to focus on the programs that the government says are the priority. We cannot keep juggling without running the risk of leaving some people unprotected, and that is exactly what happens.
In my riding of York South—Weston, none of what is going on in Bill C-42 would actually make anybody any safer. In fact, the problem in my riding is the preponderance of handguns, particularly among young people. When I go to a grade 10 class and ask the students how many of them own an illegal handgun or know someone who owns an illegal handgun, half of the hands go up. That is absolutely astounding, and it has been not just once, not just twice, but on several occasions that I get the same result. It means that among the residents of my riding, there are illegal handguns in the hands of young people.
This is happening because the government has cut the CBSA. It has reduced the number of inspections that go on at the border. As we discovered this week, CBSA officers do not even have access to proper information to stop criminals from re-entering Canada and stop people who have no business coming into Canada from entering.
The NDP believes that public safety is one of the most important things a federal government should be in charge of and should ensure. For the Conservative federal government to abandon public safety at every turn is absolutely wrong, and we will not stand for it. This bill would do nothing to make people safer. It would make them less safe. As a result, we will be opposing this bill.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my colleague across the way had to say. It was very light on the facts. In fact, most of what he said was factually incorrect. 
He said that we are relaxing the rules. We are not relaxing any of the rules. Public safety is not being compromised. He said that it will be easier to transport. That is totally false. The rules we have in place today will still be in place after the bill is passed. He said that the police will not know where someone is going. They today do not check the authorization to transport. They do not get that information, so that will not change. 
He may not realize that in some provinces, like British Columbia, one's authorization to transport is good for three years, the same as what we are implementing now. It will become part of a licence. That is not changing. However, there is a huge discrepancy across the provinces as to how this is implemented.
He said that firearms owners will get a notice that their firearms licence has expired. Today over half of firearms owners do not get that notice. That is a very serious thing. Therefore, in the six-month grace period, if they go to buy ammo, they will realize that their licence has expired, because they will not be able to buy ammunition or go hunting.
So much of what the member said is completely misleading. He does not know what he is talking about.
Eligibility is reviewed daily. One does not need to renew one's licence. Whether one should have a gun is reviewed every night. 
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, let me read from one of the witnesses. This is from the president of the Coalition for Gun Control. She said:
 We believe that relaxing the controls over the authorizations to transport will increase the risk that these firearms will be misused. If you can transport your firearm to any gun club in the province, it means you can be virtually anywhere with it. 
I did not say that people got a notice that their licence had expired. I said that perhaps they should get a notice that their licence has expired in such a way that they would know in advance of an expiry, and we would not be talking here about some kind of weird six-month grace period to allow people time to do whatever it is they have to do. No other licence we have has any kind of grace period, and to impose one for gun control is making things less safe.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, what I find fascinating about the debate so far, and which the member for York South—Weston has highlighted once again, is this sort of cultural divide. 
We can stand here and say we get it. Rural Canada, parts of our nation where hunting is a way of sustaining life, not just a question of privilege, is a different culture. 
However, there is an urban reality to the debate that is constantly being ignored. Making it easier to transport guns in urban settings is dangerous in the same way that riding a bicycle on a highway is easier in a rural community than it is in an urban community. In North York, one does not ride a bicycle on the highway. In South River, one can. There is a difference. It is like snowmobiling. One does not snowmobile down downtown Toronto streets, no matter how much snow there is. One might do it in a rural community. 
We get it. 
Could the member explain why relaxing gun controls in urban centres and making it easier to transport weapons in urban centres scares people in urban centres, because of the danger guns present to communities there?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member for Trinity—Spadina's question, because it strikes at the heart of what is going on here. 
We have a system of gun control and gun legislation that has been designed around some complaints that came from rural parts of Canada. However, in my riding of York South—Weston and in many urban centres, this kind of change to the gun legislation will only make things less safe. There is nothing in the bill that in an urban centre will make things more safe. It will make it less safe.
 We already have enough illegal weapons on the ground in the city of Toronto that we cannot seem to control, because we cannot stop them at the border. To make the transportation of legally owned weapons easier in the city of Toronto is something people are afraid of. 
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act, which is in fact what it is.
This is a bill that is very important to my constituents and to the law-abiding firearms community across Canada. It is also a bill that is very important to me personally.
As members know, I will not be running again in the next election. As members also know, changes to our firearms laws to make them safe and sensible has been something I have worked on very hard during the time I have been in this place. I introduced almost half a dozen private member's bills to reduce needless red tape that had been heaped upon law-abiding gun owners over the years. I am pleased that many of the measures I have advocated for over the years have made their way into legislation introduced by ministers in our Conservative government. 
Canadians are interested in the facts of what this common sense firearms licencing act will do and will not do.
This important point is something the NDP and Liberals seem to forget. This bill will make participation in the classroom component of the firearms safety training course mandatory, for the first time, for firearms owners. It will ensure that all those who join the rapidly growing ranks of the 2.2 million licensed firearms owners will have a common understanding of how to safely operate firearms. 
What the bill will not do is allow “duck hunting with a machine gun capable of bringing down a MiG”. This is the shocking misinformation suggested by the NDP member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. 
What the bill will do is end needless paperwork for the authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms. This paperwork was not shared with law enforcement, or anyone for that matter. It was simply filed away in a drawer, never to be thought about again.
What the bill will not do, as the Liberal leader suggested, is “allow handguns and assault weapons to be freely transported in a trunk anywhere within a province, even left parked outside a Canadian Tire or a local hockey arena”. Members do not need to believe me. The non-partisan assistant deputy minister of Public Safety was asked about these comments and whether they were accurate. Her answer was simple and straightforward. She said, “no”. 
I think the Liberal leader is cynically trying to scare Canadians, or he simply has no understanding of how firearms laws work in Canada. Either way, it is just another example that he is just not up to the job of leading. 
The common sense firearms licensing act will also establish a six-month grace period for firearms owners so that they do not become criminals overnight when their licence expires. I was listening to the debate previously, and it was said that we get a notice for every other licence. However, we do not become criminals if we neglect to renew our driver's licence. It is very different with a firearms licence.
The NDP member for Newton—North Delta said: 
 For a gun owner it would still be perfectly okay for six months after one's licence expires. That would be legalized in this legislation. When my driver's licence expires, it expires on that date and I have to get it renewed beforehand. 
While that is a correct statement, what she forgets is that if I forget to renew my driver's licence, I face about a $200 fine. If I forget to renew my firearms licence, I face many years in prison. It simply does not make sense. We need common sense, and that is what this bill is all about.
This bill will also merge the possession-only licence and the possession-and-acquisition licence. This technical-sounding change can be broken down very simply.
 Approximately 600,000 experienced firearms owners did not want to comply with the Liberal firearms regime back in 1995. They did not want to jump through hoops, as they had owned guns for some time. Therefore, this category was created, but they were not allowed to buy new firearms.
 This group averages about 60 years of age. They have all had their firearms in excess of 20 years. They are well trained in how to safely use firearms. Therefore, this change will be good for the economy, as this large group of people will be able to purchase firearms.
Let us listen to what Pierre Latraverse, of the Quebec hunters and anglers federation, had to say about this measure. He said:
 It's a very positive measure, given that there will only be a single licence under these conditions. This is much more representative of what owning a firearm is like. Currently, there are two licences: a possession licence and a possession and acquisition licence. If you only have a possession licence, you cannot purchase firearms. You have to go through the system to buy a possession and acquisition licence. With the merger, a hunter won't have to go through the whole administrative process again to purchase another firearm. 
The common sense firearms licensing act will also restrict the ability of chief firearms officers to make arbitrary decisions. Currently, section 58 of the Firearms Act gives authority to unelected bureaucrats that I do not believe exists anywhere else in law. Let me read this section. It says:
 A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person. 
Tony Bernardo, the executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, rightly describe this section as creating “God powers” for the CFO. We will return elected officials to their rightful place as the overseers of bureaucrats.
I have talked a lot about measures that will reduce red tape. I would also like to talk about a measure that I find very important in the common sense firearms licencing act. That is the strengthening of firearms prohibition orders for those who have been convicted of domestic violence offences.
We believe that past behaviour is a good indicator of future results. Clearly, someone who has a serious conviction for domestic violence is volatile. We do not believe that firearms ought to be present in those types of situations.
The last measure in the bill I would like to touch on is the ability of elected officials to overturn decisions of the Canadian firearms program regarding classification. We all recall the decision of the Canadian firearms programs to attempt to ban two firearms that had been sold in Canada for well over a decade. In fact, by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen, thousands of Canadians were turned into criminals overnight, probably without their knowledge. This was without consulting the Minister of Public Safety or his staff, without consulting the public safety committee, and without consulting anyone. 
It is clear that this is unacceptable. That is why we are creating this measure. It is why, as soon the bill receives royal assent, we will move to restore the classification of the Swiss Arms family of rifles and the CZ858 to its previous non-restricted status.
As many of my colleagues have said through the course of this debate, it is about culture. There are 2.2 million Canadians who are licensed firearms owners, many in Toronto, despite what some people here think, and an estimated four million Canadians, partake in hunting, fishing, trapping, or sport shooting. I will repeat that: four million Canadians participate in these things. 
Why is that? It is because these activities are part of our shared Canadian heritage.
Jeff Watson:  That is absolutely right
Garry Breitkreuz:  However, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the members opposite fail to understand that, as I have pointed out today in a few of their quotations. 
However, it gets worse. Despite the objection, it is clear that both the NDP and the Liberals will bring back the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry should they ever get the chance.
The NDP leader said on December 3 of this past year:
 I think that it is possible to provide the police with the tools to better protect the public and themselves by making sure they're able to follow every gun.... 
 I have nothing against seeing honest farmers and duck hunters be able to have their weapons. But, you know, that honest hunter who goes out with his pickup truck, it's a registered pickup truck...the trailer's registered and the 4X4 is registered. Heck, his dog is registered. 
 [New Democrats] have confidence in the ability of farmers and duck hunters to fill out a form. 
The Liberal leader has said he voted to keep the firearms registry. He said, “If we had a vote tomorrow, I would vote once against to keep the long-gun registry”. 
It gets worse. The Liberal member for Trinity—Spadina said that he even drew a moral equivalency between hunters and jihadi terrorists. It would be unbelievable if it were not from the same party whose former justice minister said that he came to Ottawa firmly of the belief that only the police and military should have access to firearms.
The fact of the matter is that it is only our Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, who will stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners. 
Approval for the bill is widespread. Let us listen to the former police officer from Saskatchewan, Murray Grismer, who said:
 As a veteran police officer, master firearms instructor, and court-qualified expert, I am of the opinion changes to Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act, contrary to what others would have you believe, do not constitute a threat to public safety, nor do they inhibit a police officer from executing his or her duties. In fact, they enhance public safety and through the simplification of the licensing regime and ATTs greatly assist police officers in the execution of their duties, all done by the application of a little common sense. 
Let us listen to Professor Gary Mauser, from Simon Fraser University, in British Columbia, who said: 
 I do not think that any of the changes in Bill C-42 would increase the danger to women or children through guns. At the present time, only 2% of accused murderers have any kind of firearms licence. That's a PAL, POL or the old FAC. So this is a very small group of people and nothing would change. ...gun ownership is subject to intense scrutiny to achieve a licence, and secondly, nightly to make sure that there are no restraining orders or any kind of offences committed overnight. Nothing in this bill would reduce that. 
Greg Illerbrun, from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, said: 
 ...I understand that there are serious disconnects between the legitimate firearms users and those for whom the very mention of the word “gun” strikes unwarranted fear into their hearts. Sadly, this is the reality, which is continuously fuelled by a politically motivated and sensationalist media agenda. 
 Today's measures do represent common-sense improvement, and for that I thank you. Legitimate firearms owners are ready to get to work. We will help you foster the discussion and assist in creating a common-sense act that stops criminalizing the traditional lifestyle of legitimate firearms users in Canada. 
Even the editorial board from the National Post was onside. It said:
 ...the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act...is good news for responsible gun owners and good news, as the name suggests, for common sense. 
 [It shows that] it is possible to streamline the process of legally acquiring a firearm without reducing the already stringent controls on their ownership, and we welcome its...passage. 
This is clearly a bill that is supported by a wide cross-section of Canadian society, and what is more important, it is good sound policy that will make Canadians safer, without needless red tape. It will make sure that the criminal justice system focuses on bad guys, not on ordinary folks who forget to fill out a form. 
 I could go on for much longer on this issue that is very close to my heart, but I see that my time is about to expire. I would like to leave members with one parting thought. At the core of the bill is Canada's outdoors culture. I am the outgoing chair of the all-party parliamentary outdoor caucus, and I am also a member of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, the only party that has such a body.
 Some members of the Liberals and NDP took debate on the bill as an opportunity to engage in a drive-by smear of outdoor enthusiasts, by saying that those who want to obey clear rules are part of “an American-style gun lobby”, as if we should hang our heads in shame at such a moniker. This is patently ridiculous, and it is offensive to the millions of Canadians who engage in hunting and sport shooting. 
I want to quote Greg Farrant, from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. He said at committee:
 Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians, many of whom...live in and represent urban ridings. They are not criminals. They are not gang members. Rather, they are lawful firearms owners who obey the law. 
The laws as they are currently drafted discourage ownership of firearms and seek to bring about the end of hunting and sport shooting in Canada. We will never stand by and let this happen. Conservatives will always fight for respect for those who enjoy outdoor heritage activities. When the vote comes at third reading on the common sense firearms licensing act, I can assure everyone in this House that the firearms community will be watching, and they will take that into consideration during the events coming up this fall.
I look forward to answering any questions.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made some absolutely ridiculous claims in his speech.
We know that there are a number of very important stakeholders that the government did not consult. The government is also disregarding the concerns that police services have about how difficult it will be to enforce the prohibition on the unauthorized transportation of firearms.
What groups did the government consult? Did it consult police services across Canada, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association before the announcement? Did it consult the provinces and territories?
[Interjection]
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question for the opportunity it gives me to clarify some of the misinformation out there. 
We did consult far and wide. In fact, at committee, police organizations were invited to attend. When the member says that it is the unauthorized carry that concerns them, an ATT, as we have it in this legislation, does not allow people to carry a gun in an unauthorized manner. That is a completely false statement. The member is misleading the public.
The ATT, authorization to transport, that would become part of the licence, would not change any of the rules as far as gun owners being able to transport their guns. People would still have to have them locked up, doubly. Most people do not realize that they have to have trigger locks and the guns have to be in a locked case. To be sure, very often gun owners will also lock them in their trunk. Things would not change because of this common sense firearms licensing act.
I wish the member would withdraw the statement that she made. We consulted far and wide. There is nothing here that would compromise public safety.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, the member attributed comments to me that I have no recollection of ever having made about terrorism and gun owners, which I find odd. If he would care to table the comments with me, I would love to review them. However, I think his aim is a little off, and he may want to go back to the gun range and practise a bit. One thing that is clear is that extremists in the Conservative Party are radicalizing some of the older members.
The situation on what has changed in the ATT is that people would no longer have to go directly from their house to the gun range. They would now be allowed to make several stops in between. The concern that the police and people in urban areas have is that stopping in between, especially when leaving a gun range, is an opportunity for someone to break into the car and steal guns. That is a problem that has been persistent in Toronto.
 Will the member acknowledge that this is a change? If that is a change, will he explain why it is good for urban areas to present that possibility of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people?
[Interjection]
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's humour, but what he says is not funny. Nothing has changed. I do not know how many times I have to say this: the ATT that is part of the licence would not change any of the rules as far as transportation is concerned. It would change nothing.
The member should quit presenting false information.
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague who made the prior speech.
I have indeed taken his boots and put them on as co-chair of the outdoors caucus, and I hope to do it justice, as the member has over all of these years. It is going to be hard to do, but that is the challenge.
We have heard statements from different parties across the way today about how they are not going to re-enact the long gun registry. The evidence is clear. One party created the registry, and the other party is fighting to keep the registry. Our party got rid of the registry and is working to get every bit of that data destroyed.
Could the member highlight which party has hunters and anglers in their corner and is fighting for their concerns in Canada?
[Interjection]
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Prince George—Peace River for taking on the co-chairmanship of the outdoors caucus. Members from all parties are a part of it, including the Green Party.
 His job there will highlight the traditional heritage activities that we need to protect in Canada. There are people who are trying to destroy our heritage activities, and we need to defend them. I wish the member the best as he co-chairs the caucus. I am sure he will do a good job.
Who are we representing? It is probably between four and five million people who are looking to us for leadership on the file we have been debating today. That is a sizeable part of the Canadian mosiac. It indicates how many people are interested in our heritage outdoors activities. As an example, there are more people who fish than play hockey and golf together in Canada. It is these activities that we need to ensure are properly protected.
Hunting is enjoyed by many people, and we need to get more young people involved. The more that young people are involved in these outdoor heritage activities, the less involved they are in unhealthy activities. We need to promote these things. Young people can enjoy hunting, shooting, fishing and all of these outdoor activities.
I thank the member for this question. I think it strikes at the heart of why the Conservative Party represents a part of the population in Canada that the other parties would like to dismiss, and in fact fight against.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute the member for his involvement with the sport shooting community. I have sport shooters in my family, and we know that the safe use of firearms is possible.
However, the member's speech did not do justice to the issue, with the semi-paranoid discourse he undertook. I would like to talk about real problems that other members have mentioned, such as cuts to the CBSA that have hampered our ability to counter the predominant threat to Canadians, which is organized crime.
The member talked about the bad guys. The integrated border enforcement teams, in the 2010 report on threat assessment, said that the threat from non-urban regions of the border is low. However, with increased enforcement in urban regions, the border points in rural regions, places like Sault Ste. Marie could have smuggling moved there. Firearms smuggling could move to these regions. The ATTs have been changed, in this case with border points.
 Could the member tell us how the Conservative government is going to address this problem of criminal activity by organized crime moving to rural border points for gun smuggling? What is the government going to do to counter this threat?
[Interjection]
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the question has nothing to do with the common sense firearms licensing act.
However, let me say this, and I will tie it together with what we are debating today. We need to stop wasting resources on needless paperwork, which was one of the tragedies with the long gun registry. It was $2 billion going down a big black hole, and it did not accomplish anything.
We could instead use those resources to target the problems that we do have. Smuggling is a problem, and that is something that I agree with the member we need to take a look at. In fact, our government is doing just that.
When we have scarce taxpayer dollars, we have to ensure that we use them in the right way. Needless paper-pushing, which was what the old ATTs were, did absolutely nothing. It did not even inform the police of who had a firearms licence or who was transporting firearms.
I appreciate the question from the member because I think it ties in with what we are trying to accomplish here in government.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. 
Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Deputy Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 On division.
The Deputy Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Business of the HousePeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, as you know, I attempted to get unanimous consent for a motion and unfortunately did not succeed. I am going to try one more time, and I am more optimistic this time, there having been further consultations among the parties, that we will have such consent.
I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the Order for consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 23 be deemed read, the motion to concur deemed moved and seconded, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Monday, June 1, 2015, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders. 

The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-643, An Act to establish National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. 
Manon Perreault:  moved that the bill be concurred in. 
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
 When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to present my bill entitled An Act to establish National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day. I am very pleased that it has reached this stage and that it was all done so cordially.
This bill made it through all of the previous stages and has progressed nicely to this point. That is the result of everyone working together, and I sincerely hope that this will be a turning point in the lives of people living with a spinal cord injury.
I must also mention our partners who have supported us throughout this process and who were all involved in some way in the development of this bill. I am thinking about the Rick Hansen Institute, which provided us with data, Bobby White, the director of Spinal Cord Injury Canada, and Walter Zelaya, from MEMO-Que, who gave their full support without reservation.
With this bill, we want to designate the third Friday of September as national spinal cord injury awareness day. After a number of discussions, we concluded that this awareness day could be very useful to individuals, employers and stakeholders in various fields. It will certainly also have a very positive and significant impact on people living with spinal cord injuries.
I am quite certain that I will be able to show my esteemed colleagues that implementing this bill, which will not cost anything, can have a major and meaningful impact on people with spinal cord injuries. It will do so much to raise widespread awareness of their needs and abilities.
This bill would designate the third Friday of September as national spinal cord injury awareness day. Why that day? We took a number of factors into consideration, including two major ones: accidents that happen in the summer and accidents related to winter sports. The third Friday of September is also symbolic. There is an analogy here. When someone has just suffered a spinal cord injury, it is like autumn: they see dark days ahead. In the months after a spinal cord injury, patients have to cope with a kind of darkness that is comparable to a difficult and trying winter.
 This simple and effective bill that will cost nothing provides one more tool to those involved in helping people with spinal cord injuries, as well as to agencies that work on prevention and raising public awareness and recognize the harsh reality just outside the door of the rehabilitation centre. That is exactly when spinal cord injury patients first feel that those around them really are looking at them differently, that each and every outing will require considerable effort and that their new limitations mean that they have to dig to the very depths of themselves as they try to improve their lives each day and start living anywhere close to the way they did previously. They have to have the courage to forgo some activities or to summon the perseverance they need to adapt those activities to their new reality.
This bill has three components. Naturally, raising awareness among our fellow Canadians is the first objective. We want people with spinal cord injuries to feel more encouraged to take an active part in society without any prejudice towards them. If possible, they should be encouraged to develop a talent and, even better, to use it for the benefit of others. In my view, that is a fundamental part of human activity.
This day will allow people with spinal cord injuries to communicate with each other, gather information about the possibilities open to them, and listen to people with experiences to share.
It is also about recognizing the determination of those with spinal cord injuries to build a new life. One of the biggest accomplishments for anyone with a spinal cord injury is understanding that life is going to have its challenges and costs. The higher the injury is on the spinal cord, the more severe the physiological damage is and the faster the aging process seems to go. 
Even people whose work requires little physical effort run into problems in terms of getting around, transfers, personal care, housekeeping, ice, snow clearing and so on.
We also want to recognize the dedication of the people who help out on a daily basis. Thanks to them, the injured persons can resume a nearly normal life. This help goes a long way toward alleviating anxiety, problems of all kinds, and especially physical exhaustion. However, what is most important in my view is that these people gently force the injured to be disciplined and to tune out the little voice in their head that tells them in the morning that they do not have the desire, energy or need to get out of bed. Believe me, that little voice is tenacious and having someone to rely on during those times is truly a blessing. 
I want to acknowledge the perseverance of scientists who, through their research, are improving the lives of thousands of people with spinal cord injuries. In recent years, there have been significant advances in the neurosciences, which study everything to do with the nervous system, such as the mapping of the sensorimotor cortex.
At the trauma unit at the Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, you learn that the spinal cord is made up of nervous tissue and cells and that it looks like a cable the thickness of your little finger. It begins at the base of the brain and passes through each vertebra, ending between the first and second vertebrae. Basically, the spinal cord is the communication link between the brain and the body.
Adapting to a spinal cord injury is very difficult and takes a long time. It requires a great deal of personal effort by the injured person and the people around him or her. It turns a person's life upside down and is often accompanied by many negative emotions such as fear, anxiety and anger. It brings long hours of reflection interspersed with highs and lows. 
However, as with any situation, there are also positives. Those with new injuries are taken care of by an interdisciplinary team that quickly addresses the objectives identified by specialists based on the injuries.
For several years, the notion of inclusion has dominated the debate on the place of people with disabilities in our society. A so-called inclusive society adapts to individual differences and anticipates people's needs in order to give them the best possible chance of success in life. As a result, in order for a society to be truly inclusive, collective will and collective mobilization are needed, on the part of society and the economic and political communities. They need to change their way of thinking and the way they organize things in order to integrate people who are sometimes more fragile.
Every little action to improve the living conditions of people with disabilities requires a collective and political effort, and I think that we are making such an effort today.
 I also believe that as elected representatives, we must promote inclusiveness. We must position ourselves as open people who create bridges with our living environments. Of course, the inclusion of people with disabilities in society cannot be done without the support and knowledge of the medical, social and political sectors. 
Finally, I sometimes get the impression that we have incorporated the notion of inclusion into our speeches, but it is difficult for a person with a disability to be convinced that political authorities are truly committed to the notion of inclusion because so much remains to be done in terms of accessibility and home care.
It is important to understand that the bill to designate a national spinal cord injury awareness day is much more than symbolic. It has the potential to help save lives and reduce the number of spinal cord injuries that happen in Canada every year.
Let us not miss this opportunity to help everyone. As I often say, spinal cord injuries do not discriminate.
 As I went through the process that got me to the point of talking about this bill again today, I believe that I developed a better understanding of the real needs of people with spinal cord injuries. Let me explain. Naturally, people might think that I do not really understand them, but talking to other people can sometimes help us see other problems.
I gained a better understanding of what this special day on the calendar can contribute. This bill is representative of the political work we are all here to do because it helps us all better ourselves as a society in meaningful ways. 
Sometimes we get the feeling that we are not doing enough, but in this case, even though this bill seems like a modest initiative at first glance, it is an incredible tool that leads us to a new stage in our progress toward accepting people with disabilities in Canada.
 This step forward will lead to others and so on. The quality of life of all our fellow citizens, whether they are affected by spinal cord injuries or not, will certainly improve. 
Creating a national spinal cord injury awareness day will ultimately significantly help improve health care, promote treatment advances, technological innovations and research in medical science, and even contribute to the Canadian economy.
Raising hope is a winning strategy, and today, the first thing we must do is make sure that this bill continues to make its way through the legislative process. We also need to make social acceptance more universal and to raise awareness among employers of the unsuspected qualities of those with spinal cord injuries, thereby making our communities more effective, productive and just.
The practical nature of this reality and the idealism of these principles work well together in this much-needed bill. We have to promote acceptance within social networks and value inclusion because it is both compassionate and for the common good.
I should mention that governments are doing their part when it comes to research, but most of the funding comes from appeals to the public's generosity. Creating a national spinal cord injury awareness day will allow for new fundraising opportunities. It will not cost us anything to provide this opportunity to organizations that offer services to persons with disabilities, and the potential returns could be extremely beneficial.
To sum up, this bill will help raise public awareness and acceptance of spinal cord injury victims. It will maximize funding and research initiatives and stimulate volunteer support and personal involvement in general. It can help communicate and draw attention to specific issues, while bringing together people on similar paths. It will validate the help and support provided by loved ones, family members, colleagues, neighbours and specialists, as well as the exceptional contribution of researchers in this area of expertise. 
We are all equal before this terrible scourge and every bit of progress is a victory for all. My personal experience and that of the people I consulted, as well as the conversations I have taken part in, have convinced me that creating a national spinal cord injury awareness day is a productive, effective, economical and sensible way to do our part for Canadians with disabilities.
I often say that people living with a physical limitation who meet daily challenges have the same very strong abilities, qualities and character of people drawn to extreme sports. I am sure that my colleague across the way will agree with me. They have to have determination, courage, perseverance, and especially the will to improve their daily lives.
I think that we can do a better job of equipping these people to deal with what others would see as insurmountable obstacles. I recognize that it is often stressful and painful for the people around us, because they are not living it and do not truly understand. It is up to us to reassure them, if we want to maintain their friendship and respect, and to recognize that they may be an incredible, and even vital, source of support.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bill before the House and applaud the member for the effort she has no doubt put in to making this possible. I understand that September 18, the third Friday, would be our first national awareness day.
 Could the member provide some further comment on the importance of health care services for spinal cord injuries? Designating this day would provide an opportunity for those individuals to look at appealing to governments at different levels and different organizations. The member made reference to fundraising. There are all sorts of unlimited possibilities in recognizing this.
Could she provide some comment on the importance of research and health care dollars for this?
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to research I naturally think of the Rick Hansen Institute. The institute has done much to advance research on spinal cord injuries.
There is still a lot of work to be done, but nevertheless there have been some significant advances. I am not a doctor, but rehabilitation centres are currently working very hard to ensure that spinal cord injury victims are taken care of as quickly as possible after their accident. Over the years, they have come to realize that the earlier you can operate on these individuals, the greater the chance of their muscles responding to rehabilitation.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for bringing this bill forward. Could the member elaborate on how society could remove systemic barriers that historically prevent persons with disabilities or mobility challenges? What can society do to be inclusive for all Canadians of every ability?
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, when someone asks me what we could do to make our society more inclusive, two things quickly come to mind: accessibility and transportation. I would like to focus on transportation, because right now, that is really the biggest problem for people in wheelchairs who need to get to work. Often these people do not have access to transportation. For example, if I take the Montcalm commuter train, not all of the exits are wheelchair accessible. Some exits are, but not all of them. Nevertheless, this infrastructure was just built in the past few years. There is therefore an enormous amount of work to be done to make transportation and buildings accessible.
I would like to add that just because there is a sign saying that a building is wheelchair accessible, that does not make it true. One of the biggest problems we have is simply going to the washroom. Wheelchairs cannot always fit through the washroom door. The member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia is laughing, but I know he knows exactly what I am talking about.
I would like to invite all of my colleagues to come spend an entire day following us around in wheelchairs and to do push-ups every time we have to transfer in and out of our wheelchairs. They will see that it is very physically demanding.
With regard to both transportation and accessibility, there is still much to be done.
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for her leadership in the area of spinal cord injury and disability and for her contribution to Canada as a whole. Public service is difficult, and the member for Montcalm has distinguished herself.
I would like to pick up where the member left off on the washroom issue and the idea of encouraging everyone to spend a day in a wheelchair. We do that. My colleague from Edmonton has done that. 
I used to bring people together in the morning. They would come and gather in my office. They would get their wheelchair, and I would be sure to give them lots of coffee. At the end of the day, if anyone said that he or she had spent the entire day in the wheelchair, I knew for sure that the person was telling a white lie, because the washrooms are hard to find, and when one gets there, it is hard to know what to do if one is in a wheelchair. 
That is something that is really emblematic of what happens. Just having a flush entrance does not mean a facility is accessible.
With regard to spinal cord awareness week, the United Kingdom has a day and Australia has a week. Part of spinal cord awareness week is awareness. What happens to the body when people have a spinal cord injury is not well understood. It is because nobody wants to talk about what it actually means. It is very uncomfortable. I am going to use this opportunity to explain some of the uncomfortable realities of a spinal cord injury. 
Generally, there are quadriplegics and paraplegics. A paraplegic is one who has use of his or her arms. A quadriplegic is someone who is, like me, paralyzed from the neck down. 
What does paralyzed from the neck down mean? The obvious thing is that the person cannot move any muscles below the neck. However, it also means not feeling hunger, not feeling hot or cold, not having the sense of touch. It is a bit like being a turtle on a log. One moves toward the ambient temperature of the room or the environment in which one finds oneself. 
People who are quadriplegics cannot feed themselves. They cannot dress or undress themselves. They cannot shower. People at a high level, as in my case, need people 24 hours a day to help with the activities of daily living, including going to the washroom. Again, this is really icky, but it is a reality. There are a variety of things that people do, such as using indwelling catheters and other kinds of medical devices. It is the same situation on the bowel side. The individual with the injury needs help with all of that. That is really difficult.
Then we combine it with the need for proper care, which is always difficult to find and finance. Some people are fortunate to have insurance. In most cases the insurance is not nearly enough. That is something auto insurance companies and workers' comp need to look at because most spinal cord injuries occur come from a driving or work accident. 
Also, the issue of reproduction is compromised as well. It is a fundamental part of being human. We are physical creatures. The change in the lifestyle that the member for Montcalm describes is almost a metamorphosis into a different kind of existence. I have to live in my mind and I am very glad that I live in Canada where someone like the member for Montcalm, or myself or many others can be a quadriplegic or paraplegic and still contribute to society. 
However, there are many barriers and they include attitudinal issues. I am sure the member for Montcalm has had this happen to her. When I go to a restaurant, someone asks the person who I am with what I want to eat. The person responds “Why don't you ask the person in the wheelchair?” Then the person will sort of raise their voice and say “What would you like to eat?” It is like there is some sort of cognitive or hearing impairment associated with the wheelchair. 
These are well intentioned people, but too many people do not have the awareness. I admit that I was one of those people before my accident in 1996.
Another thing is accommodation in the workplace. In the House of Commons, I would like to thank all my colleagues for allowing a stranger in the House, my caregiver who sits with me. Here, in committees and in cabinet, no one raises an eyebrow. 
There have also been efforts to adjust the seating to accommodate wheelchairs. I remember when I got here, they put me over on the opposition side because we were in opposition. Claude, the architect, described all the things he had to do to accommodate me. I told him all of that was temporary, and he kind of looked at me. I told him that in a few months I would be on the government side of the House. He laughed. Then I looked him in the eye and said “Then I'm going to run for Speaker”. If we want to see an architect melt down, that is one way to do it. 
I give those examples as if those most sensitive committees at the highest level in Canadian society can accommodate a quadriplegic who cannot even move a finger, there is no reason workplaces, educational institutions or any other part of society cannot accommodate people with a disabilities. They may not be able to answer or solve a problem the same way most people can, but they will get there. Technology is a great equalizer. 
Since I am not competing to play football or anything, I focus on my strengths. When I ran the first time, people said interesting things. First was that I did not sound disabled. That was a classic. I was asked why would anyone vote for me, given I was really a nobody and in this physical situation. This was on the radio too. My response to that was “I would rather be paralyzed from the neck down than from the neck up“.
 The point is that we need to evaluate people on the content of their character and their ability to contribute, and we need to be creative in how that contribution is made. We also have to ensure that we have the supports in home care, transportation, and the education system. We need to empower people so that they can make the best decisions for themselves, so we need to remove the systemic barriers that exist. 
What we need for spinal cord injury applies to senior citizens. Members may be interested to know that. It applies as well to people with temporary or episodic disabilities. It goes on and on.
The last comment I would like to make is that Dr. Fehlings at Toronto Western Research Institute is a medical hero in Canada. Just last week in the media he announced that research had allowed paraplegics to gain more sensation through his work and that of his team with respect to the central nervous system. That is a game changer. 
The government has invested in this, and I know all of the parties support that kind of investment. Would it not be wonderful if someday spinal cord or brain injuries were something for the history books and that we would all be able to live long and prosperous lives? 
We live in the best country in the world. It is the best time in human history to be alive. God bless Canada.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in my place, and I say that because my two colleagues who preceded me could not rise in their place. They are the bravest human beings in this room. I want to thank both of them for all their courage, efforts and wonderful heartfelt speeches. 
I certainly cannot add anything to what was said by those two incredible individuals. Both of them are living proof that we can adapt our society no matter what the need to accommodate those individuals who need accommodation in the workplace, society and ordinary daily living, and on transportation, as the member for Montcalm has said,
 On the spinal cord awareness day, I tried to be in a wheelchair for a full day, and it was not easy. Bathrooms were difficult to manoeuver, but I did stick to it. Eventually I had to give up waiting for a bus because the folks running the buses said that they did not have enough buses and that were unable to transport me in time to make it back for a vote. However, I did get back into the chair after that occurrence.
My brother has multiple sclerosis, and while it is not a spinal cord injury, he is well on his way to being full-time in a wheelchair. He is not there yet, but I watch him and realize that, in his case, it is not a sudden and traumatic injury but a long, gradual, painful transition to where the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia and the member for Montcalm are now. 
It is sad and hard to watch, but it makes me all the more determined, as the critic for persons with disabilities, to create a Canada in which everything we can possibly do is done, not just to raise awareness and to do research but to actually make it possible for everyone to live as though they were no different than anyone else. 
I am thankful for this opportunity. I want to again thank my colleagues for their incredible speeches. 
God Bless Canada. God bless them.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add a few thoughts on this issue and thank the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia for a very passionate speech and the member for Montcalm for her tenacity. It does take a great deal of tenacity in order to not only generate the idea and put it on a piece of paper but also to get it through the House. It depends upon a bit on luck too, I must say. She was in a great position to do something of some substance, and we are debating this issue today because of her efforts.
However, let me get back to my friend from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, who I think articulated exceptionally well why we as a society need to get a better understanding of the impact of some of the things that happen virtually every day in our community or in our vast country, and their consequences. He speaks with obvious first-hand experience. 
I have known of the member for many years, probably more years than he has likely known of me, and I am in admiration of the member's desire to have change and the recognition that is necessary, not only on this particular issue but on other issues as well, whether at the University of Manitoba or on the streets in Winnipeg. 
I applaud the fact that he took the time to share some of those personal stories, because we do take things for granted, whether it is changing or eating or some of those normal daily functions. It is hard for individuals to have empathy unless they have experienced these situations first-hand, as the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia has.
It is very enlightening for all of us, and the viewers, to listen to what the member was sharing with not only members of this chamber but with those who were tuned in through CPAC.
Recognizing a national spinal cord injury awareness day is important. It is important for the very reasons we just witnessed—that is, it would enlighten and bring awareness to a wide variety of Canadians.
I would like to share some thoughts with respect to just how wide a variety it really can be. Both speakers, the introducer and the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia in particular, talked about some of the issues they have to face. Government spends literally hundreds of millions of dollars annually dealing with this issue in our health care system through hospitals or other types of institutions, but what we really need to focus on is ensuring a sense of independent living. This is something both speakers referred to, whether directly or indirectly.
There are very tangible things that government can do. The single largest landlord is, in fact, the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the different provincial governments. We build non-profit housing or low-income housing or provide life-lease housing. We promote housing co-ops and all sorts of government-initiated programs to revitalize communities, which includes the revitalization of housing units. All of these, I would suggest, should always take into consideration the issue of disabilities. Accessibility is an issue. It is a very serious issue.
I was intrigued when the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia described his office gathering, where he provided a lot of coffee for those individuals who were about to make the commitment to spend the day in a wheelchair, and his reference to the white lie. It is very much a valid story that provides a better understanding of that one very basic issue.
I have the privilege of having Parminder Buttar working in my constituency office. He is in a wheelchair and is very dependent on the rest of civil society, as people in wheelchairs are, in ensuring that we are sensitive to the needs and respect those needs, and where we can take action that we do so.
It means ensuring that washrooms are accessible. It is to ensure that when we look at purchasing or acquiring new city buses that we take that into consideration. It is to ensure that when it comes time to build another large housing complex, that disability is taken into consideration.
So much can be done, and it is not only at the federal level. What I like about the motion before us today, is that it is Ottawa recognizing the importance of the issue and designating a day in the year. This year will be the first year we recognize it, with the understanding that the bill will get royal assent. September 18 will not only be a wonderful opportunity to educate people, but also to promote the many different positive attributes individuals, whether they are paraplegic or quadriplegic, have contributed to our society in every aspect.
In many ways it is special and is a different type of challenge. When the mover of the bill made reference to the super sports athletes, we will find that also applies to individuals in wheelchairs. They are exceptionally well motivated. Their contributions are immense and of equal nature in many different ways.
I have had the opportunity to speak on other days of action. With the passage of this legislation, members of Parliament will be afforded the opportunity to promote this going forward. The most obvious ways of promoting this are with our ten parceners or householders, or through other forms of communication that we might have with technology, the Internet and so forth. 
Other ways would be to look at our local schools, taking the time where it is possible, to encourage education or awareness within a school atmosphere or to look at employers and encourage them to get more engaged in the day. I suspect there will be wide and a fairly general appreciation of the true value of having a day of this nature designated.
 If we were to look at the number of days of recognition that have been passed through the House, this would be ranked as one of those issues that really and truly merits a much wider appreciation not only in Ottawa but also at the different levels of government.
I do not know, for example, if my provincial government of Manitoba has acknowledged the importance of this day. If it has not, hopefully one of the MLAs in the Manitoba legislature will do so. Even local municipalities and city councillors can get engaged on this issue. We can do much more and I encourage people to do what they can, given what has been asked of us today.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I want to thank the mover of the motion for coming up with the idea and bringing it forward. I suspect that it will receive the unanimous support of the House as we try to deal with those important issues Canadians have to face day in and day out.
The issue of disability deserves a great deal more debate in the House of Commons, in the different legislatures, and by the public at large.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I will not take all of the time, but I did want to speak to this motion from the member for Montcalm and seconded by the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.
I cannot remember the exact year, but I was the seatmate of the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, and it was during that time that he wrote his book. We had a book unveiling in Ottawa. As a member of the caucus, and particularly because the member was my seatmate, it was incumbent upon me to get to know him much better. Now we have been caucus colleagues for at least a decade. The adversity that I realize the member has gone through, and the inspiration he provides, have carried on. There is no member of this caucus of which the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia is a member who has ever heard him utter a complaint. The member is constructive, and as everyone has witnessed today, he is quite hilarious.
I realize that I am restricting my comments to the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia rather than to the member for Montcalm. It is not for any reason other than that I know the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia much more intimately. There is no slight intended.
We are reminded every time we see the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia attending meetings, whether they are early or late, that whatever adversity or struggles we may be going through, they pale in comparison. This is part of the ongoing inspiration we all feel.
There was a time, after 13 years of serving in the opposition in this place, that I actually lost an election. It was the very year we formed government. On my way, as I departed from Ottawa by car, guess who called? It was the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia. He was thinking about me. I have never forgotten that.
We all have to recognize that these members who brought this motion forward are more than contributing members of Parliament. They are much more than full members, in a sense. I know from many discussions that the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia is actively engaged in the Treasury Board, for example. He is pursuing advanced education. He is a great student of Canadian history. There are many things all of us could learn about Canadian history from just having a short conversation with the member.
I believe that we have a strong responsibility to know our colleagues who face adversity. Today is one of those opportunities, but there is another opportunity, and it is called “every day”.
 What we witnessed today is consistent with the motion that has been put forward by the member for Montcalm and seconded by the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia. I congratulate them, and I know that this place will be happy to adopt this motion.
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, I often tell people that it is more difficult for them to approach us than it is for us to go and talk to them. I think that this national day will make more and more people aware of this issue.
When I came to this place in 2011 and I met people, they told me that they were surprised to see me in a wheelchair, and all I could do was nod. However, when I was campaigning, I did not hide it from anyone. It seems that people did not realize it until they met me.
I also realized that people often say that they think we are very nice. That makes me laugh, because everyone is nice. Being in a wheelchair does not stop you from being nice.
Last week I received an invitation from Mr. Demers to take a horse out on a racetrack. I think everyone here knows that I had a riding accident and that horseback riding was one of my great passions. A little earlier, we were talking about accessibility and changing how we look at things. That gentleman let me take his racehorse out on a track. That was such a wonderful thing for me.
When something like that happens, you have to take another look at everything you used to love doing so you can do it again. Excuse me, I am having a hard time because this is so emotional for me. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Demers from the bottom of my heart. He helped me understand that even though my accident happened in 1993, and even though I could no longer ride, I could find other ways to pursue my passion. I honestly never thought I would be able to do it. I am very proud of that. 
We have to salute those who are open-minded and are helping our society become more inclusive so that everyone has a place in it.
I often say that people with disabilities have their limitations, and that is true, but we all have our limitations, and in many cases, we impose them on ourselves. When we meet people who are ready to help us challenge those limitations, they almost become heroes to us.
My colleague may understand what I am saying. Regardless, I am very happy to see that all of my colleagues in the House have so readily supported my bill. I realize that there are many national days and that they are all important. However, I know that this national day will help give people a greater voice in society.
I will end my speech there, since I am a bit overwhelmed talking about all of this.
The Deputy Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 98 the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, June 3, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 2 p.m.)