2015-06-19

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc is rising on a point of personal privilege.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise in the House today for my last statement in this beautiful chamber, a place where I have had the good fortune of serving for 15 years.
At the outset, let me thank all of those within this House and outside the House for their tremendous good wishes over the last number of days.
I want to thank a number of people today. I want to thank the people of the ridings of Edmonton—Leduc and Edmonton Southwest, whom I have been privileged to represent over the last five terms. I thank them for their confidence and for their support for me.
I wish to thank the many volunteers and supporters who helped me during this period: the constituents who provided me constant feedback and guidance and the supporters who are like a family to me, many of whom supported me for the entire time. 
I would like to thank my present and past colleagues on both sides of this House for their passionate love of our country, their commitment to making it better and their kindness toward me. They are friends for life.
I would like to thank and express my sincere appreciation to the many wonderful people who have worked in my offices in Edmonton and Ottawa for their incredible service to our constituency and our country. 
I may get very emotional here. I want to thank Debbie Healy for 15 years of amazing service to me. Debbie and I are part of the same family now. I just love being part of her extended family and I thank her so much. I thank Kim Dohmann, who has served me for 15 years as well in such an extraordinary capacity. I thank Willii Burgess, who served me for 10 years and worked with me for another five years. I thank all of my current staff, Samantha Johnston, the communications whiz, Lene Jorgensen, Carmel Harris, Trevor Rogers, who have done such an outstanding job for all the constituents. They are so much part of my success. 
Two of my staff who were very colourful in my past are here today: the lovely and talented Michele Austin, and Bryan Rogers, about whom I will not tell any stories here because that would not be appropriate in this chamber, but I thank them so much for being here today.
I also want to thank my family and friends for their unconditional love, their support, the friendship they have given me in this fantastic journey through politics, particularly my heroes: my parents, Ron and Elaine Rajotte. I am more like my dad today than my mom. My mom is the strong one; my dad is the guy who cries at everything.
I believe more profoundly today than I did when I entered Parliament that Canada is the best country in the world, a place where we can fulfill our deepest hopes and aspirations and be a light and example for the world. 
I want to end by saying this. There are a lot of comments about political life and politicians that occur here today and a lot of cynicism. After 15 years of serving with people in this place, people who volunteer in politics, I have more faith in those people who are in politics, who volunteer in politics. It is a noble endeavour. It is making this country a better place. This is the best country in the world. We can continue to make it better. 
I thank all those in the chamber and outside of the chamber for their service. It has been a wonderful path for me. I genuinely appreciate it.
Thank you very much, and goodbye.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair thanks the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc, and I think I can speak on behalf of all members that he will be missed. He has made a positive contribution to this place.
Life Means Life Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, before I speak to Bill C-53, the life means life act, I first want to thank the member for Edmonton—Leduc not only for his service to our country and to his riding for the last 15 years, but also for his friendship.
 There is not a lot said about the relationships that are built here when we get elected. Those relationships are not just found among parties. There are relationships and friendships that are built over the period of time that we serve here on behalf of the people from our communities. The member has become one of my close friends, and I wish him all of the best in his future endeavours.
 I also thank him for his time and his commitment to his riding, his community, and his country. It was clear when we heard him speak a moment ago that he is very passionate. He remains as passionate as he was as a young man entering this chamber 15 years ago. He may be a little older now and he may have a little more grey hair, but he is certainly just as passionate about his community and the country that we represent.
Turning to the bill before us, I am here today to speak in support of Bill C-53, the life means life act. I believe that providing sentences of life imprisonment without parole for high treason and the most reprehensible forms of murder would ensure that the most dangerous murderers would never be free to endanger Canadians or their communities. Importantly, Bill C-53 would align Canada's criminal justice system with those of other parliamentary democracies, like England, Australia, and New Zealand. It would also provide for sentences of life without parole for the most vicious murderers.
 In this context, the English whole life murder sentencing regime was the object of considerable study and analysis during the development of Bill C-53. The measures proposed in the life means life act have been carefully crafted to reflect Canadian legal principles and the Canadian experience with murder sentencing, while at the same time seeking to avoid some of the pitfalls encountered by the English in implementing their sentencing regime.
Unlike in Canada where minimum parole ineligibility dates for first and second degree murder are mandatory and established by statute, in England the court assesses the seriousness of the murder and selects an appropriate parole ineligibility starting point. The normal parole ineligibility starting point is a presumptive 15 years, but more serious murders will lead to presumptive starting points of 25 years, 30 years, or even whole life. Once the starting point for calculating the parole ineligibility in any particular case has been determined, the court will then add or subtract from it after considering a list of aggravating or mitigating factors before arriving at a final minimum parole ineligibility period. At the expiry of that date, the convicted murderer may apply for parole.
Under this English scheme, if the seriousness of the murder is exceptionally high, the starting point will be a whole life order. A whole life order precludes the offender from ever applying for parole or being released from custody, except by order of the secretary of state on compassionate grounds, such as terminal illness.
 In England, there are four categories of murder for which the seriousness is exceptionally high. The first is multiple murder involving premeditation, abduction, or sexual or sadistic elements. The second is the murder of a child that involves abduction or sexual or sadistic elements. The third is murder to advance a political, religious, or ideological cause. The fourth is murder by any offender previously convicted of murder.
Under the English system, once the starting point and all of the aggravating and mitigating factors have been accounted for, a convicted murderer could end up with a final parole ineligibility date ranging from less than 15 years or all the way to the end of natural life in the form of a whole life order.
 If we compare the English scheme with what is proposed by Bill C-53, under Bill C-53, a sentence of life without parole would be mandatory for high treason and for the most morally repugnant murders, namely, premeditated murder committed against a police officer or correctional official, or committed during a sexual assault, kidnapping offence, or terrorist offence; or premeditated murder committed in such a brutal way as to indicate that the offender is unlikely to ever be restrained by normal standards of behaviour.
A discretionary sentence of life without parole would be available for all other first degree murders, whether premeditated or not, as well as for second degree murder where the murderer has previously either committed murder or committed an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
In deciding whether to impose a sentence of life without parole, courts would consider “the character of the accused, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission” and the recommendation by the jury.
These are the same criteria the courts now use to decide whether a second degree murderer will serve a parole ineligibility period longer than 10 years, and whether a multiple murderer will serve consecutive periods of parole ineligibility.
There are clear similarities between what is proposed in Bill C-53 and the English whole life regime. Each penalizes the following categories of murders: those involving premeditation, abduction and sexual offences; those that are premeditated and involve sadistic elements, which Bill C-53 deals with under the heading of brutal murders; those committed in the context of terrorist activity, which the English refer to as murder to advance a political, religious or ideological cause; and those where the killer has murdered before.
Despite these similarities, there are several key differences between the proposed life means life scheme and the English whole life order regime.
First, while the English scheme requires that anyone who commits premeditated murder involving abduction and sexually oriented offences must have murdered more than one victim in order to receive a whole life order, Bill C-53 does not impose such a restriction. Thus, anyone who commits the premeditated murder of a single victim in the course of a kidnapping, forcible confinement, abduction, or sexual assault would be subject to a life sentence of imprisonment without parole under Bill C-53.
Yet another way in which the proposals in Bill C-53 differ from the English whole life order scheme lies in the nature of the criteria for the discretionary imposition of life without parole.
The English scheme contains a detailed list of aggravating and mitigating factors, whereas Bill C-53 does not allow for mitigating factors that would reduce the parole ineligibility period below the mandatory minimums set out in our Criminal Code. Nor does Bill C-53 rely on a list of such factors that may have to be updated from time to time. Instead, reliance is placed on the broad and flexible language capturing all such factors that is reflected in the long-established criteria referred to earlier that focus on the offender's character, the nature and circumstances of the murder and any recommendation in this regard by the jury.
It is clear that Bill C-53 is not only necessary, but its time has come. When an individual commits the horrific crime of murder in the way that I have described in regard to Bill C-53, their sentence should be whole life. The sentence should not be set in a position where any attempt at parole would be accepted.
As we know, certainly from the perspective of a victim's family, having to attend a parole hearing is a kind of torture in a way by having to replay and revisit a most terrible time in their lives. This is not something that is acceptable. It is not something that this government has ever spoken about in the last 10 years in terms of being acceptable. That is why Bill C-53 is one that should be enacted. It should certainly be part of our legislative process when it comes to justice, and it should be a bill that both sides of this House supports. 
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his speech. 
Something about the government's attitude toward this subject really bothers me. They are acting as though mechanisms to ensure public safety were not already in place. Specifically, I would like to talk about the Parole Board of Canada. Its mandate gives it the power to refuse parole when public safety is at risk, and victims have opportunities to have their say.
My question for my colleague across the way is therefore a simple one. What tools would his bill create that the Parole Board of Canada does not already have? I do not see what this bill adds.
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I outlined that at the end of my speech. The fact is that there are such crimes and murders committed in this country by individuals who should not, for any reason, be allowed to sit at a table and request parole. Individuals should serve their sentences based on the murders they committed, and if that crime is so severe and significant that it requires life, then there should be no opportunity for parole.
I understand the member's question. The fact is that if a murder such as I have described that would be judged under Bill C-53 were to be committed, there is no reason the victim's family should ever have to face the perpetrator, the convicted murderer, at a parole board hearing on a regular basis and have to live through what would be indescribable and unacceptable.
If a person commits a crime as outlined in Bill C-53 and as I outlined today in my speech, there would be no opportunity for that individual to earn parole. There would be no opportunity for that person to ever deserve an opportunity to request parole.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no government in recent memory has wanted to have so much talk and political spin. Let me use this bill as an example. If the bill had been law eight years ago, who in Canadian society would not be here today? I would be interested in knowing that.
The issue I face at the door that constituents are concerned about is safety in their communities. What they are looking for, for example, are ways young people can avoid getting into gangs. The national government has a role to play in working with stakeholders to try to get fewer young people involved in gangs. Maybe my collegue could comment.
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the member's question moves away from the discussion we are having on Bill C-53.
The member was not here in 2006 when I was elected and we became government. One of the first pieces of work we put it in in public safety was the opportunity for community organizations to access funding to assist young people, whether they were in or out of school, who were travelling down a wayward road. Those young people had the ability to be funded directly by the federal government to enter programs that would assist them in achieving a positive life goal, whether that be a job or continuing their education in high school.
I beg to differ with the member in the strongest of ways. This government has not only insisted on ensuring, as in Bill C-53, that individuals pay a significant price for crimes such as this that they commit. It has also been our goal for the last 10 years to ensure that we assist in preventing crime and assist in educating young people and getting them to understand a positive way of life. We have done that.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières. 
 Today I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-53, which we will oppose. First though, since this is probably my last speech in the House for this 41st Parliament, I would like to thank all of the staff who have supported us over the past four years: House of Commons staff and the people working in my riding office and my parliamentary office, the interpreters, who do amazing work, the pages, and the people who work for my caucus. 
A special thanks goes to my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for placing their trust in me over the past four years. It was a tremendous privilege and an honour for me to meet them and talk to them about their concerns. I hope that they will support me again during the next Parliament.
 Today we are talking about Bill C-53, a justice bill that was introduced by the government in power. This bill represents yet another step backward. I will digress for a moment to talk about this government's record on justice over the past few years. 
First, let us talk about the issue of the missing and murdered aboriginal women. The current government is refusing to conduct an inquiry into this phenomenon, even though aboriginal groups across the country have been calling for such an inquiry. We know that an inquiry is necessary to put a stop to this terrible phenomenon in Canada. The NDP has already committed to conducting a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. That is a priority for us, and it is one of the first things that we are going to do if we take office.
The Conservative government also introduced Bill C-51, which undermines our fundamental freedoms and violates our right to privacy. I received a number of letters on this subject from my constituents, who spoke out against the approach the government took with Bill C-51.
The NDP took a stand based on conviction and principles. Of the three main parties in the House, we are the only one that opposed this bill, which seriously infringes on the freedom of Canadians.
We can say that the Conservatives have fallen short when it comes to street gangs, whether it be in Montreal or Surrey, British Columbia. I talked with my colleagues from British Columbia about how a big a problem street gangs are. This is a serious and urgent problem that the government continues to ignore.
Bill C-53 is broadly based on misinformation and electioneering. What is more, we know that the Conservatives used this bill to stir up fear in order to raise more funds for their party. Right after this bill was introduced, the Conservative member for Scarborough Centre sent a fundraising email on behalf of the Conservative Party. The subject line was “Murderers in your neighbourhood”. That is obviously a campaign to spread fear and then capitalize on that fear to generate more support for the Conservative Party. That is the desperate act of a tired and ineffective government that is jeopardizing Canadians' safety.
The Conservatives should tell Canadians the truth. In the current system, the most dangerous criminals who pose a threat to public safety never get out of prison.
That is the current reality. We in the NDP want to protect victims and create an approach that puts victims first. We also believe in evidence-based policy. Any reforms made to the sentencing regime should focus on improving public safety, not playing political games. That is what the Conservatives are doing right now.
Decisions regarding people being released from custody must be based on an assessment of the risk each individual poses to the community and to public safety. The Conservatives introduced this bill, which, in fact, gives the minister control over these decisions. The Conservatives want to politicize the release process. We believe that this is a step backward for Canada. 
The Attorney General has a duty to ensure that all of the bills put forward by the government are constitutional. As we know, since the Conservative Party has been in power, it has introduced a number of bills that could be considered unconstitutional. Once again, Bill C-53 will probably wind up being challenged in the courts. In other words, the Conservatives have introduced yet another problematic bill that is really much more about playing politics, instead of working to find solutions to the real problems.
Currently, if an offender gets parole, he will live the rest of his life under the conditions of his parole and the supervision of a CSC parole officer. Offenders who are sentenced to life never enjoy total freedom, since they have committed an offence resulting in a life sentence. Not all offenders who are given a life sentence get parole and some never will because of the high risk of recidivism they continue to present. We know that in the current system, there is legislation already in place to protect public safety and keep our neighbourhoods safe.
We know that the Conservatives are playing politics with this bill. The fact that they have been talking about this bill since 2013 further proves that point. They waited until just a few months before the election was called to introduce a real bill in the House. We know that this is an election bill. It has been criticized by eminent lawyers and experts because it is a complete botch-up.
In the past few days, we have had to discuss other bills that the Conservatives introduced in the House at the last minute. That is very undemocratic because we do not have enough time to debate these bills before the House rises at the end of the parliamentary session.
We also know that this same government invoked closure for the 100th time a few weeks ago in order to limit debate in the House. That move was strongly condemned by this side of the House, because Canadians want their MPs to do their homework, do their job and carefully study these bills. However, the Conservatives want to ram their platform down Canadians' throats without discussion and clear debate.
At present, it is the Parole Board of Canada, the PBC, an independent administrative tribunal free from political interference, that decides whether to grant or not grant parole. Taking this power away from independent experts and putting it in the hands of government is tantamount to turning back the clock 50 years. With this Conservative government we are going backwards.
The Parole Board of Canada was established in 1959, and Canadians rejected the politicization of the administration of justice a long time ago. 
Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that will take public safety seriously rather than using it for political purposes.
Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member opposite. She talked about missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, as well as street gangs, and then went on to say that this bill is based on misinformation and does not provide true solutions to real problems. I would argue that it is a real problem when victims in this country are not treated with the respect they deserve, and part of that respect includes receiving justice for those who have committed crimes against their loved ones.
My question is perhaps a more personal one for the member. I would like to know if she has heard any concerns from victims themselves, if people have told her it is fair that when criminals are given life sentences that they should indeed serve those life sentences. 
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.
When I go door to door in my riding, my constituents speak out about the cuts the Conservatives have made to the RCMP and border services, which are preventing officers from doing their jobs to protect us.
This Conservative government has done nothing but make cuts. It claims to stand up for victims, but we know that is not true. Furthermore, the comments by the member opposite do not reflect our public safety realities.
Last year, 99% of offenders released on day parole did not reoffend and 97% of offenders released on full parole did not reoffend either.
Instead of introducing a bill that could politicize the current situation, the Conservatives would be better off investing more in the public safety services that Canadians depend on.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on two of the member's points.
We see that in the dying days of Parliament this legislation is being brought in. The member made reference, and she is not the only one, to the fact that for all intents and purposes this legislation has more to do with the Conservative Party raising money than it does with the bill actually passing in the House of Commons. The bill is more about trying to give the impression that the government wants to get tough on crime than trying to prevent crimes from taking place. I would ask the member to reflect on that.
I was also intrigued by her comment about Canada's murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls and what a travesty it is that the government has failed to recognize the need for a public inquiry.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I completely agree.
I would like to share the opinion of many Canadian experts who have spoken out against this Conservative bill. One such expert is Allan Manson, a law professor at Queen's University. With respect to the current situation he said, and I quote:
 The most heinous cases do not get out so this is not an issue of whether the Clifford Olsens will be released. 
 With an election looming this fall, this is political opportunism of the crassest sort. This is surely the worst approach to public policy-making, and to criminal justice policy-making in particular. 
With respect to the changes in the bill he said, and I quote:
 This change will not achieve a single penological objective. 

Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since this is one of the last times I will rise in the House, I would like to thank the people of Pontiac for placing their trust in me. I humbly hope that they will do so again in the next election.
With respect to the question I would like to ask my colleague, it seems to me that this is not the first time public safety issues have been politicized. I would still like to know where to find the facts and the statistics that this bill is based on.
Did my hon. colleague find any?
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, there are no facts, and the Conservatives are fearmongering. They want to use this bill to win political points for their campaign over the summer. This bill is flawed and very problematic.
Not only does the current system protect Canadians from the possibility of the most dangerous criminals returning to our communities, but studies also show beyond a shadow of a doubt that extreme penalties are not deterrents.
We would sure like to know why the government introduced a bill that has no basis in fact.
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what a sensitive subject this is, and we are debating it in the context of a bill that was introduced at the very last minute. If there is one thing I find absolutely fascinating about my work here, which I feel very fortunate to do, thanks to the support and trust of the people of Trois-Rivières, it is the opportunity I have to learn so much about a whole range of subjects that are not necessarily in my area of expertise.
The subject we are dealing with this morning is a good example. I am not a lawyer or a criminal law expert, but in Ottawa, thank goodness, all members are lucky enough to have access to expertise, experience and relevant information. These things allow us not only to form an opinion, but also educate people who may be watching regarding the ins and outs of a bill like the one before us now.
If I were an ordinary citizen and a government said that its bill would enhance public safety, I imagine that I would probably start listening and I would likely believe that there must be some truth in there somewhere. Based entirely on facts, however, what we have before us is a bill that is designed purely to win votes and promote an ideology that is clearly the polar opposite of the NDP's ideology. The entire population, all Quebeckers and Canadians, will have to make their decision on October 19.
The Conservative government is proposing a vision of a society based on fear. I hope I will have time later to give some clear examples that directly relate to some election fundraising campaigns, for example, which have nothing to do with the substantive issue or the NDP's vision, which proposes developing a society based on public safety. 
The Conservatives just introduced Bill C-53, which—to remind those who may not have been following this debate from the beginning—will make life imprisonment without parole mandatory for the crimes of first degree murder and high treason. However, life imprisonment without eligibility for parole is widely regarded as unconstitutional.
To plug the holes in their bill, the Conservatives included a clause that gives offenders a chance for parole after 35 years in prison. Parole will not be granted on the merits of the case or after a thorough review by the Parole Board, but after an application is made to the minister, because the minister is some sort of expert on this. I do not want to make any assumptions about the next Minister of Public Safety, but the current minister does not inspire a lot of confidence in me when it comes to making these types of decisions and leaving partisanship out of it. 
Instead of spreading misinformation and electoral propaganda, the Conservatives should tell Canadians the truth. Under the current system, the most dangerous offenders who pose a risk to public safety never get out of prison. This bill is partisan to say the least, if not full-blown propaganda. The government's goal here is to give the impression that it is tough on crime, when it knows that these measures will have little to no real effect on the situation. 
What is the current state of the situation in this area? For the benefit of those watching us I will briefly describe our system as it pertains to people convicted of first degree murder. An offender convicted of first degree murder is not eligible for parole for 25 years. I want to emphasize that “eligible” does not mean he will get parole, but that he can apply for it. It is up to the Parole Board to grant parole or not. We will come back to the conditions.
Protecting society is the primary criterion on which the Parole Board bases its decision to grant parole. Even if the offender is granted parole, he will spend his whole life reporting to a Correctional Service Canada officer. In other words, the current system already includes mechanisms for making public safety the priority.
The Criminal Code already includes special provisions to ensure that dangerous offenders do not threaten our safety.
If they are deemed to pose a serious risk to society, these inmates can be sentenced to an indeterminate prison term. That seems to be quite clear and strict. Public safety is the goal for this side of the House. 
As we are on the eve of an election campaign, the Conservatives will use any means to fundraise and score political points, and there are still people who believe in that approach. I will just mention one example. On the day this bill was announced, the member for Scarborough Centre sent her constituents an email with the very moderate subject line: “Murderers in your neighbourhood?” That is their approach. Once again, the Conservatives' cynicism is in full view, and they are resorting to propaganda and fear-mongering. Instead, the NDP is focusing on safety.
Instead of engaging in blind partisanship, the government should instead listen to the findings of experts. I would like to elaborate on the expertise I mentioned earlier. A number of studies indicate that extreme sentences are not the solution to crime. That is backed up by statistics. After the death sentence was abolished, the murder rate dropped by 50%. That is rather curious. Here is what the Correctional Investigator of Canada had to say about that: 
 When you take all hope away from somebody, you don't give them any incentive to follow rules or to be at all productive and to contribute in any way. 
A criminal can be released on parole and reintegrate into society. As I already mentioned, our current system has several provisions that protect society from the actions of these dangerous criminals.
In this case, there is no confusion. Everyone in the House agrees that it is important to protect society.
How will this bill protect us any better than the existing provisions of the Criminal Code? That is an interesting question. Did the government introduce this bill to do a better job of that? That is a question that the government has completely failed to answer.
According to Allan Manson, a law professor at Queen's University, there is a good chance that this bill is unconstitutional. Why? First, many studies have shown the negative effects of long-term incarceration. Prisons are becoming more dangerous for the people who work there. Second, this bill lacks a penal objective. The bill may in fact violate the very principle of fundamental justice.
If the Conservatives start breaking the backbone of our justice system, then they are doing exactly the opposite of what other democracies are doing in their legislation. It is often a good idea to compare ourselves to other countries to see whether we are heading in the right direction. However, is seems that the Conservatives are once again going against the tide.
Bill C-53 shows that public safety is not the Conservatives' primary concern. They would rather raise money through fearmongering and cobble together bills that are not based on evidence. The NDP is strongly opposed to that way of doing things. We want all criminal measures to be based on facts. We will ensure that our criminal measures seek only to enhance public safety.
We are deeply committed to the independence of justice. That is why only the appropriate authorities should decide whether an individual is eligible for parole. On the contrary, as they do in almost all of their bills, the Conservatives are once again placing more and more power in the hands of ministers, when those ministers are not necessarily qualified to exercise those powers.
I will stop there because time is flying by. That is too bad because I still had a ton of things to say. I will likely have a chance to talk more about this as I answer my colleagues' questions.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a point that I had asked the Conservative member. That is in regard to the fact that here we have legislation that comes across as being really tough on crime, but in reality it is marginal at very best. It is well criticized. I believe that all opposition parties are in opposition to the legislation. 
We are in the dying days of the session. Yet, we have very serious issues in our communities in the different regions of the country. I, for example, talk a great deal about what sort of programming we should be doing, and what sort of leadership Ottawa could be playing in terms of coming up with ideas and programs that would get youth out of gangs and into our communities in a more positive way. This is where I believe the government has fallen short.
I wonder if the member might want to take a side step from the bill and provide some comment in terms of the whole idea of preventing crimes from happening in the first place.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I have to tell him that he seems to have inadvertently fallen for the trap.
 In the preamble to his question he mentioned that the Conservative government comes across as being really tough on crime, but they are not. They would love to have us believe that they are tough on crime and that they are stronger than all the other parties. However, it is Canada's own system that is strong, and the measures proposed in Bill C-53 contribute absolutely nothing to our existing public safety regime. 
The Conservatives have launched a branding campaign and are trying to make the public believe that they are tougher on crime than the other parties, when that is not the case. The truth is that they are more partisan on crime issues than the other parties. 
We will continue to protect public safety, as the existing measures already do. Bill C-53 adds nothing. Moreover, as members of Parliament from Quebec, I think we have made it quite clear that we must focus on real solutions such as prevention, support and rehabilitation measures in order to lower crime rates across the country and to ensure that our communities feel safe instead of afraid.
Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this bill reminds me of pharmaceutical companies that are randomly searching for new molecules, and as soon as they make a discovery they try to match it with a disease. It is nothing but improvisation. 
On the other side of the House, the Conservatives claim that hundreds of dangerous criminals will go out and murder people in their homes at night. This theory has absolutely no factual or scientific basis. Even if this theory had some kind of basis and if hundreds of criminals ended up in prison up to the age of 102, what does allowing these hypothetical hundreds of seniors to die in prison do for society? It makes no sense. It is designed solely to win votes, and that is its only merit.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his analogies, which always bring smiles to our faces or at least a bit of a smirk.
To pick up on his analogy about big drug companies, the big difference is that in their search for molecules, they sometimes find them, and while research aimed at finding a drug to treat one disease can fail, it can result in a drug to treat another disease. In the case before us today, for one thing, nothing is ever found, and for another, there is not much to fix because the parole system as a whole does not permit automatic parole for dangerous criminals after 25 years. That is all there is to it. Members of an organization not bound by politics judge whether applications can be approved, and their number one criterion is always public safety. Those people are not politicians. They are experts.
Parole is a conditional release. Offenders might not be granted parole, but if they are, it comes with conditions that they must fulfill for the rest of their lives.
As I said, the number one criterion is always public safety, not creating a climate of fear for the purpose of raising money.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to thank all of my colleagues in the House for this last four years and a bit. This has been a great session of Parliament. I know a number of people have made a decision not to come back, but I would also recognize some of those people who have made decision to come here, in spite of ill health, to serve the country and their constituents. It has been a real pleasure to be here with them.
I rise today to talk about our government's highest purpose. What should that purpose be of any government? It is the protection of Canadians, ensuring our streets and communities, and our country are safe for honest, law-abiding people as we live, work and raise our families. 
At all times, our government has endeavoured to ensure that our system of criminal justice reflects both this high purpose and the values and priorities of Canadians more broadly. For example, to give victims of crime a stronger voice we introduced and passed our Victims Bill of Rights Act. For too many years the welfare of the criminal was held up as a highest priority of criminal justice. This historic legislation, the Victims Bill of Rights, puts innocent victims back to where they should have been all along, at the very heart of our system of justice.
We have also changed laws regarding people deemed not criminally responsible for violent acts, ensuring that while dangerous offenders with mental illness receive the care they need, we also take care of the safety of the public.
Reflecting the values of Canadians also means that both the gravity of the offence and the need to protect Canadians must be considered in sentencing. That is why we got rid of the faint hope clause that allowed killers to apply for early parole. That is why when the criminal kills more than one person, under our law, judges can now impose consecutive sentences and take every lost life into account. That is why we have made it easier to deport foreign criminals from Canadian soil and have made it more difficult for them to enter the country in the first place. That is why we have made it easier to remove dangerous foreign criminals from Canada's shores and to make it more difficult for them to even get here in the first place. That is why we have toughened penalties, including creating mandatory prison sentences for many serious violent offences, in particular sex crimes against children.
When we say all of these things, let us be clear: we desire the rehabilitation of all criminals. However, certain criminals are too cruel and too dangerous to be released. When people break the laws and pay their debt to society, our hope is always for permanent rehabilitation. No one wants to see anyone degenerate into a lifetime of crime, but there are some criminals, the most dangerous and violent offenders, whose actions mean we cannot risk putting them back on our streets. However, as the law stands, sometimes we do. 
Bill C-53 would end this practice, specifically for criminals who prey on society's most vulnerable, plotting kidnapping or sexual assault that ends in murder; criminals with such contempt for law and order that they kill correctional or police officers charged with that protection; criminals who so despise our values and our way of life that they carry out deadly acts of terrorism and high treason; and criminals whose crimes are so horrific that they shock the conscience of the entire community. The freedom of these criminals would compromise the freedom of everyone around them. 
The suffering of the victims of such horrific crimes and the suffering of those who love them is bad enough. However, when the whole truth is known, they find out that the crime could have been prevented in the first place, that the crime should have been prevented but it was not, that the perpetrator was someone who could have been, should have been, securely behind bars. When that is discovered, at that moment their anguish, compounded by disbelief, becomes outrage, not just to them but to the entire country. Then we are all left to wonder what justice really means.
Canadians ask, rightly, why the most dangerous killers once in prison should ever be free again only to threaten our children, our families, our friends, our neighbours and our fellow citizens. It is very hard to argue with that, and our government has no intention of arguing with it. This sort of thing must end in our country. 
The fact is that there are certain criminals who should never be allowed to walk the streets, where we and our neighbours live and work, or in the streets where our children play. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. Regrettably, I must interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary at this point. He will have 15 minutes remaining, if and when this matter returns before the House. 

Statements By Members
Oak Ridges—MarkhamMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the good people of Oak Ridges—Markham for the opportunity to represent them in this House.
As members know, my riding is the largest riding in Canada, but it will no longer exist after this election. It will be split into four different ridings, and as part of that redistribution, I will be losing the historic towns of King and Richmond Hill or Oak Ridges. I want to thank them for allowing me to represent them.
I wish all of my colleagues a very happy, safe, and healthy summer. It has been a pleasure answering their questions, as much as they seem to have enjoyed asking them.
I thank my great team, Nathalie James, Owen Macri, Jennifer Cagney, Jessica Plume, Amy Day, Jessica Baran, and Carole Halse for their work.
National Aboriginal DayMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is National Aboriginal Day, and by happy coincidence I will not be in Ottawa this year but will have the privilege of joining my brothers and sisters of Fort William First Nation at Mount McKay in their celebrations. 
 In addition to the traditional celebrations, this year we will also reflect upon the findings and recommendations of Justice Sinclair and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I would also like to personally wish Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy a happy and well-deserved retirement and thank him for his strong leadership over his many years of service in his many important roles.
With the election of a New Democratic government this October, Canadians will finally have a federal government that accepts responsibility for the immense injustices perpetrated upon our founding people by those who came later, a federal government that will make a solemn promise to ensure that these injustices are never repeated, a federal government that will finally work on a nation-to-nation basis with Canada's first peoples so that we can walk together, hand in hand, towards a better future.
 Mino-giizhigad. Happy Aboriginal Day. Meegwetch.
Richmond HillMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has improved the quality of life for my constituents in Richmond Hill in innumerable ways. We lowered taxes, improved the safety of our communities, invested millions of dollars to stimulate jobs and economic growth, and created a better life for all.
 Investments to revitalize and expand town facilities can be found in all corners of the riding: at the Oak Ridges Community Centre, the Elvis Stojko Arena, and the Bayview Hill Community Centre, to name a few. Federal funding for GO Transit, the Viva rapid transit system, and major roadways is improving the daily commute of residents.
 Thousands of seniors are enjoying the benefits of over two dozen new horizons for seniors programs, such as those at the Richmond Hill Social and Bocce Club, the Burr House Gallery and Potter's Guild, and the Oak Ridges Italian Seniors Club.
 Hundreds of jobs are being supported through strategic investments to businesses such as Qvella, CrowdCare Corporation, and Rubicon.
The last four years have been very productive, and from the bottom of my heart I thank my constituents in Richmond Hill for the honour and privilege of serving them.
IranHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Iran tragically executes more people per capita than any other country in the world. Moreover, Iran is engaged in a horrific execution binge that has resulted in 120 executions in May alone, while this month has seen an unparalleled wave of executions, with one execution every two hours.
 All this is occurring while Iran is otherwise engaged in massive domestic repression, including the criminalization of dissent, the persecution and prosecution of ethnic and religious minorities, violations of women's rights, and the imprisoning of over 1,000 political prisoners. 
Regrettably, the nuclear negotiations have not only overshadowed but sanitized this massive domestic repression, as witnessed by the deafening international silence surrounding it. The fact that a country is massively violating the rights of its own people, and lying about it, raises serious questions about the validity and veracity of its nuclear undertakings.
 As negotiators seek a legal framework for the nuclear issue, the Iranian regime is in standing violation of its human rights obligations under international law.
 It is time to sound the alarm and to hold the regime to account on both the nuclear and human rights concerns, to the benefit of both the international community and the Iranian people themselves.
Islamic StateMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the vote last October 7 to launch air strikes with our allies against the so-called Islamic State will have been the most important vote of the 41st Parliament.
 On June 9, it was reported that the Islamic State's Libya branch carried out another kidnapping, targeting 88 Eritrean Christians.
In February, jihadists had beheaded 21 Coptic Christians, showing once again their deepest contempt for the human race.
We can say unequivocally that the leaders and militants of the Islamic State are specifically targeting Christians, Jews, and even Muslims who do not toe the ISIS line.
In Orléans, whether at the Legion, on the street or by email, many constituents are telling me that the actions of the so-called Islamic State remind them of the rise of Nazism. 
We must continue to support air strikes by Canada and our allies in this fight against evil.
World Refugee DayMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is World Refugee Day, and I would therefore like to salute the courage and determination of all those who have been displaced from their communities as a result of violence or danger. They face unspeakable challenges, which is why it is so important to give them a warm welcome when they arrive at our borders.
It is no secret: Canada is no longer the open, generous country it once was. The Conservatives have brought in a number of measures to discourage people from coming to our country for help and to deport them faster. In just over a decade, refugee claims to Canada have dropped from 40,000 to 10,000 a year, to say nothing of the lack of leadership shown by this government.
For instance, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who took so long to announce his targets for the number of Syrian refugees to be welcomed, still has not given his department the means to meet his own commitments. I must also point out the violence and tense political situation in Burundi, which have displaced tens of thousands of people—and yet Canada continues to deport people to that country.
Canada can and must do more for refugees.
Mieczyslaw “Mitch” LutczykMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I announce that on this past Sunday, at the age of 96, Mieczyslaw “Mitch” Lutczyk, a friend, Oshawa resident, Polish veteran, and war hero, passed away.
At the beginning of the Second World War, Mitch served in the 10th Motorized Cavalry Brigade in Poland. After being interned in Hungary, he escaped to France to rejoin his recreated brigade. After the fall of France, Mitch reached England and joined the 1st Polish Armoured Division , which landed on Juno Beach on D-Day with the 2nd Canadian Corps. 
Mitch's bravery and courage while serving with the Polish army was so impressive that has been decorated by the governments of France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands. In 2011, the Polish government awarded him the prestigious Order of Polonia Restituta medal. Previous recipients of this award include Dwight D. Eisenhower and Simon Wiesenthal. 
In 2013, I was honoured to personally present Mitch with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. 
Mitch settled in Oshawa in 1970 and was active in Polish-Canadian veterans organizations. His legacy is and will remain an inspiration to all of Oshawa.
Anti-SemitismMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for over 30 years, B'nai Brith Canada has monitored the levels of anti-Semitism across the country. Last week B'nai Brith published its annual “Audit of Antisemitic Incidents” for 2014. 
Unfortunately, 2014 saw the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents ever recorded, at 1,627 incidents. That is a 28% increase over 2013. This surpassed the previous record of a 21% increase that was set 2012, with 1,345 incidents.
This only confirms what other organizations such as the Toronto Police Service have said, which is that the Canadian Jewish community is frequently targeted by hate crimes and that anti-Semitism is an enduring problem in our country. This is completely unacceptable.
All forms of discrimination are despicable, and the rise of anti-Semitism is particularly troubling in our society. I am proud to be part of a government that supports the State of Israel and the Jewish community here in Canada.
I ask that all members and all Canadians join me in denouncing anti-Semitism.
Social ProgramsMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am Gabrielle and Maisy Odjick, women victims of violence. I am Carole Parent, who will have to make some tough choices because the Conservatives are refusing to save social housing. I am the one in six unemployed workers who do not have access to employment insurance.
Our social safety net is disintegrating. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing. Our children are the first generation to be less prosperous than the generation before them.
Bill C-51 attacks our rights and freedoms. Advocacy groups are up in arms. Environmental protection is falling victim to financial gain. The Conservatives are making decisions on paper while turning a blind eye to the actual consequences.
We need a government that reflects who we are and that supports us. I am the average Canadian. I am the proud NDP member for Hochelaga, and I am going to continue to stand up for Canadians' rights.
Food LabellingMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no government has done as much as our Conservative government to support Canadian farmers and livestock producers. That is why we will continue to fight the unfair rules on country of origin labelling imposed by the United States. 
Yesterday the Americans used yet another procedural tactic to delay the WTO process. The reality is that COOL is costing Canadian cattle and hog producers more than $3 billion in annual damages.
As the most pro-job and pro-export government in Canadian history, we have taken action to fight back against these protective measures, unlike the NDP, which is supportive of these kinds of trade barriers. In fact, the NDP trade critic actually introduced a bill to create Canada's own mandatory country of origin labelling, a law that would undoubtedly harm Canadian exporters and kill Canadian jobs. 
Our Conservative government understands that to create jobs, we have to tear down trade walls, not erect new ones.
On this side of the House, we will continue to stand up for Canadian farmers and livestock producers and protect Canadians' jobs.
Canadian CitizenshipDenis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, as this parliamentary session winds down, let me tell you about the injustice one of my constituents is facing. 
The son of a soldier, Edney Charbonneau joined our armed forces himself. After eight years of service, he became a federal government customs officer and investigator. He obtained a very high security clearance. 
For his service he received commendations from Prime Minister Martin and Prime Minister Chrétien. Unfortunately, now that he has reached retirement age, Mr. Charbonneau cannot get his old age pension. Why not? He is not a recognized Canadian citizen. When his father was deployed to England during World War II, he married a British woman. Mr. Charbonneau, the child of that union, arrived in Canada at the age of two months.
Regardless of the circumstances—worthy of a novel in themselves—that led to this injustice, this man spent his entire life in Canada and paid all his taxes like a good citizen. Mr. Charbonneau deserves his old age pension, and this government should remove all the obstacles in recognition of his life's work.
TaxationMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, taxes are all the NDP can think about. Unlike our government, which wants to lower taxes for hard-working Canadians, the NDP wants to raise taxes. Not so long ago, the NDP leader said that businesses should pay more taxes. When asked what exactly the business tax rate is, the NDP leader did not know. The rate he provided in his response was three points lower than the actual rate. As is often the case, the only thing the NDP believes is that everyone should pay more taxes. That is no way to create jobs and keep money in Canadians' pockets. We want to help Canadians, not hurt them.
Democratic ReformMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week, our leader and our party presented a comprehensive plan that will bring about real change in Ottawa, a plan that Canadians can get behind.
 As our party's democratic reform critic, I am proud to say that we are committed to ensuring that the upcoming federal election will be the last one to be conducted under the outdated first-past-the-post system. 
Our plan calls for the creation of a special all-party parliamentary committee that will engage Canadians far and wide—not just those in provinces that have already discussed democratic reform, but in provinces where democratic reform has not been discussed.
 This is just one element of our plan. It will help to modernize governance in this country while ensuring that Canadians get a political system that is open and transparent. 
 I would like to apologize if my statement is interrupting the heckles from the Conservative Party.
Finally, I would also say that this is what Canadians want and deserve: an open and fair government.
TaxationStella Ambler: Mr. Speaker, Canadians in Mississauga South want lower taxes, more jobs, and a growing economy. The Liberal Party leader offers none of that. His high-tax plan for Canadians will cut jobs in my community, across Canada, across every sector, and it will weaken the economy.
Just recently, the leader of the Liberal Party stated that he would introduce a $1,000 payroll tax on all Canadians. For families and seniors in Mississauga South, this could be devastating. He believes that taking money away from Canadians is what is best for them, that he can spend it better than they can. Well, on this side of the House, we believe in standing up for all Canadians and putting money back into their pockets. 
The Liberal leader's reckless schemes make it obvious that he is simply not ready to be prime minister.
42nd General ElectionMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, these are finally the last days of the Conservative government, and Canadians are ready for a change. Our record is clear: while the Conservatives have chosen to give the wealthy billions of dollars in tax credits and spend public money on polls and partisan advertising, the NDP has presented a solid plan to help families make ends meet, which includes our national plan for affordable day care and our tax cuts to support SME job creation.
We have taken practical steps to make life more affordable such as putting an end to the tax on feminine hygiene products and successfully fighting the banks' and telecommunications companies' pay-to-pay fees. The winds of change are blowing, and on October 19 Canadians will finally be able to vote for a party that will defend their interests through good times and bad. That party is the NDP.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaRick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, we see time and time again that the leader of the Liberal Party is simply not ready to be Prime Minister.
This is the person who said that he admires China's approach to government. He said that they do it much better than most any other country in the world. He is the one who attributed Putin's aggression with Ukraine on a hockey game, and claims that budgets balance themselves. 
Canadians know that the only Prime Minister, our Prime Minister, is a man they can trust to actually get the job done, by keeping taxes low, focusing on economic growth, and promoting job creation.
We spent ten years doing it; we will spend the next ten years making sure that Canadians have low taxes, job opportunities, and ensuring that the Canadian economy is stronger than anywhere else in the world.

Oral Questions
EthicsMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office has used its power to protect entitled senators—heck, it even orchestrated a cover-up for them—and throughout, Conservatives have defended corruption instead of defending the public dime. Now senators who abuse taxpayers' trust can simply pay the money back and avoid any consequences. It is no wonder that Canadians are ready for change and looking for new management.
If Conservatives would not allow a thief to simply pay back the money and avoid any consequences, why is he allowing senators to do just that?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, when I first got here in 2008, the member for Medicine Hat was asking of the Liberal Party—
[Interjection]
Mr. LaVar Payne: Where is the 40 million bucks? 
[Interjection]
Paul Calandra: Now, Mr. Speaker, here it is on the last day of this session, and the member for Medicine Hat is still asking—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
Government AdvertisingDavid Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, it is always good to hear now and then from the member for Medicine Hat.
Remember when Conservatives used to care about defending taxpayers' money? Not anymore. Since Conservatives came to power, they have spent a staggering $750 million of public money on Conservative advertising: TV ads, radio ads, polling, and even almost $2 million on Facebook ads, all paid for by Canadians. No wonder people are ready for change.
When exactly did these former Reformers forget what it means to be frugal when it comes to respecting taxpayer dollars?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP does not want Canadians to know about the tax reductions and increased benefits that we have delivered to families. In fact, the universal child care benefit, under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, will pay $2,000 per child under six and $720 for kids 6 through 17.
The NDP and Liberals want to take that money away, and that is why they do not want Canadian parents to know about it in the first place. We will keep telling parents about these increased benefits and we will keep delivering them as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to the member for Hamilton Centre, I know we are getting near the end of the session, but I would remind all hon. members that the rules are still in order.
The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
Public Works and Government ServicesDavid Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, given the two protagonists who were just up, I am not sure which one you were speaking to, but I think we will both take it under advisement.
While Conservatives were using taxpayer funds to promote themselves, they have not done the job on important issues like military procurement. They bungled the F-35s, and the Sea Kings replacement, the Cyclone helicopters, due to be fully delivered by 2008, are now—wait for it—seven years late. Seven years late is bad enough, but now DND is questioning whether the engines are even strong enough to do the job.
Why have the Conservatives bungled yet another important military procurement?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise everyone that National Defence has said these helicopters will meet all operational requirements. The manufacturer will make improvements to the helicopters as we go forward. Our government is proud to finally deliver on our promise to provide new maritime helicopters for the Canadian Armed Forces, unlike the previous Liberal government that cancelled the contract for the EH-101s instead of investing to replace the maritime helicopters and the old Sea Kings. We now have new kit, and these are wonderful aircraft that our forces are going to be using well into the future.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Conservative rule, the list of poorly managed procurement contracts just keeps growing. Everyone remembers the F-35s. Today we learned that the project to replace the Sea King helicopters with Cyclone helicopters, which was supposed to have been completed in 2008, is seven years behind. Furthermore, the Department of National Defence is now wondering whether the engines are powerful enough.
How can the Conservatives have mismanaged this priority file so badly?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members that we inherited a decade of darkness from the previous Liberal government. It has been hard work to replace all of the procurements that are required and to put in place the new aircraft and tanks: C-17 Globemasters, which we have five of now, a brand new C-130J Hercules aircraft, tactical heavy-lift helicopters, Chinooks, and now the new Cylcones. These are going to serve the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Royal Canadian Navy, as they are going to be on board our Hali-class frigates.
The EconomySadia Groguhé:  Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Conservative rule, families are struggling to make ends meet. We have lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs. The GDP has seen its biggest drop in six years, and our exports have fallen for the second straight quarter. It is no surprise that BMO is forecasting the slowest economic growth outside of a recession in 30 years.
Do the Conservatives realize that their job creation plan is a failure and that it is time to change direction?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, despite the fragile global economy, let us be clear about our record. Since the recession, we have created 1.2 million net new jobs, including 59,000 in May. We have the lowest taxes in 50 years and the lowest debt in the G7. We have a balanced budget, and with a balanced budget we are on the path to a more prosperous Canada. We are putting money back into the pockets of Canadian families.
 Canadians simply cannot afford to go back to the high-tax, high-debt ways of the Liberals and the NDP. That would kill jobs and harm the economy. Now is not the time for reckless spending and untested leadership.
Public SafetyKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question is about the Prime Minister's  failure to deliver to Canadians.
There have been over 30 incidents of gun violence in Surrey and Delta in the last few months alone. The Conservatives made a promise to help, and again they have failed to deliver. The mayors of Surrey and Delta and the residents of those two communities are concerned about the safety of their communities.
When will the new RCMP officers actually arrive in Surrey and Delta?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say once again in the House that our government did approve the additional resources of 100 RCMP officers. 
This government has passed more than 30 tough on crime measures and public safety measures in order to keep all Canadians safe, including those in British Columbia. 
The first 20 RCMP officers of the additional deployment to Surrey have already arrived at the detachment.
 Once again Canadians know that they can count on this Conservative government to keep our streets and communities—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
The EconomyKevin Lamoureux: The talk but no action continues, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians have lost patience with the tired old Conservative government and its failed economic policies. We think of stalled incomes, record-setting trade deficits, record-setting government deficits, soaring household debt, and the slowest job growth since the recession of 25 years. After a decade in office, the Prime Minister has earned the dubious distinction of having the worst economic growth record of any prime minister since the great depression.
On its last day in the House of Commons, does the government have any regrets when it comes to economic incompetence?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the only plan we have heard from the Liberals is to raise taxes. The Liberal leader's proposed dramatic payroll tax hike would kill jobs in Canada and impose a $1,000 tax hike on every Canadian employee. In contrast, we have lowered taxes for the middle class, and all Canadians, saving a typical family of four $6,600 this year. While we are putting money back in the pockets of Canadians, the Liberals want to take it out. 
Now is not the time for reckless spending and untested leadership.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 years the Conservatives have run multi-billion dollar deficits, averaging about $15 billion a year. All of their incompetence, mismanagement, phony tax cut legacy, and personal debt records are buried in a whopping $150 billion addition to the national debt.
Does a Conservative balanced budget mean that over their term it balances out at about a $15 billion deficit? Is a multi-billion dollar deficit year after year what the Conservatives mean by balanced?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, at least our leader does not think that budgets balance themselves.
The Liberal leader thinks it is unfair that all families benefit from our low-tax plan. While we are focused on creating jobs, the Liberal leader is pushing a dramatic payroll tax hike that would kill jobs and hurt the Canadian economy. Canadians have a clear choice: the high tax Liberals, or our low-tax plan for all Canadians.
Now is not the time for reckless spending and untested leadership.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Sunday is National Aboriginal Day, and we have sadly just learned that the economic conditions in aboriginal communities have gotten worse under the Conservative government. According to The Aboriginal Economic Progress Report, the employment rate for people on reserve is 9% lower than that for other Canadians. 
How does the minister justify such a disastrous record?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I urge the member to read the entire report. She will see that significant progress is being made across the country. Our government understands that economic development is necessary to improve living conditions for aboriginal peoples.
Since the beginning of our mandate, we have taken measures to improve living conditions for the first nations by giving them the means to fully take advantage of the country's economic prosperity. We have invested in education and training, for example, and we brought in income assistance reform to give these children personalized services to help them acquire skills.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, with answers like that one, I think that Canadians need a real change in government.
Today the RCMP will release a new report on missing and murdered aboriginal women. The families of these victims, aboriginal groups, the provinces, the territories, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and even the United Nations all agree that we need a national inquiry to understand and put an end to this tragic problem.
Will the government stop ignoring this issue and launch a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women?
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we do not need another study on top of the 40 we already have. It is our government that continues to stand up for victims of violence. Since coming into office, we have toughened sentences for murder, sexual assault, and kidnapping and have imposed mandatory prison sentences.
 We also passed historic legislation that gave aboriginal women on reserves the same matrimonial rights that member has, including emergency protection orders, and that member and her party voted against it.
It is our government that is taking action. It is our government that stands up for aboriginal women and girls, not that side of the House.
Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' idea of tangible action to end violence against indigenous women is funding a website. It will take a lot more than a website to end this horrendous violence. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, national aboriginal organizations, Amnesty International, and victims like Rinelle Harper have been very clear: we need a national inquiry. 
Canadians are tired of the current government playing partisan games with the lives of women. When will the Conservatives agree to a full inquiry into the murders and disappearances of indigenous women?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, it is our Conservative government that brought the action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women and girls as well as the family violence protection program. That member and her party, once again, voted against them. Since coming to office, we have passed more than 30 criminal justice and safety initiatives. That member and her party voted against them. Again, we passed Bill S-2. That party and the member voted against it. 
While our government takes action, the opposition party does not. That side of the House never votes to support women and girls in Canada.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, a website is not action, and that is not the end of it. Canadians know that under the current government, aboriginal unemployment has increased and the wage gap has increased. Instead of helping aboriginal communities, the government does not even count unemployment on reserves. It allows businesses on reserves to bring in temporary foreign workers. The Conservatives have failed to invest in education or infrastructure that could help communities develop. They have been left in dire poverty. Why are the Conservatives ignoring our indigenous communities?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the NDP and that member can try to play politics with the situation of first nations and aboriginal Canadians, but it will lead nowhere. The fact of the matter is that since we have come to office, we have taken measures to improve the well-being of first nations. For example, in the last budget, we again increased significant resources to expand the first nations land management regime, which has led to some $300 million in further investments in aboriginal communities. Again, the opposition voted against it. 
JusticeMr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect Parliament to get results on issues that matter. A bill by an NDP member to ensure that transgender people have the same rights as everyone else and a bill to give more autonomy to members of Parliament have both passed in the House. Yet the undemocratic Senate is killing them, just like it did with Jack Layton's climate change bill. The government ordered its senatorial troops to pass Bill C-51 without amendment. Why the double standard?
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, ever since we were elected, our government has put the rights of all victims first, regardless of their gender, race, or religion. We are aware that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs made amendments to the bill. The House hopefully will have an opportunity to review these changes in accordance with parliamentary procedure. There are significant protections currently found in the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as in the Criminal Code.
EthicsMathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can say that the Senate expenses scandal has nothing to do with him, but he cannot deny that he is the one who appointed Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau and the others.
He also made Housakos Speaker of the Senate, and it was his office that tried to cover up the Duffy expenses scandal. People are tired of these vague answers, and they are ready for real change.
Will the Conservatives stop defending the Senate's corruption?
Paul Calandra:  Mr. Speaker, as you know, we do no such thing. It was the Senate that invited the Auditor General in to review senators' expenses, and we expect them to co-operate in that process. 
At the same time, the report of the House administration found that there are 68 members of the NDP caucus who owe three times as much as the Auditor General identified with respect to the Senate. It is $2.7 million, and as of July 1, the NDP members will be forced to repay by having their wages garnished instead of doing the right thing and repaying it on their own. It is a shame. They should have done the right thing on their own.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, senators charged Canadian taxpayers for rounds of golf, fishing trips and their spouses' personal travel to organize a Valentine's Day ball.
People are sick and tired of these privileges being granted to the governing party's cronies. They want this archaic and undemocratic institution to be abolished. It is time to chart a new course.
Why are the Conservatives so determined to maintain the status quo?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, we have put on the table some significant reforms to the Senate, and now it is, of course, up to the Council of the Federation to look at. 
However, I want to quote something: “Can you confirm where these employees will be working? The employment forms indicate that they all live in the Montreal area but they will be working in the Ottawa office? Will they be in a set office [ in Montreal or Ottawa]?”
The response from the leadership of the NDP: they will work “In Ottawa”.
The problem with that is they worked in Montreal in an illegal partisan office, and they should repay the $2.7 million they owe taxpayers.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every time Canadians turn on their TV, it seems the waste and the unethical spending just gets worse. Either they see news stories about Conservative appointees using public funds like their own personal piggy bank, or they see their money being wasted on government advertising: $750 million of their money, public funds, on nakedly partisan propaganda. 
Canadians have had enough. They are ready for change. How can the minister stand here time and time again and defend this misspending? Why will he not take responsibility and end this grotesque waste?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I take responsibility for informing parents that under the Prime Minister's enhanced universal child care benefit, they will be eligible for $2,000 for each child under age six and $720 for kids age six through 17. I have been working hard to promote this benefit so that all Canadian parents sign up for it. One hundred per cent of families with kids under 18 are eligible, regardless of income or the way they raise their kids.
 I even made an inspiring YouTube video to inform parents of it, which has been very successful. I thank members from all sides of the House for promoting it.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is so sad. This is a party that came to Ottawa claiming that it would do things differently, and then the Conservatives went to work for themselves, just like the old corrupt Liberals. They are making an embarrassing mockery of question period, of course. Conservatives are tired, out of touch, and under criminal investigation. 
Canadians are sick of the Senate scandals. They are sick of the wasteful spending. They are sick of the entitlements of the government, and Canadians stand ready for change, so why will Conservatives not get on board with the NDP leader's practical plan to bring real change to Ottawa?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader will take real change out of the pockets of Canadians. With his proposed tax increases, he will raise the price of gasoline, raise the price of electricity, and raise the costs on businesses. That is what a carbon tax would do.
He then proposes, along with the Liberal leader, that they would bring in a new $1,000 payroll tax to fund a new pension scheme. Every working-class person would be forced pay it, and so would the small businesses that employ them. Canadians are not going to accept having the change stripped from their pockets. They are going to vote in favour of lower taxes.
Employment InsuranceMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in rural parts of the Mauricie region is 2% higher than in Trois-Rivières and the surrounding area. We believe that the government's lack of action on job creation and restrictive employment insurance measures are devastating to rural communities. 
Are government members aware of the adverse effects of employment insurance restrictions on seasonal work in the regions?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader's only plan for rural communities is to raise taxes, but our rural communities cannot afford higher taxes. People in rural communities understand that budgets do not balance themselves. They also understand that the Liberal leader is not ready to be Prime Minister. Rural communities support our efforts to cut taxes, eliminate the gun registry and be a good government.
Public Service of CanadaMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the end of National Public Service Week. Most Canadians understand that we need a strong public service, one to protect our food and water, to keep our transportation system safe, and to provide services for our elderly, our veterans, and the unemployed.
However, one of the legacies of the pathetic current government will be the profound disrespect it has shown for our public servants. I ask the government, in its dying days, for a deathbed conversion. Will the Conservatives finally respect the work our public servants do, respect their rights, and bargain in good faith?
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate all federal public servants during National Public Service Week. We appreciate their usual stellar job on behalf of the people of Canada. 
I would be happy to inform the hon. member that we are in fact at the bargaining table today with the bargaining unit and the union bosses. I am hoping that they will be fair and reasonable, just as fair and reasonable as I am being, on behalf of the employees of the federal public service and on behalf of the taxpayer.
JusticeJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, the fundamental responsibility of a Minister of Justice is to protect the rule of law and the integrity of investigations. Therefore, “no comment” means “no comment”. If an investigation has merit, it is compromised, and in extreme cases, lives are put at risk. If there is no merit, individuals are slandered and smeared with little recourse.
What then was the Minister of Justice thinking when he commented on Minister Michael Chan? Has he forgotten his oath of office, or was he so overwrought with the joy of potential partisan advantage that he jettisoned his oath of office?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that this is a matter the Ontario government should address.
The EconomyMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Alberta's jobless rate has risen to 5.8%, the highest in more than four years, with little job growth since the start of the year. In the past six months, Alberta has seen unemployment numbers jump by 50%. Lower oil prices and job losses mean rising bankruptcies and lower home sales. Experts are predicting more job losses and growing economic challenges ahead, including in the drilling sector. 
When will the Conservatives finally understand that we need to invest in a more diversified, sustainable economy for western Canada?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP proposes to hit Alberta's energy sector with a carbon tax. Not only that, the New Democrats admit that they would raise taxes on large employers in the energy sector. In fact, that is their plan for every single sector. They want higher taxes on large employers in manufacturing, on large employers in high tech, and on large employers in mining. Every single large employer in this country would pay higher business taxes under the NDP, on top of the carbon tax. Those taxes will kill jobs. We are lowering taxes to create them.
Employment InsuranceRobert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about another Conservative failure.
Some 230 former Aveos workers just won a major victory thanks to the hard work of lawyer Hans Marotte. The Employment Insurance Commission spent over two years asking the workers to pay back on average $18,000 in benefits received after they lost their jobs. Their only crime was to receive the severance pay to which they were entitled upon losing their jobs. 
When will the Conservatives acknowledge that employment insurance belongs to workers and that they are entitled to the benefits they have paid for?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the only plan the NDP has for employment insurance is to create a 45-day work year. People would work for 45 days and then receive EI benefits for the rest of the year. Obviously that would cost billions of dollars and require the government to raise taxes, which would have an impact on workers as well as small and medium-sized businesses. Money is not free. It has to come from somewhere.
We are doing the opposite. We are lowering EI premiums.
Canada PostMr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after four years, it is time that the government stopped taking Canadians for fools. On October 19, an NDP government will be there to show them some respect. 
Despite opposition from Canadians and municipalities and despite the fact that Canada Post is clearly improvising, this government has done nothing to get the mail delivered. Canadians know that an NDP government will stop slashing our public services and restore home mail delivery.
Will the government finally recognize that the Canada Post plan is not working and direct the crown corporation to do its job, which is to deliver the mail? 
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the members opposite cannot even read Canada Post's balance sheet, and yet they want to run the economy. Page 68 says:
 Without pension relief, the corporation at Canada Post would have been required to make special payments of approximately $1.3 billion in 2014. The special payments without pension relief would amount to $1.4 in 2015. 
Letter mail volumes have been plummeting in the country. Pension payments, an unfunded liability, are still due by Canada Post. It must continue with its five-point plan so it does not a burden for taxpayers.
The so-called plan of the NDP would mean massive taxes to cover the $6.8 billion unfunded liability.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's plan to impose community mailboxes in our community of Hamilton, without municipal approval, was so flawed that the city went to court. Many residents there are so upset they are even blocking the installation of these boxes.
Canadians have had enough of not being consulted in cuts to services that impact them. It is no wonder that Canadians are ready for change. 
Why is the minister not listening to our communities and telling Canada Post to withdraw its plan and restore home mail delivery?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the so-called plan by the NDP would amount to not only finding $500 million in increased taxes to support door-to-door delivery for one-third of Canadians, but it would have to make up the $6.8 billion unfunded pension liability, or maybe the the New Democrats do not care that retirees get their pensions.
Canada Post, which has been facing a tremendous decrease in letter mail volumes and has been consulting with communities on its five-point plan, must continue so it is not a financial burden to taxpayers. 
InfrastructureStella Ambler: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced a major contribution from the federal government to help improve transit in the city of Toronto and the GTA, including Mississauga.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs please inform the House on the impact this announcement will have for the people of Toronto and the surrounding region?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced funding would be made available through the public transit fund for Toronto's smarttrack express rail service, which will service the people from Mississauga through Toronto, all the way through to my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham.
The public transit fund represents the largest and longest federal commitment to public infrastructure in Canadian history. It means jobs and economic growth, and it means prosperity for the region.
 I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member for Mississauga South and the entire Conservative GTA caucus members who have been fighting for this because we know it is jobs and economic growth.
Consumer ProtectionJohn Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of Conservative government, Canadians still have no protection from unfair gas prices.
Prices have jumped 40% since mid-January, rising way faster than oil prices, and leaving consumers in Thunder Bay—Rainy River and across the country gouged at the pumps.
Canadians are ready for change. The New Democrats have long called for the creation of a gas ombudsman to ensure competition and protect consumers. Will the Conservatives finally support the creation of a gas ombudsman, or are they okay with Canadian consumers paying these unfair prices?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was this government that introduced legislation called the Fairness at the Pumps Act.
It is clear that our legislation is working, because companies are complying with the law out of fear of being fined. Canadian families expect that when they purchase gasoline, they get what they paid for.
That is why our government took action and passed this legislation, which ensures gasoline pumps are routinely inspected for accuracy. In fact, the Government of Canada saves Canadian consumers over $500 million every year by tackling price collusion and anti-competitive behaviour.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative approach is not working. In the 10 years the Conservatives have been in power, they have done nothing to reduce gas prices. What is more, the gap between the price of crude and the price at the pump has never been higher than it is right now. For years now the NDP has been calling for an ombudsman to monitor the price of gas, and for years, the Conservatives have been coming up with all kinds of excuses for doing nothing.
Why are the Conservatives allowing consumers to be gouged at the pump?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, this is a ridiculous question coming from the NDP.
 The NDP ran the last election on a massive carbon tax. It has talked about a massive carbon tax for the last four years. In addition to that, it has proposed increased taxes across the board.
On the flip side, this government has reduced taxes at every turn. Under this Conservative government, Canadians pay less in tax than they have paid in 50 years.
Citizenship and ImmigrationLysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, Canada has become inaccessible as a country for too many refugees. For instance, the minister is not giving his department the means to meet his own targets for welcoming Syrian refugees. I have another example. Canada continues to deport people to Haiti and Burundi. 
In short, the Conservative record is shocking. Over the past 10 years or so, Canada has been receiving fewer and fewer refugee claims. We saw a drop from 40,000 claims a year to 10,000 claims in 2013. It is shameful.
Why do the Conservatives continue to tarnish Canada's reputation on the world stage? Why are they turning their backs on refugees?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, our government is proud of our record on refugees. We welcomed one out every ten resettled refugees globally, more than any other industrialized country in the world.
Last year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees met with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and he recognized Canada's international leadership when it came to providing assistance to refugees.
Our comprehensive reforms to Canada's asylum system ensure that genuine refugees receive faster and fairer protections.
Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government may be proud of its record on refugees, but the rest of the country is ashamed of the government's record on refugees.
Almost 60 million people around the world were forced from their homes, the highest number since the UN started counting. Syria alone counted for 11.6 million of the displaced. As refugees hit an historic high, Canada's response to the global calamity has hit an historic low.
Helping the world's most vulnerable is part of who we are as Canadians. It is a value that the Conservative Party has forgotten. Why is Canada not living up to its global commitments?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we welcome one out of every ten resettled refugees globally.
What is shameful is that the member, the NDP and members of the opposition continually vote against important legislation that we bring to the House that would expedite the entry of people who genuinely need assistance.
 Those members voted against Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act and the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. They do not have a clue on the other side of the House.
The EnvironmentMr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, climate change is a threat to civilization. It is a tragedy of the commons which can only be resolved through global co-operation. That is why growing inequality and the fate of the world's poor are intimately tied to fighting climate change. This is also the silver lining of climate change. If we solve it, we will have set an enduring precedent for co-operation among the entire human species.
 Instead of obstructing the international community on climate change, why does the Conservative government not co-operate, and why does it not address growing inequality at home and around the world?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of that question. We are very proud to be playing a leadership role on the international stage.
We have helped more than 65 developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. We are also doing our part by contributing to the green climate fund. We are a founding member and major financial contributor to the climate and clean air coalition, and we have also addressed short-lived climate pollutants under the chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
We will continue to protect our environment while keeping the economy strong, and we will do it without a job-killing carbon tax, like the Liberals want to do.
InfrastructureHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is now the end of June and here is another year lost in infrastructure for Cape Breton. Whether it is road works on the north side of New Waterford, police and firemen structures, waste water treatment and development of Sydney Harbour, or fresh drinking water for northern Cape Breton, everything is on hold again.
Are the Conservatives so arrogant that they actually think they can fool Canadians into voting for them by making a series of desperate, phony, last-minute announcements on infrastructure just before the election?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we will certainly take no lessons from the Liberals with respect to infrastructure. Our Conservative government's investments in infrastructure are three times greater than the previous Liberal government's.
Those historic investments continued yesterday with the announcement by the Prime Minister to fund the smarttrack project in Toronto. This will improve commuting times, enhance quality of life and create jobs.
It is this Conservative government that is getting it done.
Canadian HeritageMr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my bill to make Remembrance Day a legal holiday is finally back from committee after 205 days in study by 2 parliamentary committees. The bill would add exactly one word to the Holidays Act.
 Last November, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said of my bill:
 The specifics of the bill before this House are to correct a drafting oversight from the 1970s... 
This bill passed second reading with overwhelming support. Will the government help to end this 41st Parliament on a high note and vote “yes” to elevating Remembrance Day to the same status as other important Canadian holidays?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the member was not more clear on what he meant to do exactly with his bill.
Our government believes that it is not only important to recognize our veterans, but that it is our duty to remember the Canadians who sacrificed so much for our freedom and values. That is why our government supported this proposal in Parliament, and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs heard from groups such as the Royal Canadian Legion and Canadian Veterans Advocacy.
Hearing from these groups was important to the consideration of such a wide-reaching veterans proposal.
Public SafetyMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on June 11, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said in the House that 20 RCMP officers were in Surrey and “that boots are already on the ground”. The Conservatives even had the gall to repeat that in the House yesterday and today. Unfortunately, it is not true.
 The city of Surrey has confirmed that not one of the 100 promised RCMP officers is on the ground in Surrey. Why are the Conservatives misleading the public and saying that new officers have arrived when they have not?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, the first 20 RCMP officers of the additional deployment to Surrey have already arrived at the detachment. We were pleased to approve the 100 RCMP officers to that area.
However, what is also clear is that when it comes to combatting crime and terrorism, there is only one political party in the House that stands firm to protect the safety and security of Canadians. The NDP is so far out in left field that it is not even playing in the same ball park.
TaxationMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is helping families across the country by keeping more money in their pockets. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development please update the House on our measures to help 100% of families with children in Canada?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our plan will help 100% of Canadians with children by expanding the universal child care benefit and implementing the family tax cut. Conversely, the Liberal Party's plan is to take away the universal child care benefit and the family tax cut.
The Liberal leader wrote his plan on the back of a napkin. He does not know the devastating consequences that it would have for Canadian families with children. The Liberal leader just is not ready to become prime minister of Canada.
Fisheries and OceansScott Simms: Mr. Speaker, now that the summer is here, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel they are not being treated fairly regarding the recreational cod fishery or the food fishery. 
For example, the season in our province is much smaller than the season in the other provinces, and this makes it very difficult for our citizens and also dangerous for them as well. Also, for tour boat operators such as Graham Wood and David Boyd, their customers cannot keep their catch, whereas customers in other provinces can take their catch home. 
The question is very simple: When will the minister stop dictating and when will this discrimination end?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. Of course, I will not thank him for the last part of it, which I frankly disagree with.
It is worth noting that it was our government that reopened the food fishery in Newfoundland in 2007. We did that based on the precautionary principle. 
Certainly the minister is looking at all options to make sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the opportunity to get their cod fish for the winter.
TaxationMr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, much of the reason constituents in Mississauga East—Cooksville helped elect our Conservative government was that they were tired of Liberal politicians raising their taxes. Both the Liberals and the NDP are dead set on hiking mandatory payroll taxes. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance give the House an update on how our government is keeping taxes low for Canadians?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for that excellent question.
To benefit that member's constituents and all Canadians, our Conservative government brought in historic relief that is saving $6,600 this year for a typical two-earner family of four. Under our government, Canadians are paying the lowest taxes in over 50 years. 
However, the Liberal leader pledged to impose a mandatory $1,000 tax hike on middle-class workers. Now is simply not the time for risky NDP and Liberal high-tax schemes, reckless spending and untested leadership.
Democratic ReformMrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked a question that I never got an answer to, so I would like to ask it again today.
Does this government know that people who were adopted and are not aware that they are not Canadian citizens in the eyes of the law can add themselves to the voters list since no proof of citizenship is required? This loophole in the legislation can lead to fraud and allow people who do not have the right to vote to vote anyway.
The last time I asked this question, the government avoided answering it by telling me all about the process for becoming a Canadian citizen. That was not what my question was about.
Does the government know how many people vote who do not have the right to do so, and does it 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?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.
The Chief Electoral Officer told me that many people who are not citizens are on the voters list. In the citizen voting act, we are proposing that Citizenship and Immigration Canada share information with the Chief Electoral Officer so that he can remove anyone who is not a Canadian citizen from the voters list.

Routine Proceedings
Foreign AffairsHon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2013-14 progress report on Canada's action plan for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security.
Federal Ombudsman for Victims of CrimeBob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, as this is my last opportunity to speak near the end of the session, I would like to wish you, the staff and all of my colleagues on both sides of the House a happy Canada Day and a wonderful summer.
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2013-14 Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime annual report and government response. 
Parks CanadaColin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and on behalf of the Government of Canada, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the amended Waskesiu community plan, Prince Albert National Park of Canada, and the amended Wasagaming community plan, Riding Mountain National Park of Canada. 
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 21 petitions. 
Oath of Citizenship Act[Interjection]
Hon. Tim Uppal:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada ActIrwin Cotler:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-701, An Act to establish the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill to establish the office of the commissioner for children and young persons. This legislation is inspired by a bill previously introduced by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. I thank him for the excellent work he has done to promote the well-being of children and youth in Canada and around the world. 
Indeed, the true measure of a nation's standing is how well it cares for its children. Especially after the recent report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission into the experiences of the survivors of Indian residential schools, we understand now more than ever the dire consequences of failing children. 
Accordingly, a children's commissioner would advocate for children and examine law and policy with a view to ensuring children's rights and welfare, including their health, their education and simply their sense of being loved. 
The legislation is inspired as well by my daughter, who when she was a child herself told me, “Daddy, if you want to know what the real test of human rights is, always ask yourself, at any time, in any situation, in any part of the world: Is what is happening good for children? That's the real test of human rights.”
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin:  Mr. Speaker, although time is running out, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That in the opinion of the House, the government must adopt a contingency plan to help and support pyrrhotite victims, which includes: (a) increased quality standards for aggregates used in concrete; (b) the rapid implementation of a tax deduction for pyrrhotite testing; and (c) the implementation of a fund to advance the amounts granted to victims by the courts during the court proceedings.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No. 
Business of the HouseHon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I do believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
 That, not withstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, 
 (a) Bill C-64, An Act to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed; 
 (b) Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed; 
 (c) when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 21, 2015, provided that, for the purposes of any Standing Order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28; and 
 (d) when, at any time the House stands adjourned until, and including, Tuesday, June 23, 2015, a Standing Committee has ready a report, that report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House upon being deposited with the Clerk. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the government House leader have unanimous support to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): (Motion agreed to)
Georges Bank Protection Act[Stage Direction]
(Bill C-64. On the Order: Government Orders:) 
June 19, 2015--Bill C-64, An Act to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act
(Bill read the second time, referred to a committee of the whole, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read the third time and passed)
(Bill C-72. On the Order: Government Orders:) 
June 19, 2015--Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act
(Bill read the second time, referred to a committee of the whole, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read the third time and passed)
Qausuittuq National Park of Canada ActThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Mount Royal is rising on a point of order.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, this Parliament has admirably adopted a number of religious and cultural heritage months. Therefore, there have been consultations among the parties and I trust that there will be consent for the following motion: That the House recognize the month of November as Jewish heritage month in recognition of the important contributions of Jewish Canadians to the settlement, development and growth of Canada; the cultural diversity of the Canadian Jewish community; the present significance of the Canadian Jewish community to this country; and the importance of creating opportunities for Canadians to learn more about each other in order to foster greater awareness, cohesion and mutual respect.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the member have unanimous support to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, if we could revert to introduction of private members' bills, I have two bills that I would like to introduce.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to revert to introduction of private members' bills?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Canada Elections ActScott Simms:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-702, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (by-election duration and vacant seat).
Mr. Speaker, this is unrelated and I apologize for including it, but I would like to assure the member for Essex that after 10 years I am indeed standing.
 Bill C-702 would amend section 57 of the Canada Elections Act in that once the writ for a byelection is officially issued, the maximum length of the campaign period cannot be more than 44 days. The bill would amend section 31 of the Parliament Act requiring that the writ must be issued within 30 days. 
I would like to thank my assistant, David Graham, for his tireless work on this bill.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Search and Rescue Commemorative Monument ActScott Simms:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-703, An Act to establish a commemorative monument for search and rescue personnel in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the bill calls for the creation of a search and rescue commemorative monument in order to recognize the services and contributions of search and rescue personnel across Canada. This is to commemorate the death of those in the service of all Canadians, who provide safety to all citizens. It is not just for the members of national defence, such as 103 Search and Rescue Squadron, which is in Gander in my riding, but also for the volunteer organizations and the police officers who provide such a valuable service to all Canadians. We wish them the best. We would set up this monument to commemorate those who have lost their lives in the service of others. 
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsMurray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions.
 One petition is on defined benefit pension plans, with signatures from all over the country. The petitioners draw attention to the fact that the conversion of defined benefit pension plans to target benefit plans, or so-called shared-risk plans, strips pension benefits of legal protections. 
The petitioners call on the government to reject any such change that would allow employers to renege on existing defined benefit pension promises, and instead move to improve the retirement security of the 62% of workers who do not have workplace pensions.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is yet another one in this place calling for the government to restore home postal delivery. The signatures are from all over the cities of Victoria and Esquimalt, and the petitions are before the House for tabling. 
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today.
One calls upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to condemn discrimination against girls through sex-selective abortion and do all it can to prevent sex-selective abortions from being carried out in Canada.
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I bring today calls upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. Speaker, this is the last time I am going to be able to call you “Mr. Speaker”. We are going to miss you, but we wish you all the best.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petitions from dozens of people from the great riding of Nickel Belt. They are calling on the Government of Canada to work collaboratively with the Province of Ontario to defend and strengthen public health care for northerners, including reducing prescription drug costs, expanding public coverage for essential medication, focusing on disease prevention, and putting patients' needs first.
Since this is the last time that I will be rising in the House for this session, I want to thank the people of Nickel Belt for the last seven years. I look forward to the next four years.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am in the House today to present a petition to stop the cuts to our postal services.
I was able to collect the signatures of thousands of people. The petition today is smaller than the others, but I presented the petitions with the rest of the signatures earlier this week. It is very important to stand up for Canada Post and our postal services across the country, and to stop the completely unwarranted cuts that are now under way.
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, as members of their committee on rights and humanity, a number of students at De Rochebelle high school expressed their disapproval of the continued involvement of child soldiers in several armed conflicts around the world. 
Consequently, they wanted to speak out against the abysmal psychological and physical condition of these children and raise public awareness about this issue.
To that end, they prepared a petition, which they circulated this spring. They collected 346 signatures. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting three petitions that have all been signed by the people of Hochelaga, and which shows just how committed my constituents are.
The first petition calls on the government to support Bill C-448, sponsored by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, which would repeal section 159 of the Criminal Code and put an end to discrimination against members of the LGBTT community with respect to their consensual sexual activity.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Government of Canada to implement concrete and effective measures that will make life affordable for middle-class families.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, the last—but certainly not the least—petition, calls on the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced service and explore other options for updating the crown corporation's business plan.
Thank you and have a good summer.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,334 and 1,335.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:  With regard to the Interprovincial Transit Strategy in the National Capital Region, developed and released in 2013 by the National Capital Commission, the City of Ottawa, the City of Gatineau and the Société de transport de l’Outaouais: what measures have been taken by government departments and other government agencies, since the release of the strategy, to promote or fulfill each of the strategy’s five pillars?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the interprovincial transit strategy in the national capital region, the transit strategy did not identify measures to be taken by government departments or other government agencies. While the study was led by the NCC, all further actions are considered the responsibility of the municipalities and other parties involved, including the City of Ottawa, the City of Gatineau, and the STO, Société de Transport de l’Outaouais. The municipalities have been moving ahead with certain actions within their respective jurisdictions. 
Mauril Bélanger:  With respect to the proposed Memorial to the Victims of Communism in Ottawa: (a) was an environmental assessment of the selected site performed and, if so, what was the timeframe to carry out the assessment; (b) what are the names of the external firms or consultants that were consulted for this environmental assessment; and (c) how much was paid to each firm or consultant?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), an environmental site assessment was completed for the site, St. Laurent Square, and the final report was submitted to PWGSC on March 13, 2015. 
In response to (b), this assessment was undertaken by Franz Environmental Inc.
 In response to (c), this firm was paid $70,000 for this work and related environmental reports. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Question No. 1,290 and a supplementary response to Question No. 1,300, both originally tabled on June 16, 2015, as well responses to Question No. 1,147 and Questions Nos. 1,324 to 1,333 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed
Mr. John Carmichael:  With regard to questions on the Order Paper numbers Q-654 through Q-1145, what is the estimated cost of the production of the government's response for each question? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Don Davies:  With regard to hydrocarbon spills in Canada’s waters by commercial entities: (a) how many spills of oil, gas, petrochemical products or fossil fuels have been reported in Canada’s oceans, rivers, lakes or other waterways, broken down by year since 2006; and (b) for each reported spill in (a), identify (i) the product spilled, (ii) the volume of the spill, (iii) the location of the spill, (iv) the name of the commercial entity associated with the spill? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Ralph Goodale:  With regard to the following telephone services (i) Service Canada’s (SC) “1-800 O Canada”, (ii) SC’s “Canada Pension Plan (CPP)”, (iii) SC’s “Employer Contact Centre”, SC’s “Employment Insurance (EI)”, (iv) SC’s “Old Age Security (OAS)”, (v) SC’s Passports”, (vi) Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) “Individual income tax and trust enquiries”, (vii) CRA’s “Business enquiries”, (viii) CRA’s “Canada Child Tax Benefit enquiries”, (ix) CRA’s “Goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) credit enquiries” for the previous fiscal year and the current fiscal year to date: (a) what are the service standards and performance indicators; (b) how many calls met the service standards and performance indicators; (c) how many did not meet the service standards and performance indicators; (d) how many calls went through; (e) how many calls did not go through; (f) how does the government monitor for cases such as in (e); (g) what is the accuracy of the monitoring identified in (f); and (h) how long was the average caller on hold? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Laurin Liu:  With regard to government funding for the constituency of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) the date on which funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) the 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)
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:  With respect to the Action Plan for Women Entrepreneurs identified in the 2015 Budget: (a) what consultations were undertaken for the development of the action plan; (b) for each consultation in (a),(i) what was the date, (ii) what was the location, (iii) what organizations and individuals were consulted, (iv) which briefings or submissions were included as part of the consultation process; (c) what are the specific components of the action plan; (d) for each specific component of the action plan, how much funding was allocated; (e) what is the development cost of the online platform to foster networking; (f) what is the advertising cost for the “Just One Pledge” campaign to encourage mentorship and championing, and what forms of advertising are being considered; (g) what is the process for identifying women who are looking for mentors, and for linking these women with mentors who have taken the “Just One Pledge”; (h) what follow-up and tracking will be undertaken to measure the success of the program, and when will the reporting of results take place; (i) what is the government's definition of an “enhanced” trade mission, and what funding will be provided for such a missions; (j) what is the selection process for companies led by women entrepreneurs for enhanced trade missions; (k) how many enhanced trade missions is the government planning to undertake, and, for each mission planned, (i) to what countries, (ii) what are the goals; (l) what will be the specific criteria required to access the Business Development Bank of Canada’s financing for women-owned businesses; (m) what consultations were undertaken to develop the criteria for financing, and for each consultation, what were the (i) dates, (ii) locations, (iii) organizations and individuals consulted; and (n) what is the timing for the national forum, (i) how many women are expected to participate, (ii) will financing be provided for travel and accommodation, (iii) what funding is being allocated for the forum?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Bryan Hayes:  With regard to government funding for the constituency of Sault Ste. Marie for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body or group, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) the date on which funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) the 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 of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Scott Reid:  With respect to the monument The Valiants Memorial, located in Ottawa: (a) what process was used to determine the figures depicted in the monument; (b) what criteria were used to select the individuals depicted in the monument; (c) what criteria were used to determine whether to depict a figure with a bust or a full-body statue; (d) were other figures that are not depicted in the monument considered for inclusion in the monument and, if so, for which figures was this the case; (e) were other figures that are not depicted in the monument selected or otherwise endorsed for inclusion but ultimately not included and, if so, for which figures was this the case; (f) if the response to (e) is affirmative, for each figure what were the reasons provided to prioritize the figures that are depicted in the monument over the figures that were excluded; (g) for each figure depicted in the monument, provide the reasons used to select that figure, including any reasons used to select that figure rather than another figure that was considered for inclusion but that does not appear; (h) for each figure considered but not depicted in the monument, provide the reasons used to justify the rejection of that figure; (i) what criteria were used to determine the citations that accompany each figure depicted in the monument; (j) what sources or materials were used to inform the citations that accompany each figure depicted in the monument; (k) for each figure depicted in the monument, were other citations, in whole or in part, considered; (l) what were the reasons for selecting the site on which the monument is located; (m) were other sites considered for the location of the monument and, if so, what other sites were considered; and (n) if the response to (m) is affirmative, what were the reasons for not selecting each rejected site that was considered for the monument?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Marc Garneau:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada since February 2, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Marc Garneau:  With regard to materials prepared for past or current deputy heads of departments, crown corporations and agencies or their staff from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2009: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ted Hsu:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada since February 4, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ted Hsu:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Public Safety Canada since February 5, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Yvonne Jones:  With regard to materials prepared for past or current assistant deputy ministers or their staff from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2009: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or the subject matter, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Yvonne Jones:  With regard to materials prepared for past or current deputy heads of departments, crown corporations and agencies or their staff from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2011: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Holidays Act[Stage Direction]
 The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-597, An Act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day), as reported (with amendment) from the committee. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): 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.
Dan Harris:  moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): (Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
Dan Harris:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, how befitting that we should engage in a slight bit of time travel to end this Parliament. That brings me back to a quote from the veterans affairs minister when he spoke in favour of this bill at second reading and said:
 The specifics of the bill before this House are to correct a drafting oversight from the 1970s, when the Holidays Act treated Remembrance Day slightly differently from the way it treated Victoria Day and Dominion Day, now Canada Day. I am proud that it seems most members of this House will support the member for Scarborough Southwest in rectifying this oversight to ensure that as a federal holiday, Remembrance Day is treated in the same way as those other days that are important to our country. 
I would now like to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for seconding my motion today and for her excellent work on the military file in her role as deputy national defence critic. I would also like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for seconding my motion at second reading and for having served in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Remembrance Day has always been a very important day for my family, and the reason I wanted to bring this bill forward is to rectify that drafting error from the 1970s so that Remembrance Day would stand on an equal footing under the Holidays Act with Canada Day and Victoria Day, the other two legal holidays that we observe in Canada.
Yesterday I had a very touching moment when I took part in a special ceremony at my father's elementary school, Donwood Park Public School in Scarborough. My father is retiring this year after 28 years as a teacher in Scarborough, the last 25 of them at Donwood Park Public School. During the ceremony at the school yesterday, one of the other teachers, Shane Matheson, said that when he joined the teaching family at Donwood Park, he asked the principal and other teachers which of them took care of the Remembrance Day ceremonies, because usually one teacher is designated. All of the teachers immediately shouted out that it was Mr. Harris. 
Of course I mean my father, David Harris, who has taken care of the Remembrance Day ceremonies at the school for years and years. He had a talk with my father to find out how he could help to further improve the ceremonies. They actually got a letter from the current Minister of Veterans Affairs to thank my father for the tremendous work he has done over the years in teaching the next generation about the importance of Remembrance Day here in Canada. It is particularly important work for communities that have a large number of new citizens. 
The veterans affairs minister wrote the letter, and it was a very touching moment for us. As I have said in the House before, my family has a long-standing military tradition. My great-grandfather served in the both world wars; my grandmother was in the Canadian Women's Army Corps; my great-uncle, Bill Riley, was in the service in the Second World War and served in Europe. Last weekend, for the very first time, we were able to find and visit his tombstone in Pine Hills Cemetery in Scarborough. My father just happened upon the tombstone. He was there for a memorial service for a friend of his and happened to walk by the tombstone. That was certainly a very sombre but important moment for my family.
This bill went before committee. It went before two committees, in fact. It was there for 205 days before it was reported back to the House. Witnesses appeared multiple times both in the heritage committee and the veterans affairs committee, and there seemed to be some confusion about what the bill would actually do. 
Let me clear that up now. 
Just as the Minister of Veterans Affairs said, this bill would correct a drafting error from the 1970s. It would elevate Remembrance Day to the same status as the other holidays. 
This does not create a statutory holiday. We in Parliament cannot impose holidays on the provinces. That is provincial jurisdiction. The provinces get to decide which holidays to observe, and of course, every province does it a little bit differently.
With respect to Remembrance Day in particular, six provinces and three territories treat it as a statutory holiday. In Manitoba, businesses have to be shut down until 1 p.m. so people have the chance to go to ceremonies, and Nova Scotia has its own Remembrance Day Act. There are lots of models to follow. Ontario and Quebec do not do anything special with respect to a holidays act or changing the normal course of business.
I would like to quote my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley in Nova Scotia. He said:
 I want to thank you for bringing this legislation forward. I think it is a very interesting discussion. 
 I'm from Nova Scotia. We have the Nova Scotia Remembrance Day Act. It means a day off school. Businesses are closed. It's a really big event. It's become bigger over the years. I think your legislation is timely, considering the age of our World War II and Korean War veterans. I can remember, as a child, watching the World War I vets. All of them are gone. My grandfather was in World War I. I have military history in my family that is very similar to yours. 
 As a former elementary school principal, I can tell you that the local legions, in the 19 cenotaph services in my riding, are very active in all the elementary schools, the junior highs, and the high schools in the area, but particularly in the elementary schools. The schools embrace the legions. There's a really strong partnership. 
That is the important point. Everyone who works towards honouring and remembering our veterans and the brave service and sacrifice they have all made works together so that we can continue to impart to future generations the importance of that sacrifice and so that we never forget.
Regardless of what different provinces do, whether it is a day off school or not, that relationship between the kids and all the other groups that participate in Remembrance Day is what will help keep the spirit of that day alive for us so that we never forget.
I am certainly hoping today that we can actually end the 41st Parliament on a high note; more than likely we will not be coming back here until the election. We all came together as a Parliament on November 5 to vote on this bill. It was indeed fast-tracked through second reading. It passed second reading with a vote of 258 to 2. We were all able to come together in November to move the bill forward, and I certainly hope that now, in the waning hours of this Parliament, we will be able to do so again and get the bill through third reading before we all rise for the summer.
Some of our colleagues, and you, Mr. Speaker, are not coming back. I would like to thank you for the wonderful job you have done in that chair over the last four years I have been here. I am certain that you did a great job in your previous capacity, but I was not witness to it.
I just want to thank all the people who make Parliament work on a day-to-day basis: the clerks, the folks at the table; the pages and the incredible work they do; and the constables and security services here that work to keep us safe every single day. We would not be able to do the work we do on behalf of Canadians without all of them, and I just want to say thanks to them before we rise for the summer.
I am going to cut my remarks short, because I want to make sure that we get to the other speakers and that we actually have a chance to wrap up debate and move things forward. If we do not horse about here today, the bill will get through. I am certainly hoping that my colleagues, in particular those across the way, will agree to wrapping up the debate. 
Again, I quote what the Minister of Veterans Affairs said:
 The specifics of this bill before this House are to correct a drafting oversight from the 1970s, 
He went on to say:
 Bill C-597 would make it clear where the federal government stands with respect to the importance of Remembrance Day to our country. It would give provinces the opportunity to revisit whether they want to make it a statutory holiday as well. 
It would not force them to do so. 
That is what this bill does. It clarifies Remembrance Day within the Holidays Act by according it the same status as Canada Day and Victoria Day. It changes exactly one word by adding the word “legal” in front of Remembrance Day so that it matches what is says for Canada Day and Victoria Day.
I think it is a simple change that we can all get done today. 
 I want to thank all my colleagues and everybody who has been a part of this 41st Parliament. It has truly been an honour and a privilege to sit here and to represent the constituents of Scarborough Southwest, where my family has lived for almost 90 years.
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for presenting this bill, and maybe even commend the people of Scarborough Southwest for sending to this place a member who is so passionate about veterans affairs.
I have some questions, and I will do them without preamble. 
The sponsor of the bill said that he would contact the provinces after second reading. First, I would like to know, what did the affected provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, where November 11 is not a statutory holiday, have to say about this bill?
 Second, what did the member hear from the Ontario school boards about this bill? My understanding is that school boards have been clear in saying that they want to keep students in school on November 11.
Third, has the member calculated how much it would cost small businesses to make November 11 a statutory holiday?
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, the bill would not create a statutory holiday, so there would be no cost with respect to that.
It is actually a little difficult to calculate the exact cost with respect to adding Remembrance Day as, say, a statutory holiday. If we were to add another new holiday, something else, it does not matter what, that would impact the entire country, it would be easy to measure that.
If Remembrance Day was made a statutory holiday, it would not impact six provinces and three territories; it would slightly impact a couple of provinces, and it would impact two provinces. 
It is hard to find out what the cost would be to businesses right now. Businesses I have spoken to have said it is very confusing if they have an operation in Ontario and one in B.C. The folks in B.C. would be off for the day and the folks in Ontario would not be and if they tried to conduct business between the two, they could not get it done. That has a cost as well.
Businesses want predictability. Sometimes uniformity across the country is actually helpful to business. We only have to look to our neighbours to the south, the United States, for an example. The U.S. federal government passed a bill, and then every single one of the states passed their own bills. Now they have uniformity with respect to the observance of Remembrance Day, which they call Veterans Day.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to my first-hand experience when there was a discussion in Manitoba to look at expanding it from a half day to a full day in terms of the statutory holiday. There was a lot of the resistance to moving to a full day which actually came from veterans. They indicated their concern was they did not want people to see it strictly as a holiday to go off and enjoy themselves. The veterans seemed to lobby that what we should be doing is encouraging school activities and programs. Ultimately, it was decided that we would stick with the half day. It seems to be working in Manitoba. This was debated in the 1990s.
Has the member had any indication from veterans who believe that a half day would suffice, and that what they are more interested in is those moments of remembering and opportunities to educate the public as a whole?
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Remembrance Day, we have a situation here in Canada where every single Canadian who wants to go and pay their respects, however they want to do that, should have that opportunity. The model in Manitoba where businesses are shut down for half the day, certainly in the vast majority of instances would allow that to happen.
That is also why I have not been pushing specific suggestions with respect to what to do. Some of the provinces have done different things. Manitoba has gone in one direction. Nova Scotia has gone in another direction. Six provinces and three territories have decided to make it a full statutory holiday.
When we were hearing witnesses in committee, Canadian Veterans Advocacy said something that was quite poignant, that we were supposed to go and pay our respects and lay down our poppies, but afterwards we are supposed to carry on and continue to live our lives.
If families were to have that opportunity to spend the rest of the day together and choose to use the day however they wished, I do not see a problem with that. They would get to spend time together. It would also offer the opportunity for Canadian society to perhaps even do something for veterans and their families if we were to start organizing things. However, that would be a much larger discussion and a different debate on a different bill at a different time. However, I am always happy to talk about Remembrance Day.
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to rise in the House to talk about veterans issues. However, before I do, I would like to pay tribute to you and the wisdom you have shown in the House in chairing the 40th and 41st Parliaments. I will always remember fondly that I gave you your first tabs. You have worn them proudly. The House is better for the service you have given it, and I thank you very much.
Thank you to my Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs members for working together to move this bill as expeditiously as possible. It is good to see everyone working together for Canada's veterans.
While on the subject of this committee, I would like to take a moment to express how much I enjoyed chairing our meetings. No one can deny the earnestness of each and every person sitting at the committee table, and this is to the credit of its members. Thank you for your commitment to helping veterans.
Furthermore, when Parliament is dissolved, two members of this committee will be leaving to face new challenges. I wish the member for Edmonton Centre and the member for Guelph much success, and I thank them for their contribution to the high-quality discussions of this committee. I thank them for their wisdom and for their passion.
Bill C-597 would not create a statutory holiday, as the member for Scarborough Southwest said. That is a day off work or out of school.
For anybody who might be unclear on that point—it could not direct the provinces to let everyone out of school and out of work. That is because letting people out of school and out of work is provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction.
Thanks to the knowledgeable witnesses we heard over the past several months, we have learned there is a great divide over whether Remembrance Day should be a statutory holiday.
That is a debate for another time and place.
In getting to where we are today, we had some great ideas come forward on how Canadians can best honour the fallen and our veterans.
The whole debate has been very informative and has inspired a healthy conversation about remembrance. Thanks to the members of the committee for that.
We have heard how commemorative ceremonies take place across Canada, in all major cities and towns. Some of these are led at the grassroots level by young and old, military and civilians, by various levels of government, schools, churches, and private businesses. These events depend largely on the organizational culture and leadership.
As we heard from the witnesses, some groups broadcast the last post and reveille—combined with a moment of silence—over the internal PA. 
Some employees take time off to attend the local cenotaph ceremony, but anything more organized, on a larger scale, requires strong leadership. Certainly with the hire a veteran initiative and the Veterans Hiring Act, both of which were spearheaded by this government, we will begin to see more veterans in the workplace in the future. Perhaps that leadership will come from them and it will only be a matter of a few years before we see more organized commemoration activities in the workplace.
As an aside, I wonder how many in this room know about the last post ceremony in Ypres, Belgium. The Last Post Association ensures that those who died in the First World War are remembered to this day, in a simple ceremony that takes place every evening.
At 8 p.m. all traffic through the Menin Gate is halted, and two buglers move to the middle of the street and sound the last post.
On July 9, this simple 15 minute act of remembrance will be performed for the thirty-thousandth time. Now, that is leadership. That is dedication.
Would it not be wonderful if we could duplicate the last post ceremony in at least one Canadian community every night, like the citizens of Ypres?
I believe we all agree that the present system in Canada is not perfect and could and should be improved, especially in the public school system. Imagine how much more meaningful Remembrance Day would be with a little leadership, imagination, and dialogue.
The tools are there. Veterans Affairs Canada creates some excellent learning materials for schools and education authorities.
The Tales of Animals in War and the Canada Remembers Times are great resources, which do a good job of engaging students in remembrance. On the learning section of the department's website, schools can also find information on how to plan a successful remembrance ceremony. In reality, there is no amount of commemoration we can give to the fallen, our veterans, and our Canadian Armed Forces members to make up for their sacrifice.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has worked extremely hard since his appointment to create a more respectful and veteran-centric environment.
The government introduced some new measures this spring to help provide security and peace of mind in retirement.
We broadened eligibility criteria for a financial benefit called the permanent impairment allowance.
As well, financial benefits for injured part-time reserve force veterans have been enhanced. These men and women who have careers in the civilian world now receive the same minimum income support payment through something called “earnings loss benefit”. 
We also introduced the critical injury benefit, commonly known as CIB, which will provide a $70,000 tax-free payment to support the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans. The family caregiver relief benefit will provide veterans who have a service-related injury with an annual tax-free grant, to provide caregivers in the home with flexibility or relief while ensuring that the needs of the seriously injured veterans are met.
As well, the process has begun to hire more than 100 case managers and locate them in key sites across the country. By increasing the number of case managers, we will be able to provide improved one-on-one service and better meet the individual needs of veterans. The government is working hard every day to provide the supports and necessary benefits so that Canada's veterans and their families have the right amount of assistance, income, and peace of mind.
Veterans deserve the highest respect we can give them. This conversation on how we can best honour the tremendous sacrifice made for our country over the years by countless individuals is certainly an important dialogue to have and to continue to have. In fact, it would be an honour for me to personally lead that conversation if given the opportunity.
Our nation's serving military and veterans are an inspiration to Canadians. Those I meet at the friendliest Legion in the region, branch 632 in Orléans, prove it to me every day. They inspire us to embrace freedom.
They inspire us to oppose oppression.
And they inspire us to do the right thing. We will remember them.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, this will likely be my last opportunity to address the House. Some members might be somewhat disappointed to hear that. 
For a very brief moment, I would like to acknowledge what a privilege it is to be in the House of Commons and to be afforded the opportunity to be able to communicate a message to Ottawa on behalf of the constituents I represent. What a privilege it is to represent the constituency of Winnipeg North. 
I also want to very briefly comment on the degree to which all of us, as elected officials, have phenomenal support groups that enable us to do what we do, whether they are our families or our friends—close friends in particular, but friends in general. Without those individuals, we would not be where we are today. 
I also want to acknowledge the incredible work done within our constituencies by our support staff, who make it so much easier for us to do the things that are important to our constituents and our parties. 
I want to acknowledge the phenomenal efforts and incredible talents that we have within our party. I suspect that applies to all parties, but I am going to be a bit biased here. I am referring to the support staff. Whether outside in the lobby or upstairs, people on and off the Hill contribute so much in terms of ensuring we are able to operate as a party on the floor of the House of Commons and beyond. 
Again I emphasize my gratitude and my thanks to everyone from the people who do the recordings to the Speaker of the House to the support and security staff, and to everyone else who in essence makes the House the best place in the world when it comes to participating in democracy. I still believe that Canada has the greatest democracy in the world, although there is always room for improvement. 
That said, how appropriate it is that we are speaking on something that is of great importance to all Canadians. 
Bill C-597 deals with remembering Remembrance Day in particular. How important it is that we remember those who have lost their lives or who have been maimed in significant ways, both physically and mentally, in ensuring that all Canadians have what we have today: the rule of law, the freedoms. These are things we should never forget.
Across this great nation we have monuments. We have murals. We have all forms of dedications. People want to express the fact that we will not forget. They want to express how much we love and appreciate the modern-day force that is there to protect us. We know that the sacrifices they make can never really be repaid. 
That is one of the reasons we aggressively pursued the issue of Veterans Affairs when we saw closures of offices or when we saw government policies that affected our veterans. Both as a member of Parliament and as a person, I want our vets and members of the regular force to know that the Liberal Party is going to be there in a very real and tangible way. We do care about what is taking place in our Canadian Forces today. We understand and appreciate the sacrifices that are made.
I have had the good fortune of being a member of the regular forces, and I am not alone. The member from Montreal was also a member of the regular forces. Although it was short, just over three years, it was a wonderful experience to serve in the forces. I know first-hand the sense of pride that members of our Canadian Forces have for what they do. Whether they were throwing sandbags in Winnipeg during our great floods or serving abroad in the world wars, we understand and appreciate the important role of our Canadian Forces, not only in the past and today but also into the future.
This bill is about Remembrance Day. The legislation cannot mandate a statutory holiday all across Canada, but we can try to bring some influence to bear. There are many people who truly believe it should be a statutory holiday, coast to coast to coast. There is a great argument to be made for that. 
That said, it is important that we respect provincial jurisdictions. As was pointed out, Manitoba has a half day. There was consultation in that regard. There are some provinces that have a full day as a statutory holiday; there are others that do not have a statutory holiday at all. 
The Liberal Party has indicated its support for Bill C-597. As much as possible, we want to see our provinces deal with this issue in a fair and compassionate way and to respond and put into place what they believe their veterans and their citizens as a whole would like to see done in their provinces. 
There are many within the Liberal caucus who believe it should be a full statutory holiday coast to coast to coast. Others, myself included, would like to ensure that the provinces play a stronger role in recognizing the requests from many to examine full statutory holidays. However, Bill C-597, at the very least, heightens the importance of recognizing the significance of Remembrance Day. To that degree, every member of the Liberal caucus is in full support. We voted for the bill at second reading and we were encouraged by the comments we heard at committee stage.
We recognize that it is an important issue, and it would be nice to see it resolved in a very positive way. I personally think it is important to look at ways we can honour our vets. Our vets are, and should be, an inspiration to us all. 
There are certain things we can do as individual members of Parliament. We can approach local businesses, encourage our local schools, and get involved in worship centres to encourage some form of activity such as the laying of wreaths. We can do things within our communities to make sure people understand how important it is that we not forget.
I would like to close, as I started, by thanking the good citizens of Winnipeg North for choosing to support me in 2011. What a wonderful privilege it has been to represent Winnipeg North. 
John Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-597, on the last day of the 41st Parliament. This bill would amend the Holidays Act to make Remembrance Day a legal holiday. That is an important distinction. People watching and listening to this debate might be a little confused with the words “legal” and “statutory”. It is not calling for a statutory holiday. A statutory holiday would be a holiday like Canada Day, a day off that celebrates Canada right across the country. That is not what this bill is asking for. 
It is simply asking for a one-word change to section 3 of the Holidays Act. I will read that section with the change in it. After this bill passes, section 3 would read as follows:
 November 11, being the day in the year 1918 on which the Great War was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, is a [legal] holiday and shall be kept and observed as such throughout Canada under the name of “Remembrance Day”. 
It would simply add one word, “legal”. Again, I have to emphasize that we are not talking about a statutory holiday; we are talking about a legal holiday. I will say a few more words about that in a moment.
Remembrance Day is important, and this change is important. There are four reasons why I think this change is important and I will go through each of them. The first is to commemorate and honour our fallen soldiers and veterans on a national level. Remembrance Day is celebrated and talked about in many different ways across the country, and there is no real unanimity. As we know, every year the number of veterans from past wars diminishes, and I think it is time that we show our support on a national level. Modern and wartime veterans are to be thanked for preserving the democracy that we live in and thrive in today. 
I can only go by the experience in my own riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River of what happens on Remembrance Day now. It is interesting to note that with the one-word change, things would likely not change in my riding. 
In 1970, Thunder Bay became the city it is today from two separate cities. My riding encompasses the south side of Thunder Bay, which is the old Fort William. In Fort William Gardens every Remembrance Day, without any exaggeration, there are 3,000 to 4,000 people. The complete ice surface, which then is a cement surface, is covered with veterans, presenters, wreath layers, honoured guests, and so on. It is a wonderful celebration of what Remembrance Day means to so many people in Thunder Bay.
On the other side of town, in Port Arthur, there is also a celebration on Remembrance Day, which happens at exactly the same time. However, what is interesting is what happens in the rest of my riding on that day. I attended the Atikokan ceremony last year. I have to pick and choose each year and rotate where I am at 11 o'clock on Remembrance Day. I was in Atikokan last year, where there was a wonderful event put on by the legion. I should also mention that in Thunder Bay the legions are terrific, both on the day before Remembrance Day and the day of, in terms of how they treat everyone who attends to be part of Remembrance Day with them.
In the far west of my riding, at 11 o'clock, Fort Frances has its Remembrance Day ceremony. That is supported and organized by the legion. As one goes down Highway 11 to the end of my riding in Rainy River, the Remembrance Day ceremonies are staggered so that when I am in the west end for a ceremony, I can actually get to Fort Frances, Emo, Stratton, all the way to Rainy River without any problem to be part of the Remembrance Day ceremonies.
When I am in Thunder Bay, I attend the 11 o'clock ceremony. That is eastern time, do not forget. We gain an hour going to the west end of my riding because it is central time. I then hop in my car and drive all the way to the other end of my riding, 500 kilometres, to be at the legion supper in Rainy River. I know that many other MPs do the same sort of thing when they have large ridings.
The point of my talking about that is to emphasize that under this bill what happens now for schoolchildren attending and everybody else making time to be part of the various ceremonies right cross my riding. It would not really change under the bill because we are not talking about a statutory holiday; we are talking about a legal holiday.
 A legal holiday would help to provide an equal opportunity for everyone in Canada to observe November 11. It is really a symbolic change and hopefully it would entice provinces that currently do not observe November 11 as a holiday to change their practice. Six provinces and all three territories already observe November 11 as a holiday. Again, the bill would not force the rest of Canada to have a holiday, but it would give it a slightly different status by using the word “legal”, which is an important distinction.
Many people in constituents in my riding, young and old, all attend Remembrance Day ceremonies. It is a solemn time in my riding. Members may or may not know that thousands of young men and women have been involved in war efforts over the years, including, most recently, in Afghanistan. There is a real understanding in Thunder Bay in particular of the importance of Remembrance Day.
 While a lot of people already do attend, the bill would go further to encourage all the provinces to give an opportunity for everyone to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies. 
My last point is that it important to have an additional opportunity to educate the next generation. I want to say just something very briefly about that. The school boards right across my riding make a terrific effort to have veterans come into the schools. The children enter the poster contests with the legions and so on. There is not one schoolchild in my riding who does not have an understanding and appreciation of Remembrance Day and what that means. The education of the next generation is already happening, and the next generation after that. I suspect it is much the same right across the country in just about everybody's riding. A lot of things would not change with the bill, but it would increase its status somewhat, and I that is important.
I am going to finish off with just a brief recap of the bill and bills like it, and what the history has been in the House. I hope people will get the idea that it is high time to give support a bill like this.
I will talk about the NDP first. The NDP has put forward similar bills in the past. In 2006, our MP for Hamilton Mountain brought forward Bill C-363. She did the same in 2009 with Bill C-287. There have also been two motions in the past: Motion No. 424, in the year 2000 by Nelson Riis; and Motion No. 27, in 2006 by our member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
It is also interesting that in the past the Conservatives have brought forward similar bills. Inky Mark brought forward two bills: one in 2004, Bill C-295; and one in 2006, Bill C-354.
The Liberals have also brought forward bills that are much the same in the past. They brought in two bills and a motion. Ronald MacDonald from Dartmouth brought forward Motion No.699 in 1990, another one in 1991, and another in 1994. Roger Gallaway from Sarnia—Lambton brought forward Motion No. 298 in 2002.
Given the history I have ended my speech on, I can see no reason why we cannot get unanimous support right through the House for this.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House on our last sitting day of this session and speak to Bill C-597, an act to amend the Holidays Act, which was introduced by the member for Scarborough Southwest.
 I want to congratulate him on his ability, from a House perspective, to get the bill this far through the House of Commons. I know that it is never easy. I believe we have had 40 private members' bills receive support from the House during this term, and getting to third reading is no small feat. I congratulate him on that.
The Holidays Act was created in 1970 to consolidate the Dominion Day Act, the Remembrance Day Act and the Victoria Day Act. Although all three days were designated as holidays within that specific act, Remembrance Day was not designated as a legal holiday.
 Initially known as Armistice Day, and still known by that name in Newfoundland and Labrador, Remembrance Day was created by King George V to commemorate the armistice that ended the first world war on Monday, November 11, 1918, at 11 a.m.
The first Armistice Day in Canada was observed in 1919, and is still observed every year as Remembrance Day. It was a day on which we remember the men and women who have served and continue to serve our country so that we may live in peace and freedom.
For most of us, Remembrance Day is not only an occasion to remember those who gave their lives and those who continue to fight for our country. It is also a day to be grateful for the sacrifices, bravery and selflessness of our soldiers, and the country we have today. Remembrance Day is an opportunity to give thanks to those who fought, and still fight, for our freedoms and rights. We must never forget this.
That is why our government has been working hard to provide veterans and their families with the care and support they need. In fact, since forming government, we have invested over $5 billion in funding toward programs and services for Canada's veterans that provide them with the support they need and deserve. Our government will continue to leave no stone unturned as we continue to find innovative new ways to build on the supports available to veterans and to their families.
I would like to address Bill C-597 specifically. There needs to be some clarification, as the member for Scarborough Southwest has been misleading Canadians somewhat about his bill. The purpose of the bill is to make November 11 a legal holiday. However, as my colleague opposite said on numerous occasions, “I believe that it is time to make November 11, Remembrance Day, a national statutory holiday”. He said that on November 3, 2014.
 I listened to my colleague's speech just before mine and he iterated on a number of occasions that the purpose of the bill was to make Remembrance Day a legal holiday, not a statutory holiday. I find it somewhat ironic that the reason the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River had to say that was because the purpose of his rationale and building up of his argument in his speech was based on comments that were made by the very mover of the bill, not by anyone in any of the other parties in the House and certainly not by anyone who sat at committee after the second reading vote and during our hearings on the legislation.
Currently, on the member for Scarborough Southwest's website, which I have mentioned a number of times to him both in committee and in the House, there is a statement which says:
 Having November 11th made into a statutory holiday will allow every Canadian an opportunity to attend their local Remembrance Day ceremonies and participate in this important day. 
That was never taken down. We have had this conversation over a period of many weeks. It makes it clear that the member for Scarborough Southwest believes that his bill would, in fact, make Remembrance Day a statutory holiday.
There are numerous problems with that statement. First, witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs made it very clear that they did not support making November 11 a statutory holiday.
In fact, at committee, Mr. Bradley K. White, dominion secretary, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion, said:
 We remain concerned that if given the time off as a legal holiday Canadians may not take the time to remember, that it may simply become a mid-week break or just part of another long weekend. 
Mr. Bradley also said:
 It is the Legion's position that November 11 not be a legal or statutory holiday. 
This testimony makes it clear that the Royal Canadian Legion does not support Bill C-597 from the member for Scarborough Southwest.
 Furthermore, to back up Mr. Bradley's argument, Ms. Sonia Gallo, who is a communications manager at York Catholic District School Board, said during her testimony:
 The York Catholic District School Board...does not endorse Member of Parliament [for Scarborough Southwest's] private [member's] bill to make November 11, Remembrance Day, a statutory holiday. 
Second, the member opposite knows full well that even if Bill C-597 were to receive royal assent, it would be up to the provinces to decide what days are statutory holidays. This means that his piece of legislation would have, in essence, no effect.
This is important to note because as stated above, the member has been misleading Canadians in saying on June 15:
 This Friday, let us end the 41st Parliament on a high note and elevate Remembrance Day to the same status as Canada Day and Victoria Day by passing Bill C-597.... 
The bill would not give Remembrance Day the same status as Canada Day or Victoria Day. Should the bill pass and make Remembrance Day a legal holiday, it is the provinces that have the final word of what holiday is statutory or not. 
According to the Constitution Act, legislation relating to provincial non-working holidays is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Therefore, for Remembrance Day to become a non-working holiday for all Canadians, legislation would have to be adopted by provincial legislatures and most of them already have done this. 
Remembrance Day is currently a paid non-working holiday in all provinces and territories, except in Ontario and Quebec. At the federal level, Remembrance Day is a paid non-working holiday for public servants and those working in federally regulated institutions.
 This being said, whether Remembrance Day becomes a paid non-working holiday throughout the country or not, we must all remember its significance.
We must remember the reason the day was created in the first place. We must continue to honour it, to be proud of our veterans, of our history and the wonderful country in which we live. We are thankful to those who were and are still willing to fight for it. 
We must continue to educate our youth and future generations about the importance of our military history and its place within this world. We must teach them to recognize and appreciate the breadth of the sacrifices of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us, whether they did that previously or whether they do that today, or whether they do that in the future on behalf of this country.
Lest we forget.
Mr. Chungsen Leung (Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I am one of the last speakers of the 41st Parliament, I extend my thanks to the staff and wish my colleagues, those who are coming back and those who are leaving, Godspeed.
As a proud piper, every Remembrance Day I attend the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 66, to perform in the ceremony for the Gordon Highlanders. It is a tradition I have carried on for about 10 years, since I started to learn to pipe. I must say that it is quite an honour to be part of Remembrance Day.
Today I am honoured to be here to speak about Bill C-597, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day). Bill C-597, which seeks to designate Remembrance Day a legal holiday, was introduced by the member for Scarborough Southwest. Its intent is not only to raise the profile of the day and ensure that it receives the same federal recognition as Canada Day and Victoria Day but to make Remembrance Day a paid non-working holiday.
 November 11 is a day to remember the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. They have made great sacrifices for our country and our freedoms. They have also sacrificed for the rights and freedoms of others who are part of our global community but who have not been as fortunate as those of us who call Canada home.
On this day we remember those who have died fighting for us. We remember the sacrifices being made by those who are still with us. We remember the military families who live in uncertainty, never sure whether their loved ones fighting abroad will return home or be present for milestone occasions such as graduations or the birth of a child.
Remembrance Day has a long history in Canada. In 1919, King George V proclaimed November 11 Armistice Day. He declared:
 there may be for the brief space of two minutes, a complete suspension of all our normal activities. During that time, except in rare cases where this may be impractical, all work, all sound and all locomotion should cease, so that in perfect stillness the thoughts of every one may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead. 
 In Canada, at precisely 1100 hours local time, businesses, factories, schools, offices, and traffic come to a halt for two minutes of silence.
 We have observed this day, now called Remembrance Day, ever since the end of World War I. In 1970, the Holidays Act was passed to consolidate the Dominion Day Act, the Remembrance Day Act, and the Victoria Day Act. While Canada Day and Victoria Day are called legal holidays, the Holidays Act does not use this language for Remembrance Day.
 With the intent of the bill in mind, it is important to note that the word “legal” before “holiday” has no effect on whether the holiday is a paid non-working holiday. A legal holiday and a holiday have exactly the same status.
We all respect the constitutional authority of the provincial and territorial governments to choose whether their residents have a day off from work and school on Remembrance Day. November 11 is a paid holiday for employees under federal jurisdiction, including those who work in banks or in the federal public service. However, it is up to the provincial and territorial governments to decide whether it will be a paid holiday for workers under their jurisdiction.
 One reason for making Remembrance Day a paid non-working day is to give it a status equal to Victoria Day and Canada Day. Another reason—
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It seems as though all parties have been supporting this bill all along the way and congratulating me for this work. However, for some reason, the Conservatives seem to want to talk out the clock today instead of getting this bill over to the Senate for study and adoption. Here is the last chance.
Therefore, I would seek unanimous consent for the following motion: that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to put this question forward? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No. 
[Interjection]
Chungsen Leung: Mr. Speaker, currently in provinces and territories where Remembrance Day is not a paid non-working day, many schools organize commemorative events to teach and increase students' knowledge of the importance of this day. Schools hold assemblies and invite veterans to speak. The activities at school ensure that students learn about our veterans and the role our soldiers played and continue to play in Canada—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. Unfortunately, the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
It being 1:20 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, this House stands adjourned until Monday, September 21, 2015, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:20 p.m.)