2015-03-27

Adjournment Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Tuesday of next week has everything it takes to be a black day in northern Ontario if the government continues to drag its feet on a proposal to save passenger services on the Algoma Central Railway. Despite a mountain of work that has been done by a working group trying to pull these trains from the ashes of the fire that was set by the government when it made a questionable change in the designation of what rural and remote passenger routes are, if no signal of intent is received before Tuesday, the last passenger cars for the ACR will pull into the terminal.
It will put a knife into a localized economy that averages $250 million in business a year, and it will threaten hundreds of jobs and businesses. It will even isolate the community of Oba, whose only option to get out will be a private road, which is not maintained for its use at all.
Despite no end of lead time and the diligent efforts of the working group to find a third party deemed acceptable by CN, the government will not even offer a signal of intent on the proposal to wean the service off the subsidy in only five years. All we are told is that Transport Canada is working on the file and that everybody has to wait.
 That is not necessarily the case, though. There are workarounds that are not even being explored, and the lack of creativity from the government on this is disheartening for people waiting to see if they will be able to transport guests to their businesses, get to their camp, or even make their way from their small town to a larger one for something as simple as a doctor's appointment.
The first and most obvious solution that is not being explored is reclassifying the line as remote and recognizing the plight that residents of Oba will face if forced to rely on a sporadically maintained private road to travel from that community. It was clear from the get-go that Oba was being stranded by the reclassification of the ACR passenger line, but the government refused to budge. If the line were again considered remote, it would be eligible for the same subsidy that kept trains rolling for years, and CN could be asked to bridge the gap that is created while Railmark's paperwork is sorted out. For the purposes of safety clearance, which I understand is one of the items holding up Railmark's ability to take the line over on April 1, CN already has the green light.
The second solution would not require reclassification of the line, but only an answer to the proposal in the affirmative. This, again, would allow CN to consider bridging the gap, which it well may view as doable with the knowledge that it would not be an act of charity.
I have outlined just a couple of the scenarios that could be used to save passenger services on the ACR. I am sure the government will be able to find even more options if it chooses to. In any scenario that will keep the trains running, there is bound to be some back and forth, but that it is what is missing and that is why I am raising this tonight. There just has not been much in the way of dialogue, and the reason for this is the unfathomable lack of interest shown by the government in the process.
Time is of the essence. Will the government signal its intent on the proposal that has been made to protect this important piece of northern Ontario infrastructure? The people who rely on the trains deserve an immediate answer.
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the member for Sault Ste. Marie on this file for his constituents.
It is often said that Canada is a country that is tied together by its railways. We have one of the largest rail networks in the world. With some 48,000 kilometres of track, it could circle the globe. 
For over a century, Algoma Central Railway has played a part in the network, providing passenger train service to numerous people in this area. The ACR passenger rail service runs almost 500 kilometres between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst. In particular, it has served the canoeists, snowmobilers, cottagers and tourists who wish to travel to the beautiful wilderness recreation sports that this region offers.
 As the member is aware, budget 2013 renewed funding for the Algoma Central Railway for a period of one year, until March 31, 2014. As the Minister of Transport announced last year, our government was pleased to extend funding for another year, to March 31 , 2015, to continue operation of the the Algoma Central Railway. This funding gave local stakeholders time to explore sustainable, long-term solutions for passenger rail service in the area.
 Over the past year, the Algoma Central Railway passenger service working group has been examining the feasibility of continuing the service and has identified a potential new operator. Recently Transport Canada received a proposal to provide temporary funding support. The Minister of Transport has asked departmental officials to examine the proposal and the process is under way. The proposed new operator will also require a railway operating certificate. That request was submitted to officials last week and officials need adequate time to conduct their review. This work by officials is essential to ensure that the proposed passenger rail operation is safe for all Canadians before beginning operations, and that any funding provided is an effective use of taxpayer dollars.
 The Government of Canada has no role in operating the Algoma Central Railway. The current operator, CN, is a private company that makes its own decisions concerning its operations, and which services and routes are offered to its customers. Similarly, the potential new operator must also make a thoughtful decision regarding whether or not to proceed. Any decision to terminate the Algoma Central Railway between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst will be a business decision made by the owner or operator of the Algoma Central Railway.
 Lastly, I would like to remind all members that this government has supported and will continue to support the transportation needs of northern Ontario. In the transportation sector alone, we have committed more than $150 million to improve northern Ontario's highways, rail infrastructure and border crossings since 2006. 
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, it is the current government that has been dragging its feet.
If the government wanted to support this initiative, I suppose it would want to add some conditions. However, this late in the game, such conditions would be considered inappropriate in negotiations in good faith and would most likely seem harsh.
Given its reluctance to communicate with the parties involved, any chance of an exchange of views is growing slimmer given the limited amount of time left to save passenger service on the Algoma Central Railway.
If the train stops running, businesses will close, jobs will be lost, and the local economy will disappear. The government will have to live with those consequences for a long time.
Northern Ontarians are patient, but they have good memories, and they deserve better.
Will the government make this issue a priority and do something to save passenger service on the Algoma Central Railway?
[Interjection]
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, recognizing the increasing number of transportation options available to citizens of Sault Ste. Marie, Hearst, Hawk Junction and Oba, including highways and other rail lines, in budget 2013, the Government of Canada made the decision to terminate the subsidy to Algoma Central Railway on March 31, 2014. Last year the Minister of Transport extended the $2.2 million subsidy for an additional year to allow time for stakeholders interested in continuing the service to come up with a long-term, self-sustaining solution.
 Transport Canada officials are reviewing a proposal submitted by Sault Ste. Marie for a possible new operator to provide passenger rail service between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst, Ontario. Currently, the department is also reviewing the application from the potential new operator to obtain a railway operating certificate, ROC. It is extremely important that Transport Canada has an opportunity to assess whether or not the proposed passenger rail operation is safe for all Canadians before it begins operations, and that any funding provided by this government is an effective use of taxpayer dollars.
The Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later this day, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 12:09 a.m.)

Government Orders
Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to rise to finish the speech that I started on Wednesday about Bill C-26, which is back before us today. 
Previously, I was talking about how important it is to punish those who commit sexual abuse against children, and that is why we will vote in favour of Bill C-26.
It is imperative that we eradicate this scourge. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to prevent these crimes from happening. As I said on Wednesday, even a single case of child abuse is one too many. We must therefore take a preventive approach, which Bill C-26 does not do.
Since 2006, the Conservative government has taken steps to protect children, and we commend those measures. Among other things, they made it illegal to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence, strengthened the sex offender registry, increased the age at which a young person can legally consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years, put in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory, and made it illegal to use computers or other means of telecommunications to agree with or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. 
I was hoping that those measures could have been effective. However, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning the supplementary estimates, the Minister of Justice said that sexual offences against children have increased 6% over the past two years.
That statistic is extremely troubling. It also shows that the government is taking a rather minimalist approach. One thing is clear: paying lip service is not enough. The lack of financial resources, in terms of both enforcing existing laws as well as preventing these crimes, makes any new legislation pointless.
For instance, the NDP has always supported the circles of support and accountability program, or COSA. However, the government recently announced that it was cancelling funding provided by Correctional Service Canada. This is penny wise and pound foolish, since it will have a huge negative impact on this prevention plan and community services to victims, which are already operating on a very meagre budget of just $2.2 million. 
We also learned recently that, over a period of five years, the RCMP did not spend over $10 million that was earmarked for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre and other essential government projects to fight child pornography.
The cuts, made in part as the RCMP's contribution to the deficit reduction action plan, were imposed even as the number of public reports of child abuse was increasing at an alarming rate.
Tougher prison sentences and stricter measures are certainly effective ways of preventing repeat offences, but they do nothing to eliminate the problem in the long term if the necessary human and financial resources are not assigned to prevention programs and efforts to raise awareness among the public and the authorities about this absolutely appalling type of crime.
As I said, we will support Bill C-26, since the NDP has always had a zero tolerance policy when it comes to any type of sex crime. That is another reason why we are disappointed that the bill did not go further and propose truly effective measures for protecting our children and tangible preventive measures to make our communities safer.
In that sense, we are disappointed that Bill C-26 does not include any new funding or financial resources. Tougher prison sentences are a good start, but they are not enough. Our communities need resources to deal with the sexual abuse of our children, and Bill C-26 offers nothing new to that effect.
The other thing we take issue with is this government's lack of co-operation and refusal to do non-partisan work on a bill that we all agree on. All of us, as parliamentarians, could have worked together on this bill and pulled together to eliminate this terrible problem of child sex abuse.
Victims and the general public would have benefited from the government being more open-minded on such an important, non-partisan issue. The Conservatives ignored the recommendations of the associations, experts and professionals who testified in committee. It is sad and shameful to see the government turn such a serious and important issue into a partisan issue.
Nevertheless, in closing, the NDP will support this government's Bill C-26 simply because we believe that the measures proposed in it are a good start.
However, the NDP would have liked to take this further, particularly when it comes to prevention and allocating financial resources to the authorities and stakeholders in the field.
We hope that in future, the government will take expert and stakeholder opinion into account in important legislation like this. This is not about winning an election. This is about the well-being of our children, and political partisanship should have no part in that.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I know that the lack of allocated resources has been a regular bone of contention. It has been a recurring theme in all the criminal justice bills. 
There is also the matter of prevention. My colleague talked about that in his speech. I know that there is an existing initiative, proposed by a woman in my riding, to launch an awareness campaign about pedophilia, among other things, and the fact that this problem still exists to this day, unfortunately.
I would like my colleague's opinion on the need for such an awareness campaign. Does he have any advice for the government, not only about the resources needed for such a campaign, but also about how to ensure that such a campaign reaches all of Quebec and Canada?
[Interjection]
François Pilon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
As I said in my speech, it would be good for the government to invest in prevention, and for police officers and social workers to go into schools to help prevent these types of situations or, at the very least, to meet with people and find out whether a child has a problem. As I said on Wednesday, my own sister provides emergency foster care, and there are still far too many children who are abused by their own parents. This bill does nothing to prevent that.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for the member.
There is obviously a lack of resources. In each of our ridings police forces often tell us that they are short on staff to carry out investigations, in cases of pedophilia, of course, but also those involving street gangs. Take, for example, the horrendous case of Jenique Dalcourt back home in Longueuil which is yet to be resolved. There is still a killer on the streets of Vieux-Longueuil, and a lot of people are very worried, even police officers.
What does my colleague think about the fact that with all of the Conservatives' never-ending talk of law and order, they still fail to take real action? Is it not true that we do not have the funds to help our municipal police forces?
[Interjection]
François Pilon: Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher is absolutely right, and my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges probably would have been as well. 
I am from a Laval neighbourhood of 10,000 people. When I was young, there were 10 murders in 20 years in the area. It was frightening. The City decided to invest in a local police station and there were no murders at all over the next 20 years.
It it not just by putting people in prison that we make our streets safer. We need to invest in prevention, where it counts. Of course children who are abused will be glad if their abuser goes to prison for the rest of his life, but that does not change anything in the child's life. If something was really done to prevent the abuse from happening, these children would be able to lead much more normal lives.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.
When we come to this place, we all come with certain reasons behind what we want to accomplish. One, of course, is to improve the lives of Canadians. Another is sometimes to fix things that we believe are terribly wrong with our systems. For me, this legislation fits in the latter category of fixing something that we believe is terribly wrong.
Many people have been fortunate, in their careers and their lives, and they have never been touched by this particular issue. They have been spared the heartbreaking view of what happens to these young children when they are violated. In my career, I spent many years working in a rural emergency department. When I rise both to speak to this bill and to vote, it will be with the victims that I will be making that vote. I will give just a few small examples before I actually talk about the technical aspects of this bill.
I remember very clearly the 14-month-old who came in with incredibly bruised genitalia and a fractured femur. I remember three little girls. I remember the day their dad died in an accident. Two years later their mother remarried someone who then began to abuse those little girls. I remember a rape kit we had to pull out of the cupboards for a 12-year-old, barely pubescent young girl who had gone out and had a few drinks for the first time in her life. She had overdone it, and had then been brutally raped.
I remember a nurse who worked the night shift. One day she went home and her daughter revealed that the step-dad had been climbing into the beds at night, and the absolute trauma and the guilt that this nurse experienced as she dealt with the fact that she had married someone who was abusing her most precious possessions.
These are just some examples of what I experienced in my career. However, I was only representing a small area of this country, a small area of the province in terms of providing services. We have to recognize that these things are being repeated across the country many times over. Some are being reported; some are not.
I have witnessed young girls going into the criminal system to share their testimony and not meeting that burden of guilt that was required, and seeing the person who had violated them go free.
I hope this is a personal issue that everyone can stand up and support. 
I need to talk about the specifics of this bill. It set out to recognize the devastating impacts such crimes have on the lives of the victims. It ensures that justice is not only done for each victim, but also for each crime by requiring sexual offenders to serve sentences that are proportional to the degree of harm inflicted on each victim.
What is it going to do? It is going to increase penalties for sexual offences committed against children. This includes increasing existing maximum and mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for certain offences, as well as ending sentence discounts for child pornography offences where there are multiple child victims. Bill C-26 also increases the penalties for breach of a number of supervision orders. These amendments are necessary to protect the community from offenders who deliberately persist in reoffending, and this despite having been given the privilege of being conditionally released in the community.
 Such amendments are not only integral to the protection of our communities, but necessary to incapacitate repeat sex child offenders who choose recidivism over rehabilitation, and continue unlawful conduct over peaceful reintegration into the community.
Again, there is not one of us who as members of Parliament have not had concerned citizens phoning our offices when there is a repeat child offender released into their communities. In many cases I have seen them go on to repeat their crimes. We are all absolutely horrified that the system that we had in place did not actually address those issues.
These proposed amendments would ensure consistency in punishment for breaches of prohibition orders imposed on child sexual offenders, section 161, breaches of probation orders, section 733.1, and breaches of peace bonds, section 811, imposed on individuals feared to be at risk of committing a sexual offence against a child.
In all these cases, offenders would be liable to a maximum of four years imprisonment on indictment and 18 months imprisonment on summary conviction.
 The bill would provide the same penalty for a breach of the new prohibition order, section 162.2, created by Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, which can be imposed for the new offence of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Bill C-13 came into force on March 10, 2015.
Furthermore, Bill C-26 would make it an aggravating factor on sentencing for an offender to commit an offence while on parole, statutory release, or an unescorted temporary absence or while being subject to a conditional sentence order.
The proposed amendments would also ensure that the relevant evidence was available in prosecuting child predators in the case of child pornography. 
As a general rule, the spouse of a person accused of most offences cannot testify for the prosecution, even if the person wants to. The exceptions to this rule permit spousal testimony for most child sexual offences and the offence of violence against young persons, but it is important to note that it does not include child pornography offences.
In the case of child pornography, evidence of the accused's spouse is often required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography or a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bill C-26 proposes to amend the Canada Evidence Act to add child pornography to the list of exceptions and to therefore make the spouse competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution.
Bill C-26's proposed reforms also seek to build on existing measures to better protect children in Canada and abroad against sexual abuse by convicted child sex offenders. The bill proposes to establish a new, publicly accessible national database of high-risk offenders convicted of child sexual offences.
Currently, all provinces and territories have the power to advise the public about the release of high-risk offenders. These notifications are made at the discretion of the police, and they contain characteristics about the offender and the nature of the offences committed.
However, such notifications are limited to the jurisdiction and province where they are made. The bill seeks to expand access to all of those local notifications on a national scale. We do not have any boundaries in terms of where people go in Canada. The establishment of such a database would be a great example of a coordinated effort to protect the community against convicted high-risk sex offenders, because it would consolidate existing notifications in one publicly accessible spot. 
As I mentioned earlier, a complete and comprehensive response to child sexual exploitation also requires a coordinated effort that encompasses programs, services, and partnerships among key stakeholders, including federal, provincial, and territorial governments, law enforcement agencies, and civil society. In this respect, since 2010, the government has allocated $10.25 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime.
We obviously have existing criminal prohibitions against child sexual abuse. However, the fact that it has been growing in the last few years at an extraordinary rate, as indicated earlier by my hon. colleague opposite, and the fact that children account for 55% of all victims of police-reported sexual offences, even though they account for only 20% of the Canadian population, is a stark reminder that more must be done.
We must stop such heinous crimes. As such, I urge all members of the House to unanimously support the passage of Bill C-26.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for her speech. I find it very touching that she shared her own experiences from her previous career with us. I think that she has clearly understood the importance of protecting the people who have been victimized by such terrible crimes.
I would like to know whether she agrees with the basic principle. We wholeheartedly agree with tougher sentences for such horrific crimes. However, when it comes right down to it, there is a victim for every crime, and I believe that we can do more to prevent these children from being victimized by such horrific crimes.
Would it be possible to commit to doing more in terms of prevention and work harder to ensure that these crimes are not committed in the first place? I want to thank my colleague again.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the importance of what the hon. member opposite said.
Absolutely, prevention is critical. As she knows, this is a piece of criminal justice legislation. I briefly alluded to some significant dollars, $10.25 million, for new and enhanced child advocacy centres. More importantly, it is in partnership with the provinces and stakeholders that we work on the issue of prevention. 
 I think it is important to again point out that this is a piece of justice legislation. It does not in any way preclude our obvious commitment, in many areas, to preventing these horrific and heinous crimes.
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that it has taken nine years to present this legislation, I have to say that I agree with the comments of my hon. colleague from the Conservative side. The whole problem needs to be addressed holistically, not only in terms of legislation but in terms of prevention and rehabilitation. There is also one other important aspect, which is to fight cybersexual exploitation and sexual exploitation in general.
We understand that the RCMP regularly underspends its budget to combat cybersexual exploitation by a couple of million dollars. I would like to hear from my hon. colleague what explanation there is for this underspending, considering just how important a problem this is.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, of course, the issues of cyberbullying and child pornography online are incredibly important. Our government is committed to expending significant resources in that area in the budget.
I talked a bit about my personal experiences and how horrific it was to deal with some cases we had to deal with. I can only imagine the incredible challenge it is to have people in those positions. We need to have people in those positions doing the job, but members should never underestimate what a soul-destroying job it is.
Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary how important it is to have this kind of legislation as a deterrent in Canada. She anecdotally talked about the people closest to the perpetrators not being able to recognize that. From a prevention standpoint, it makes it very difficult if the closest people cannot recognize the illness and criminality of the individuals perpetrating these kinds of offences. This kind of legislation will serve as a deterrent and will ensure that reoffending will be a lot more difficult further down the road.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, for one thing, the increase in mandatory minimums and maximum sentences would keep these perpetrators off the streets for a longer period of time. That would not only allow for the increased opportunity for some rehabilitation in the system but would also keep them off the streets and away from the ability to reoffend.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about our government's decisive action to keep our streets and communities safe. I am proud to note that we have a particular focus on protecting the most vulnerable of all in our society, and that is our dear children.
Since 2006, we have taken a number of actions in this regard, including, among many others, enacting new and increasing existing mandatory minimum penalties for child sex offences and making it illegal for anyone to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child.
 Recently, as members of this House will know, we took action to crack down on cyberbullying. That has been mentioned in speeches here already. We have all been moved by several tragic cases we have heard about, from across the country and North America, where young lives have been lost due to the emotional torment caused by cyberbullying. That is why last year we passed legislation to give police and prosecutors new tools to effectively address cyberbullying.
Although our government has taken significant strides to protect our children, more work remains to be done. Of course, more work always remains to be done. Sadly, other threats to our children exist, perhaps none so disturbing as the threat from child sexual offenders, and that seems to be growing domestically and abroad. In 2013 alone in Canada, some 4,200 sexual violations against children were reported to police. Those were just those cases that were reported, not to mention the many others that have no doubt occurred and for one reason or another were not reported.
Child sexual exploitation is a horrible, evil crime. Although most of us could never fully imagine the extent of devastation caused by abuse of this sort, we understand that the impact on the victims endures long after the abuse ends. That is why we are committed to doing everything we can to protect our children, and that is why our government has introduced the comprehensive legislation before us.
 The tougher penalties for child predators act would help us better address the enormity of this crime and further crack down on offenders convicted of child sexual abuse offences. It proposes a range of measures to protect our children. It will take a few moments for me to outline some of these changes we have proposed, beginning with the proposed changes to the Criminal Code.
The first is to ensure that those convicted of child pornography and child-contact child sexual offences serve their sentences one after another, consecutively, instead of discounting them, where we pile one sentence on the other and the offenders get a break and less time served. Particularly, this would be for offenders who have victimized multiple children. Further, this legislation would increase both maximum and minimum penalties for child sex offences and would increase penalties for the violation of conditions in supervision orders. Finally, it would ensure that the spouse of a person charged with child pornography offences could be obliged to testify in court. That is important, as often it is the spouse who can provide the testimony needed to secure convictions in these cases. 
Now I would like to turn our attention to some of the important proposed amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.
 Before I get to the changes, I would note that this act, which came into force in 2004, allowed for the establishment of a database containing information on convicted sex offenders across Canada. It is called the National Sex Offender Registry. It is administered by the RCMP and is used by police across Canada to help them prevent and investigate crimes of a sexual nature. There are currently approximately 37,000 sex offenders listed on the database, of which 25,000 have been convicted of a sex offence against a child.
 Certainly some important reporting obligations are already in place in the current system. For example, offenders are required to report annually and any time they change their address or legal name, and all registered sex offenders are required to report absences of seven days or more for trips either within or outside of Canada. 
It is also worth noting that significant reforms came into effect in 2011 to strengthen the registry and the National DNA Data Bank. Those changes include the automatic inclusion, and mandatory DNA sampling, of convicted sex offenders in the registry, proactive use of the registry by police to prevent offences, registration of sex offenders convicted abroad, and parallel amendments to ensure that reforms apply to those convicted of sex offences through the military justice system. 
Nevertheless, legitimate concerns remain about our ability to know the whereabouts of sex offenders, particularly given offenders' mobility to travel abroad to other countries.
Internationally, approximately one million children are exploited by sex tourists and sex traffickers each year. Our government is committed to taking action to protect children from sexual exploitation no matter where in the world it may occur.
Indeed, the changes we are proposing to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act would allow us to better protect children from sexual exploitation, both in Canada and abroad, by ensuring that police have more information about the travel plans of sex offenders. One proposed change is to broaden the reporting requirements for registered sex offenders about their international travel plans.
 I mentioned a moment ago that all registered sex offenders are required to report absences of seven days or more for trips within or outside of Canada. However, currently the requirement for them to provide specific destinations and addresses is for domestic trips only.
 We are proposing that sex offenders convicted of child sex offences be required to report absences of any duration for trips abroad, and, again, provide specific travel dates and locations. Registered sex offenders travelling abroad would be required to report every address or location at which they expect to stay for a trip of seven days or longer, and the specific dates that they will depart and return.
This brings me to the next proposed change, which is one that would allow for the establishment of information sharing between officials with access to the National Sex Offender Registry and officials at the Canadian Border Services Agency. Although this may surprise some, there is currently no mechanism for information sharing regarding sex offenders between those two organizations. It goes without saying that it limits our knowledge of sex offenders when they travel. 
To close this gap, the bill proposes to authorize registry officials to disclose information about certain registered sex offenders to officials at the Canadian Border Services Agency, particularly in cases of child sex offenders assessed as high risk, so that they can be placed on a lookout system. In addition, border officials would be authorized to collect travel information about these sex offenders upon their return to Canada and then share it with National Sex Offender Registry officials. 
Finally, the bill includes provisions that would authorize the RCMP to establish and administer a publicly accessible national database of high-risk child sex offenders. Essentially this would be a separate database that would centralize public access to certain information on high-risk child sex offenders who have already been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction.
In conclusion, these changes would allow us to further deliver on some of the worthy commitments we have made to Canadians, namely to ensure that those who break the law are punished accordingly for their actions, that penalties match the severity of the crimes, and that the rights of the victims come before the rights of the criminals. Above all, these changes would allow us to better shelter children, both in Canada and abroad, from the horrific crime of child sexual exploitation.
Therefore, I call on members of all parties in this House for their support of this very worthy measure.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question that my colleague from Mount Royal put forward, which is in regard to the issue of the RCMP funding.
It is great to see the legislation, but having said that, we are watching what the government is doing with the budget. This budget assists us in dealing with the issue of child exploitation, particularly through the Internet. The RCMP has now consistently underspent that very important aspect of the budget by $2 million, which will work out to about $10 million over five years. If the government is so committed to dealing with child exploitation, the greatest growth of that child exploitation that we are witnessing today is in the cyberworld. 
My question to the member is, from his perspective, why would the RCMP not be spending its full budget?
[Interjection]
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I think the member asked a very good question. Of course, it is probably better directed to the Commissioner of the RCMP, and I hope he is listening today so that those dollars are expended in the pursuit of those individuals who are using the Internet for these nefarious purposes. 
The RCMP should be using those dollars effectively and efficiently to get at the root of this problem, which is very often on the internet. We hope the RCMP spends to the appropriate extent to get at the Internet issue, which is the biggest problem here of all.
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague to follow up on the tenor of the speeches we heard from the opposition side in respect of the absolute need for prevention first. 
Obviously when we present these kinds of bills, they are not done in a vacuum. We have a suite of investments, programs, and services that exist beyond a single piece of legislation on the prevention end. Of course, prevention also includes deterrence, the ability for the Canadian court system to deploy reasonable sentences on people to ensure their ability to reoffend is completely diminished. It also sends a signal to the victims in our country of how seriously this government and our nation takes crimes of this nature.
I am wondering if the hon. member can comment generally on that viewpoint.
[Interjection]
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, of course that is the highest task and demand of a government: to protect its own citizens in various ways. The hon. member for Yukon well makes the point that we need to be doing that. We need to be making sure that our citizens are protected and we are taking the kinds of measures that send a very strong message, an incentive or inducement, I guess, to many others to avoid that. However, as he also alluded to, there is no question that we need to do what we can on the prevention side.
Our government is trying to get at both of those aspects. Any responsible government will look at the preventive aspects, how it can prevent people from getting into situations in the first place. That is a whole other kettle of fish, as we have said. The use of the Internet is a big part of that problem, and we need to work with providers so that some of this is shut down.
As my colleague rightly makes the point, we need to provide those kinds of measures in the Criminal Code that provide punishment and send the message. We have done this with this thicker bill, and others as well. I thank the member for the good work he has done throughout his riding and in respect of these kinds of measures. I know he has pushed them hard and supports them, and I thank him for that.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House to comment on very important issues facing Canadians today. Certain social policy issues have been there for a number of years. Yesterday we spent a great deal of time talking about ISIL, as an example. Today we have before us an important piece of legislation that deals in a positive way with some steps forward on the issue of child exploitation. Once again, we have an issue before the House that is of critical importance. Canadians have an expectation that the government will do whatever it can to have a positive impact on a very important social issue. 
I would like to take a different perspective on the debates and discussions that I have heard thus far on Bill C-26. First I would like to clearly indicate that the Liberal Party does support Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. We see this as a move in the right direction. However, in dealing with the issue, there is a lot more to it than just bringing forward legislation. 
They say “the proof is in the pudding” or “actions speak louder than words”. Quite often we find that the government's actions have fallen short in dealing with the important issues that Canadians want the government to deal with. 
We hear a lot about child sexual exploitation. There is a great deal of growth in the Internet aspect of child exploitation. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I hope to get some time to reflect on that toward the end of my speech.
For now I want to talk about the social conditioning, what is actually taking place in our communities. The issue of exploitation has been there for many years. We have seen a significant increase in that exploitation as the technology of the Internet continues to expand with access to child videos. These children are being exploited in a way that is absolutely and totally unacceptable by the standards of true Canadian values.
Yesterday we were talking about out heroes, members of the Canadian Forces, whether male or female, who are out there defending us and executing what we, as legislators and as Canadian society, believe is important. They are heroes. We have other types of heroes as well. We talk about the RCMP and the fine work that they do. We talk about other law enforcement agencies. There is a special group of law enforcement agents that I would like to single out. These are the individuals who are at the ground level having to fight child exploitation, in particular sexual exploitation, day in and day out.
I have had the opportunity to personally meet a number of police officers or law enforcement officers who have had to deal with this issue. One in particular talked about having the unfortunate responsibility of having to view literally hours and hours of images and how horrendous these images are, whether in the form of a still picture or a video production. We have law enforcement officers in Canada who have to do this horrendous work in order to ensure that justice is brought to society, in particular for our victims, and that those who are perpetrating this horrendous crime are brought to justice.
I recognize the efforts of those law enforcement officers and others who are engaged on the ground in protecting some of the most vulnerable in society. As far as I am concerned, they should be applauded and recognized as heroes. It is not an easy job, as I have indicated. Other members have made reference to this profession and the responsibilities of it.
I would like to speak to the issue of social conditioning and what takes place in our constituencies. I will cite an example of what I believe is a huge success story. Marymound, which happens to be located in Winnipeg North but has been in Manitoba for about 100 years, recognizes that there are different forms of exploitation and that it has taken place for many years.
On a couple of occasions over the years, I have had the opportunity to visit Marymound. I have toured the grounds and have participated in some discussions on exactly what Marymound does. I would emphasize how wonderful it is to have a special group of people who make a difference in the lives of youth.
I will give members a sense of the responsibilities of Marymound. There are many different types of families, some of which are dysfunctional, where guidance is not provided to children. Often children end up being on the streets and as result, they are exploited. Some individuals are really challenged in accepting what most Canadians would perceive as acceptable behaviour. Marymound is a home that provides an alternative in the short term for many of these challenged young ladies who are trying to get their lives in order.
On one of the tours of the facility, which spoke to me in a very loud way, I met a young lady. The social worker taking me on the tour introduced me to her. She indicated that the staff were so proud of her because it was one o'clock in the afternoon and she had not hit anyone. Imagine the condition in which that individual grew up. I would guess she may have been in her late teens, maybe 18. If we were to get a sense of the clients of Marymound, I suspect we would get many horror stories about the many different types of exploitation that happen in our communities today.
We can talk about child prostitution. We can talk about the drugs in our communities. There is a reason why children are encouraged to take drugs, and in good part it is about sexual exploitation. We can talk about individuals who have been exploited over the Internet.
Why do I bring up Marymound? I believe there are many wonderful organizations, some of which have been well established for 100 years, like Marymound. Others have been established over the last five to ten years. There are other organizations that want to establish foundations or support groups so they can be there for the victims of exploitation, to assist them in their recovery and give them a better chance at success in life.
These are the types of groups and associations that government should look at to see how we can invest in the resources to support those young ladies. It is predominately young ladies, but there are also many young boys who are exploited, whether it is through the Internet or on the streets of many of our communities across Canada.
These are the types of things the government should be addressing in a more progressive fashion. We are disappointed that the issue has not been dealt with or received the type of debate in the House. It has not received the sense of co-operation with the different levels of government working together to have the desired impact that Canadians want on such a very important issue.
Let us talk about exploitation. If I wanted to get very specific with the government, one of the greatest, if not the greatest, growth areas in child exploitation takes place on the Internet. There is no doubt about that. In the last couple of years, we have seen a 6% increase in exploitation. This exploitation ranges from the age of four, and I sadly suspect even younger, to young ladies and men aged 17 to 19.
I talked about those heroes, the law enforcement officers. We have a situation where the Government of Canada has an exploitation unit of sorts, which is supported by the RCMP in monitoring and looking into what is taking place on the Internet, tracking down some of these perpetrators, and trying to shut down Internet sites that are promoting child exploitation. They are out there, trying to identify those pedophiles who are causing so much harm to our young people in all regions of our country.
A budget has been allocated for that special unit and it has been constantly challenged to underspend that budget. Depending on who we talk to, I have heard very specific comments about a challenge to all government members and ministers and their departments to underspend their budgets. We know for a fact that the government continues to allocate certain blocks of money, then stands on a pedestal, says that it is committed to fighting x and that it has allocated this kind of money to it. However, in reality, it constantly underspends. There has been no exception, not even when it comes to fighting sexual exploitation online taking place today and is a growing industry in Canada.
The RCMP has underspent its budget by approximately $2 million annually. That is more than $10 million overall that could have been used to shut down the sites that cause the problems and to deal with critically important prosecutions of individuals who mastermind and take advantage of these young children.
The Liberal Party has raised these issues inside and outside the House. It is completely unacceptable. The government needs to recognize that this is an important issue about which all Canadians are quite passionate. They want the government to do what it can.
It is great that we have legislation before us that will have a good, but limited, impact. We support the legislation. However, we want the government to do more than just bring in legislation. This is an election year, and I suspect that is one of the reasons why the government is motivated to bring in some of the legislation it has introduced in recent months.
I and others have cited the RCMP as one issue, but there are others. In committee we had great explanations about the cuts to the Circles of Support and Accountability program. The federal government has cut back on a program that has been very successful. Professionals came before the committee and testified to the degree of its success.
It has been indicated that 240 sexual crimes never happened because of this program. This is according to a government study. When the government talks about dealing with this type of exploitation, legislation is one thing.
The Speaker: The member will have two minutes after question period.

Statements By Members
Birthday CongratulationsMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 21, I had the honour of speaking at the annual rally of the Wildwood Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 149, in my riding of Yellowhead. It was there that I had the pleasure of meeting a wonderful young lady named Ruby Huddleston, a long-time volunteer and legion member. Upon meeting Ruby, she informed me that she was having her 90th birthday on March 26 and she invited me to her birthday party to be held at Wildwood's local community hall.
 I would like to extend my sincere wishes for a very special 90th birthday to Ruby. I salute her and all of the legion volunteers for all the work they are doing, and will be doing, on behalf of our veterans.
 God bless and happy birthday. 
CBC/Radio-CanadaMs. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that Radio-Canada will have to cut another 100 French-language positions because of the government's decision to slash its budget. That is a total of 535 jobs cut from the French-language service in less than a year. I do not think anyone can say that society is okay with these huge budget cuts despite what the minister would like to believe.
People in my riding, like thousands of Quebeckers and French Canadians, want our public broadcaster to remain a cultural beacon and continue to flourish in an increasingly digital cultural space.
The Théàtre du Vieux-Terrebonne even passed a resolution condemning the Conservatives' cuts to Radio-Canada. The message is clear: people love Radio-Canada.
The government must guarantee stable, predictable, multi-year funding, and that is what we will do when we become the first New Democratic government on October 19.
Retirement CongratulationsMr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment today to recognize our local media. Often working with very limited budgets and having to cover a huge diversity of different subjects over large geographical areas is a challenge, but it is a challenge they meet as it is a world filled with deadlines.
 One such local journalist in Okanagan—Coquihalla is Dorothy Brotherton. For over two decades now Dorothy has been a dedicated professional, telling the stories of the Okanagan and keeping citizens up to date and informed. However, as one of the longest-serving journalists in our region, Dorothy has made the decision to accept a new assignment, that of a full-time grandmother. 
I hope the House will join me in recognizing Dorothy Brotherton's long-time service to her community as a journalist and in offering her our best wishes in retirement. 
VaisakhiHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise and offer my best wishes to those preparing to celebrate Vaisakhi here in Canada, and around the world. Vaisakhi is celebrated annually by Hindus and Buddhists for several reasons, including as a way of reflecting and looking forward to the prosperity and the novelty of the year ahead. Vaisakhi is also an important observance for our friends within the Sikh community as it recalls the founding of the Khalsa Sikh community in 1699.
At its core, Vaisakhi is a day of family and community. It is a time to gather at gurdwaras to pray, to read from sacred scriptures and to contemplate the blessings of today while looking to the future with confidence and hope. As the faithful, including many of us here in the House, mark this special occasion at vibrant parades and other processions, on behalf of the Liberal caucus I offer my best wishes for a successful year ahead. 
Hearts of Gold GalaMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the eighth annual Hearts of Gold Gala to honour the most deserving community volunteers in Ottawa—Orléans will be held next May 20, at the Orléans Royal Canadian Legion, the friendliest legion in the region. 
 This gala lets us pay tribute to the volunteers of Ottawa–Orléans for the energy and imagination they devote to making our community the best place to live.
Over the past seven years, 484 dedicated volunteers have been honoured at this gala. Of those, 9 received Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee Medal. Ottawa—Orléans benefits from the work of 300 organizations whose lifeblood is their volunteers. 
Nominations are being received now, and anyone who would like to nominate a volunteer in Ottawa–Orléans for their dedication and service over the past year has until April 20 to do so.
People can call me at 955-1800. When I am at the office, I pick up my own phone and I answer questions.
Châteauguay—Saint-ConstantMr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend a wonderful display of solidarity by one of my constituents, who took on an ambitious project to give the Corbeil-Clément family a new home after they tragically lost theirs in a fire on December 15, 2014. With a huge mortgage and no insurance, the family might have had the worst Christmas anyone could imagine.
Moved by this terrible tragedy, Michel Énault, an electrical contractor, made it his mission to rebuild their destroyed house. With the help of volunteers, he managed to raise over $170,000 in cash donations, labour and building materials.
A week after the tragedy, Mr. Énault announced the amount that had been raised to rebuild the house at a fundraising event. By asking for help from basically all the business owners and merchants in the Châteauguay area, Mr. Énault's team was also able to give the family and the children a number of Christmas presents, a trip and enough furniture to fill the new house, which should be completed by mid-April.
Many thanks to Mr. Énault and his entire team for moving heaven and earth to transform what could have been a nightmare into a real-life fairy tale. 
Ford World Curling ChampionshipsMr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be riveted by the playmaking at the 2015 Ford World Curling Championships over nine days starting this Saturday. I know that Moose Jaw native Pat Simmons, along with John Morris, Carter Rycroft and Nolan Thiessen, will proudly represent Canada. The foursome delivered a stellar performance at the brier final just a couple of weeks ago.
Twelve countries will be represented at the 56th annual championship taking place in Halifax. Along with Canada, there are also teams from the United States, Switzerland, Sweden, Scotland, Russia, Norway, Japan, Italy, Finland, China and the Czech Republic.
I call on my colleagues to join me in wishing team Canada all the best as they wear the Maple Leaf, aim for the button and reach for the world title.
Go, Canada go.
Elmira Maple Syrup FestivalMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, tens of thousands of people will visit Elmira to celebrate the 51st annual Elmira Maple Syrup Festival. This festival is the largest of its kind in the world. Over 2,000 dedicated volunteers devote hundreds of hours to make the day a huge success.
All proceeds from the festival are returned to charitable organizations. I am extremely proud of the festival and the incredible work they do to give back to our community. The Elmira Community Nursery School, Epilepsy Waterloo Wellington, Child Witness Centre, Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council, Women's Crisis Services of Waterloo Region and Woolwich Counselling Centre are just a few of the organizations that have benefited from the great work of the festival.
Join us in Elmira tomorrow to enjoy the sugarbush tours, pancake-flipping competitions, the famous outdoor mall, antiques, crafts and, of course, gallons of fresh Canadian maple syrup. From10,000 attendees 50 years ago, to the more than 64,000 who came out last year, let us make 2015 the biggest year yet.
My deepest thanks and appreciation to all who make the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival the best and biggest in the world.
Neil YoungMr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on March 7, a lovely man and the former MP for Beaches and Beaches—Woodbine died.
This chamber was Neil Young's place of work from 1980 to 1993, but Neil lived his life at the heart of the Beach and he will carry on in the hearts of many in Beaches—East York. Neil was what we all ought to be as people and as politicians: modest; determined; ambitious for those he represented, not for himself; loving to those who needed care and caring to those he loved; and what I loved most especially about Neil, joyful in the face of adversity.
 Robbie Burns wrote Neil's epitaph and I paraphrase only slightly:
  An honest man now lies at rest, As e'er God with his Image blest: A friend of man, the friend of truth, The friend of age and guide of youth; Few hearts like his—with virtue warm'd, Few heads with knowledge so informed: If there's another world, he lives in bliss; If there is none, he made the best of this.  
Rest in peace, Neil, and I thank him.
FIFA Women's World Cup Trophy TourMrs. Pat Perkins (Whitby—Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it will not be long now until the world's best female soccer players are here in Canada. I am looking forward to next week's launch of the first ever Coca-Cola FIFA Women's World Cup Trophy Tour going to 12 cities across Canada.
Those who visit the Fan Experience will have an opportunity for fun and games, and can have their photo taken with the actual FIFA trophy. I know a tour like this will also inspire Canadians to get active and to make sports and activity a part of their lives. Of course, it will build excitement ahead of the tournament.
I would like to thank Coca-Cola Canada and its president for supporting opportunities like this. It is a great example of community support and business leadership. And of course, I am wishing the tour great success. I encourage Canadians to visit the Fan Experience in their community. I wish Canada's national women's team success in the tournament.
50th Anniversary of LavalFrançois Pilon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to mark the 50th anniversary of the city of Laval, the city where I was born and raised and worked, the city I currently have the good fortune of representing in the House of Commons. Laval is also the hometown of the next Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. member for Outremont and leader of the official opposition.
This summer, more than ever, Laval will be the place to be. Laval's residents, its artistic and cultural diversity, its artists and its local merchants have helped the city to make its mark from the past to the present and become an example to follow. The people of Laval are supportive, committed, determined and welcoming, and over the past 50 years they have made Laval a prosperous city and a great place to live.
I am extremely proud to represent my constituents in Canada's Parliament. It is with that same pride that I invite the members of the House to take part in the festivities that will be held in Laval all year long and to join me in saying, “Happy 50th. The future belongs to Laval”.
Aboriginal AffairsMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first nations, like all Canadians, want and deserve transparency and accountability from their governments. 
Two years ago today, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I were very pleased to announce that the First Nations Financial Transparency Act received royal assent. The passage of this important legislation into law represents a milestone for those first nations community members who have been calling for greater accountability and transparency. This act is helping to deliver more effective, transparent and accountable governments, which will contribute to stronger, more self-sufficient and prosperous communities. I am pleased to report that more than 96% of bands have complied.
Canadians, including first nations, support greater transparency from their leadership. It is shameful that the Liberal leader has said he would scrap a law that empowers members to access the basic information on their community finances. On this side of the House, we will continue to stand firm on accountability and transparency for all Canadians.
Komagata MaruKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, this week, a resolution calling on the Canadian Parliament to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident was unanimously passed by the Punjab assembly. Last year, we commemorated the centennial anniversary of the incident. However, the Canadian government has yet to issue a formal apology in the House.
The Komagata Maru incident was a dark moment in Canada's past. In 1914, 352 passengers aboard the steamship were denied entry into Canada based on a discriminatory immigration policy. The ship was forced to return to India and, as a result, 19 passengers were killed. In 2008, the Liberal Party introduced a motion that was unanimously passed in the House of Commons calling on the Canadian government to issue a formal apology. 
On May 7, 2014, in reference to the Komagata Maru, I stated, “As we mark what will be the 100th anniversary of this tragic event, I would ask that the Prime Minister provide a formal apology here on the floor of the House of Commons this month”. The Prime Minister has not responded. With Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, visiting Canada next month, it is time that the Canadian government issue a formal apology on the floor of the House of Commons. If not, the leader of the Liberal Party will provide a formal apology if we are elected into government later this year.
TaxationMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, mothers and fathers should be able to make the important decisions that affect their own children. That is why our new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will give 100% of families with kids an average of more than $1,100 dollars per year to spend on their priorities. The majority of benefits flow to low- and middle-income families. Our government trusts parents to invest in their children. 
The contrast is simple. The Liberals believe bureaucracy knows best when it comes to Canadian families. Both the Liberals and the NDP want to see this money back in the hands of bureaucrats. Moms and dads do not need to be told how to spend their money on their children.
Islamic StateMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the official opposition stood in the House and asked pointed and important questions about Canada's legal justification for its planned intervention in Syria, the Prime Minister had the audacity and immaturity to respond by dismissing this serious question as a joke. Abiding by international law when sending our soldiers into conflict zones is not a laughing matter. 
So far, we have heard many competing legal justifications from the government, all dubious at best. It is the same cavalier approach that the Conservatives are taking on Bill C-51, dismissing concerns about personal liberties and suggesting that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is simply a matter of discretion. 
Canadians have had enough of this. They want a government that will respect international law and protect their rights and freedoms, and that is precisely what an NDP government will do.
TaxationMr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian families recognize that the Conservative government is the only party that understands the needs of parents.
That is why we have lowered taxes for families and enhanced the universal child care benefit, which will provide significant support to four million families with children.
In fact, this is one of the biggest packages of tax relief for Canadian families in modern Canadian history. The vast majority of these benefits will go to low- or medium-income families.
Sadly, the New Democrats and Liberals have not followed our lead in supporting Canadian families to choose the type of child care that works for them. Instead, the New Democrats have pledged to undo our support and impose a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic scheme that would fail to do anything for 90% of families, while the Liberals, simply put, would take this money away. That is shameful. The NDP and the Liberals need to stop listening to elites and start listening to real Canadian parents. 
Our government remains the only one that supports moms and dads in making the best decisions for their families.

Oral Questions
Public SafetyMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, even though the Conservatives limited the number of witnesses and cut short the debate in committee, we still heard from a number of experts from across the country who practically all agreed with what we have been saying from the beginning: the Conservatives are making a mistake by refusing to listen to the criticism of BIll C-51.
Why is the Conservative government insisting on passing this bill when even its own witnesses are calling for major changes to the bill? 
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the reason we introduced this legislation is to protect Canada and Canadians. There is process in committee, and we respected that process. We need to continue hearing from witnesses.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, members need not take our word for it: 90% of Conservative witnesses said that changes were needed.
Bill C-51 is so flawed that even the former head of CSIS intelligence says that more oversight is needed. Unlike the minister, he understands that when CSIS is being given sweeping new powers, it needs increased oversight and review to go along with them. It is a very simple concept.
Will the minister accept our amendments to improve oversight, as 95% of all witnesses and 90% of Conservative witnesses have recommended?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at what some of the witnesses have actually said. Ms. Raheel Raza, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, said that legislation is important to combat radicalization and that we need better tools to track jihadists who travel overseas. 
 Let us listen to what Mr. Ray Boisvert, the former assistant director to CSIS, had to say. He said that Bill C-51: 
 ...will be a very effective tool that way to get that material off the Internet. 
These are the voices of the experts who are saying Bill C-51 will be an important way in which this government can continue to protect Canadians.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, almost every single one of them said more oversight is needed. The Conservatives are just not listening. That is the kind of answer that means the more Canadians hear about the bill, the less they like it.
Conservatives should really listen to the witnesses, including prominent first nation witnesses. Everyone from National Chief Perry Bellegarde to tribal councillors and activists has been clear that Bill C-51 poses a real threat to the ability of first nations to defend their rights and title.
Why is the minister refusing to acknowledge that Bill C-51 threatens first nations' rights, and why such disrespect to first nations?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, like so much of the rhetoric coming from members opposite, that is absolute nonsense. 
This bill is not designed in any way to impact or affect peaceful protest or those who may take issue with government. This is a bill aimed directly at giving our security agencies the necessary support tools, legislation, and resources to go after people who are directly targeting Canada. Those are terrorists. They are those who have in the past and may in the future impact directly on the safety of Canadians inside and outside our country. That is why we are bringing forward the legislation. That is why we are participating in an important international mission. 
Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the more Bill C-51 is examined in committee, the more we see that the Conservatives did not do their homework.
Yesterday evening we learned that all of the changes to the no-fly list were developed without consulting the airlines, the ones who will be responsible for enforcing those changes. That is not due diligence.
Why did the Conservatives cut corners when drafting this bill?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should and would be aware that we have in fact consulted broadly, but let us not lose sight of the urgency of this matter. Let us not lose sight of the fact of what happened here in October and what has happened in other countries are terrorist actions that go directly to the safety and security of Canadians. 
Similarly, the actions that we are taking with regard to the mission overseas are actions consistent with Canadians' story, history, and past, and promoting and protecting interests at home and abroad.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, two weeks of study have revealed problem after problem with Bill C-51. Obviously, this is a botched bill. Any government that was the least bit serious would go back to the drawing board.
Why are the Conservatives insisting on passing a bill that jeopardizes our freedoms and ultimately is just not going to work?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this is not a botched bill. The member's assessment of the bill is incorrect.
There are very important and comprehensive measures contained in Bill C-51 that go directly to the heart and effort of protecting Canadians. Whether it is giving our security forces greater ability to promote and protect Canadians' interests by pre-empting some of those actions or whether it is by changing the legislation with insertions in the Criminal Code to allow us to do more to prevent radicalization and recruitment online, this is a comprehensive, important bill before Parliament.
 It is getting rigorous examination before committee. I would urge the hon. member to actually take the time to read it and delve a little deeper herself. 
The EconomyMarc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important roles of any government is to inspire confidence in the economy.
However, today, we are seeing that the trust of businesses and consumers is fragile. The problem is not only that the Conservatives are shirking their duties, but also that they are absolutely refusing to talk about the economy. They delayed the budget because they do not have a plan. The Minister of Finance, who is nowhere to be found, simply stopped answering questions about the economy two months ago.
When will the Conservatives deliver a budget?
Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has a low-tax plan for jobs and growth for all sectors of the Canadian economy. That plan is working very well. It will return Canada to a balanced budget this year. The minister has been very clear that we will not bring forward a budget until at least April.
The hon. member can be certain that when this budget is tabled here in the House, it will be a budget that will continue on the same plan of lowering taxes, creating jobs, and coming to balance. Let us contrast that with the opposition, a high-debt, high-spend party that also believes that budgets balance themselves. 
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, that vaunted plan is clearly not working very well. 
Outside of a full recession, we have had the slowest consecutive 15 months of job growth on record. TD says things are not going to get much better on the jobs front for two years. CIBC says we have the lowest-quality job creation in a generation. 
The economy could use some confidence, not deafening silence. Where is the federal budget, and why has the Minister of Finance chosen not to answer questions in the House for two months now?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly what we have been saying consistently: the global recovery is fragile. Our Conservative government is focused on what matters most to Canadians. That economic action plan is a plan that helps create jobs, keeps money in the pockets of Canadians, and lowers taxes for all Canadians.
 We know that the opposition would take those tax cuts away. They would take pension income-splitting away. They would take universal child care benefits away. They would continue to spend and raise taxes. That would cost jobs. That is not what this economy needs.
 Canadians know they are better off with our Conservative government. 
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, one of the government's most important jobs is to instill a sense of confidence in the economy. That is clearly not happening now. In fact, Conservatives outright refuse to talk about the economy at all. They have indefinitely postponed their budget because they have no plan, and the finance minister simply stopped answering questions two months ago.
The fiscal situation facing governments in Alberta and Quebec did not prevent them from making tough decisions and presenting budgets on time. Why is this government running away from its responsibilities?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member says, we are talking about the economy. We are talking about the fact that Canada's economic action plan has created 1.2 million net new jobs since the lowest part of the recession. 
We are talking about the economy in saying that we are going to keep taxes down. We are going to keep money in the pockets of Canadians. We are going to keep money for the families of Canadians. We are going to keep money in the pockets of pensioners and seniors. 
We know that party would take it all away. It would tax and spend. That is why its members are looking forward to a budget. They believe that a budget is an opportunity to take from Canadians. 
Public SafetyMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after two weeks of testimony, one thing that really stands out is what a bad job the Conservatives did in drafting Bill C-51. 
Witness after witness has revealed how flawed the bill is. At committee we learned that the Conservatives had not even consulted Canadian airlines on changes to the no-fly list. Here is what we heard from them at committee: the changes in Bill C-51 are likely unworkable and could end up costing airlines and travellers millions without making us safer. 
How could the minister fail to do such basic due diligence in drafting the bill?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as with all legislation, it is, of course, incumbent on the Department of Justice and other departments to give input into this legislation.
Let us not overlook the intent here. This is about sharing information amongst government departments. It is about ensuring that our security agencies have the ability to follow the trail of terrorists, to pre-empt, make arrests, and prevent these acts of terror before they occur on Canadian soil, thus keeping Canadians safer.
It is fine for members of the opposition to throw out these wild allegations and to try to scare Canadians into thinking somehow that this bill is going to harm their rights. There is valid, strict, judicial oversight. This is a good bill for Canadians.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we concluded a marathon in committee, after hearing some very important testimony on Bill C-51.
Forty-five of the 48 witnesses we heard asked us either to amend the bill or to go back to the drawing board. Now is the time to act responsibly in the face of terrorism and radicalization.
Will the minister listen to the concerns experts expressed about Bill C-51 and will he make the necessary major changes to his bill?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank that hon. member and the members of the committee who have taken part in a very comprehensive study of this bill, a bill that does contain a number of extremely important provisions. We have heard from experts on the bill.
I thank her and the members who have participated in what was obviously a very intense study of this legislation. We have heard from a number of important witnesses. We are proceeding now with the regular process that occurs with examination of bills such as this.
This is legislation that we believe sincerely will make Canadians safer. That is why it is before Parliament. That is why we have presented it in such a way. I do encourage members opposite to support this important legislation.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before.
 A badly drafted bill from the Conservatives that threatens the charter is just going to land the government in court. The Canadian Bar Association said it best. Bill C-51 is clearly unconstitutional.
Why has the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada lent his support to such a flawed and dangerous piece of legislation when it is his job to ensure that the Constitution is respected?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is the advice and the input from the Department of Justice, and me, as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, that this bill is in fact constitutional and will meet the charter screen.
I want to come back to the point that the member made with regard to the Canadian Bar Association. There is some reference in their testimony that judges will somehow be put in a compromised position. I remind her, and she as a practising lawyer will know, that judges, each and every day, are called upon to make assessments of evidence presented for warrants before them.
This is completely consistent with the tradition of the judiciary. It should give her great solace and comfort, and the Canadian Bar Association, to know that the judiciary are so involved in this process.
Firearms RegistryFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, to put judges in a position to accept doing certain things illegally? 
On another note, in a split five-four decision, the Supreme Court ruled this morning that the federal government could destroy the firearms registry data. The judges are unanimous that this destruction is a political decision.
The judges in the minority felt that the federal government was deliberately trying to hurt the provinces by seeking to destroy the data. I would not be proud of that. Quebec has been clear: the data are important to public safety.
Will the Conservative government hand over the registry data to Quebec and show some open federalism—
The Speaker: Order.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear in this decision. We are pleased that they upheld the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal in this matter.
 I would like to remind the member opposite that we have a strong system of gun control in Canada, and our government has toughened laws and penalties for those who commit crimes with guns.
We will continue to ensure there is safe and sensible firearms legislation.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in January of this year the Canadian government committed to taking in an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees over the course of the next three years.
However, since the government just reached its 2013 objective, which was to accept just 1,000 refugees, two years late, we have cause for concern. For example, we still do not know when these refugees will arrive or how many refugees will be supported by the government.
Will the minister develop a credible plan to fulfill his promises and ensure that these 10,000 refugees arrive in Canada within the next three years?
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as of March 10, our commitment to resettle 1,300 refugees from Syria was met. They have all been granted permanent residence. That is a commitment made and a commitment kept.
Canada has been and will continue to be a world leader in providing support for conflict-affected Syrians and Iraqis. We are expanding our commitment to help Syrian refugees by resettling an additional 10,000 Syrians over the next three years. This brings Canada's total commitment to helping Syrian refugees to 11,300.
The EconomyMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, according to the finance minister, because of falling oil prices he cannot do his job and table a budget. Yet, yesterday, Alberta, which is far more dependent on oil, tabled a budget.
Something does not add up here, and it is not just the Conservatives' plan to take billions away from the middle class and give it to the wealthy few.
The finance minister cannot seriously expect Canadians to accept his worn-out excuse. When will he stop hiding and table a budget that stands up for Canadians?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, we know full well that we are in a fragile global economy. Of course, this country has been severely impacted by the dramatic fall in oil prices. That is all the more reason to stick to Canada's action plan and to the government's low-tax plan that has generated 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession.
It is because of actions like this that the overall federal tax burden is at its lowest in the last 50 years. Contrast that to an opposition that believes that a $20 billion carbon tax would be the answer to the economy. We know that would cost jobs.
They would raise taxes—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, it is funny. That did not really look like the finance minister. In fact, the finance minister has not been responding for weeks, and he has only answered questions on four days this year.
Nobody is buying that it is because he is too busy to draft a budget. What is he using, an abacus? Is he getting out his pot of ink and his feather quill? Dab, dab, dab. Slide another bead across. Come on.
Does anyone on that side get that Canadians want answers and they want action on a budget?
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, again, our government has a low-tax plan that benefits all Canadians. It is a low-tax plan that helps our economy grow, and a low-tax plan that helps all sectors of the Canadian economy. That plan is working. It will return Canada to a balanced budget this year. We will bring forward the budget; the minister has said it will not be before April. 
However, we reject the opposition's plans to tax more. It looks forward to a budget because it views it as a way to take money out of the pockets of Canadians. It believes that its $21 billion carbon tax is going to help grow an economy. We know that it would cost jobs. We are going to keep on track. Canadians—
The Speaker: Order.
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, while the minister of state lives in his bubble, we are living in the real world, where the provinces are able to table budgets. It seems that the Conservative government is incapable of tabling a budget.
For weeks now the government has been dragging its feet and postponing significant investments that the middle class needs right now, such as tax cuts for small business or measures to help manufacturers create jobs.
How many more weeks will the middle class have to wait for a plan to advance families' priorities?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are advancing the interests of the middle class by reducing taxes and providing child care benefits. 
We introduced a plan that reduces families' taxes through income splitting, which will yield up to $2,000 for each family. We have enhanced this benefit, which provides $2,000 for each child under the age of six and $720 for each child between the ages of 6 and 17.
The NDP and the Liberals want to increase taxes and eliminate these benefits, but we will not let them.
CBC/Radio-CanadaPierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, yesterday CBC management announced that the corporation is cutting another 244 jobs, including 100 in French-language operations.
In Quebec and across Canada, the regions are the victims of this Conservative government's blind cuts. In a panic, management is now shedding young employees, the very people who could make Radio-Canada and the CBC leaders when it comes to reflecting our identity on new platforms.
Quebeckers love Radio-Canada, whether it is in Rimouski, Rouyn-Noranda, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke, Roberval or Sept-Îles.
Is the Minister of Canadian Heritage not ashamed of forcing our public broadcaster to inflict these deep cuts?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, they can keep asking the question; the answer is going to be the same.
CBC is responsible for its own operations. It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want to watch and listen to, in both of our official languages. Our government provides the CBC with significant funding on a yearly basis. 
If the member, who sits on the committee with me, understood and certainly looked back, he would understand and know that these changes are part of a strategic plan that the CBC went through in 2014 and is beginning to implement.
Manufacturing IndustryJudy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, despite announcing the advanced manufacturing fund in March 2013, until today not a single penny was spent from the fund while our manufacturing sector in southwestern Ontario continues to suffer from Conservative neglect. It was only after the Liberals called them out on this neglect that the Conservatives quickly cobbled together today's announcement. After 750 days of foot-dragging, can the Conservatives at least explain why they are making these companies pay federal tax on these loans as if they were income?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to inform the House that the government has announced today that we are investing in Hamilton's manufacturing sector through the advanced manufacturing fund. This investment will support nearly 80 jobs and create countless others in the supply chain.
Our government will continue to support policies that create jobs and grow the economy.
However, it is interesting because the Liberal leader has said that southern Ontario needs to “[transition] away from manufacturing-based employment as a driver in the economy”.
The EconomyMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no government other than the Alberta government is affected by the price of oil. Nevertheless, yesterday Alberta brought down its budget, as did Quebec. Here in Ottawa, the Conservatives are still using oil as a reason to put off their budget. That is an excuse.
They clearly have no plan for the economy. We need to create good jobs and invest in infrastructure, and we need federal leadership. Where is the Minister of Finance and where is the 2015 budget?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the reason the Liberals want a budget is so that they can increase taxes for Canadian families. Canadians do not want the Liberal Party's tax increases.
The Liberal leader thinks that budgets balance themselves, but that is not how it works. We balanced our budget and now we are helping families balance theirs. We have lowered taxes for families and increased the universal child care benefit, a benefit introduced by the Conservatives. We are improving it and we will continue to put money right into the pockets of Canadians.
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, their budgets are so horrible, maybe we are better off without one.
However, Canadian cities do not get that choice. They have to present their budgets and they have done it again on time, and, something the current government has not done, their budgets are actually balanced. They do not get to play hide-and-seek like the Minister of Finance. 
They also do not get something else from the current government: infrastructure money. Because the budget has not been presented, these cities did not get money this year and they did not get money last year. That is no money for Vancouver, for Calgary, for Winnipeg, for Toronto, for Montreal, for Halifax. That is two years now with nothing.
So Ollie, Ollie, umphrey, can the Minister of Finance come out from hiding under his desk? Can he—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that member may be interested in knowing these actual facts. The City of Toronto, this year, will receive $150 million through the gas tax fund alone. The member may also be interested to know that since we formed government in 2006, Canada has consistently led the G7 with respect to investments in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP. Our average annual investments in infrastructure are three times greater than the previous Liberal government.
CBC/Radio-CanadaMatthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, Conservative cuts to the CBC continue to damage the cultural fabric of Canada. Yesterday, CBC management announced 244 layoffs. This is on top of the 400 jobs lost in October. This latest round strikes at the heart of local news services.
Canadians believe that our public broadcaster is important. That is why an NDP government would reverse the Conservative cuts and stand up for the CBC. Why will the Conservatives not get on board?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to this question three times. 
However, there is something that will strike at the hearts of Canadians, not at the media but at families and children across the country. The New Democrats are prepared to reinvest or say that they will spend all kinds of money on crown agencies. They will involve themselves in the day-to-day operations of them. Where will they get that money? They will stop income splitting. They will prevent pension splitting from happening. They will reverse the child care benefits to all families across the country.
We will not do that. We are about families. The New Democrats can worry about things that are relevant not to families but to anyone else who is not concerned about how they would govern.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's CBC layoffs will have a huge impact on western Canada. In British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, another 76 jobs will be lost. Conservative cuts are simply destroying our public broadcaster. I hear it every day.
 Canadians understand the importance of quality local news and why we need a strong CBC. An NDP government would reverse the devastating $115 million that the Conservatives have cut from the CBC and we would stand up for the CBC.
When will the Conservatives just take their hands off CBC?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the only party in the House that allows the CBC to do its job and keeps its hands away from interfering on the day-to-day operation is the party on this side of the House, the government.
This proud agency has certainly faced difficulties. The changes in technology, the changes in demographics, the viewership in terms of what people want to watch and how they watch, that is left under the jurisdiction of the CBC. We will let it implement its plan. It put one into place in 2014. Let us let this crown agency do its job and not interfere on a political basis. 
It is not what we will do on this side. We know that is what those members want to do on the other side.
Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has not stopped with its cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada. Yesterday's announcement will hurt the regions badly. 
Ten positions will be cut at Radio-Canada Acadie. Francophones in Atlantic Canada have fought to preserve their culture for decades. They need the support of a strong public broadcaster.
Does the minister understand that our francophone communities will end up suffering as a result of her lack of vision?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House completely understand the role of the CBC, which acts as an independent crown agency to deliver service to people across the country. We understand the role CBC plays in remote and minority language communities. That is why it gets significant taxpayer dollars on a yearly basis.
 Let it do its job. It is what their professionals do. They understand how to deliver that service. It is not easy to do in the times we face today. Let the CBC do its job.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not understand anything. The elimination of 244 jobs means the loss of one-quarter of all jobs back home in northern Ontario. It means that 25% of all jobs are being cut.
Franco-Ontarians need French-language television and radio services.
Will the minister stop gutting our public broadcaster and finally reinvest in Radio-Canada?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, our government expects the CBC to fulfill its duty to provide quality programming to official language minority communities under the Official Languages Act and the Broadcasting Act. The CRTC has expressed authority to ensure that the CBC is fulfilling its mandate under the law.
We on this side of the House will let it fulfill that mandate. We will not interfere with the day-to-day operation.
It is obvious the other side of the House wants to do that. It is not our mandate to do that.
TelecommunicationsMr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government continues to stand up for hard-working Canadians. We have always believed that consumers should have more choice in choosing television channel, and that Canadians should only have to pay for channels they actually want to watch Last week, we fulfilled this commitment.
 Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage please tell the House more about this good news?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been concerned about this question for years, and this was addressed last week. Our government has said that Canadians should not have to pay for the channels they do not want in order to get the ones they do.
In our Speech from the Throne we promised to provide consumers with more choice in channels. That is exactly what we have done. This will not only give more choice to consumers, it will help Canadian families make the best decision on how to spend their dollars. 
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs shocked and deeply wounded Alberta first nation leaders in alleging that unreleased RCMP data showed that indigenous men were 70% responsible for missing and murdered aboriginal women. The RCMP has now directly contradicted this.
 I can personally attest to the relentless efforts of Alberta first nation leaders, men and women in seeking justice for their missing and murdered family members, and they have been relentless in calling on the government to call for a judicial inquiry into missing and murdered women.
Will the minister, who has made this shameful, groundless insult to Alberta first nations, stand and apologize?
Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, violence against women and girls is simply not acceptable. This government has moved forward with an action plan. In fact, it was presented in the House in September of 2014. 
Unlike the opposition, which does not want to take action to actually help these women and their families, to ensure that they are protected, that shelters are created, or maybe supporting matrimonial property rights, this government is taking action to ensure these heinous crimes are dealt with. The opposition just buries its head in the sand.
Northern DevelopmentMr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, nutrition north Canada is yet another program that is not measuring up because of the Conservatives' incompetence. 
Recent statistics show that the number of northern households that cannot afford healthy foods grew during the first year of the nutrition north Canada program. We are not the ones saying that. That is from the latest Statistics Canada report. 
Instead of continuing to boast about the merits of nutrition north Canada, will the Conservatives acknowledge that they have failed?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the member and his party are really concerned about the cost of healthy food in the north, they should scrap their plan to tax carbon, which will increase the cost of food in the north.
The results are clear. As I have said before, thanks to nutrition north Canada, the average annual volume of healthy foods shipped has increased by about 25%, and the cost of a family's basket of groceries has dropped by $137 per month. That is significant, and we will stay the course with northerners.
Champlain BridgeMr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Champlain Bridge is another example of the Conservatives' incompetence.
Bridge replacement work is threatening Montreal's drinking water supply. It will cost several million dollars to protect the aqueduct canal that supplies close to half of Montreal's drinking water. The city is asking the government for help.
I know how hard this is for the minister, but will he sit down with elected representatives from the Montreal region, find a solution to the lack of planning, and protect the people's drinking water?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada is working very closely with both the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec to ensure the appropriate safeguards are in place. We look forward to continued progress on this important project.
Canadian HeritageMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the proposed memorial to victims of communism gets a failing grade in design, cost and especially location. It is opposed by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, the Ontario Association of Architects, the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects, former directors of planning for the cities of Toronto and Vancouver, the Canadian Bar Association, the National Capital Commission, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the people of Ottawa.
Why are the Conservatives ignoring all these voices and the democratic voices of the people of Ottawa?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, this memorial will honour the more than 100 million lives lost under communist regimes. It will pay tribute to Canadian ideals of liberty, democracy and human rights. In Canada, over eight million people trace their roots to countries that suffered under communism. 
Our government committed to honouring the victims of communism in the Speech from the Throne, and we look forward to fulfilling that commitment.
Public SafetyHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's preoccupation to basically rob money from critical programs in order to give a tax break to the rich is beyond comprehension. One example are the cuts to the RCMP. Commissioner Paulson informed us the RCMP had to take 300 personnel off of criminal investigations and transfer them to anti-terrorism. Rank and file RCMP officers are calling for more training and better equipment, yet the minister has forced budget cuts of $290 million since 2012.
Why is the government compromising the RCMP so it can give a tax break to the rich?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. We have actually increased resources to our national security agencies.
 What is clear is that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and our allies because of the values that we share. We only need to turn on the six o'clock news, or read in the paper of another attack around the world or of more people leaving countries like Canada to join ISIL.
 We heard credible witness testimony in committee this week that has confirmed that the threat is real, it has evolved and it is growing. The number one priority of any responsible government is the safety and security of its citizens. That is why this Conservative government will pass this legislation and why the RCMP is supporting it. 
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, of course the threat is real, but the government cut $290 million from the RCMP since 2012. That is unacceptable and it is doing it in order to give a tax break to the rich.
Beyond that, the RCMP rank and file members are now speaking out. They are mad and are feeling betrayed. They lack training. They lack equipment. The government has failed to honour the commitments it made to the Mayerthorpe recommendations, which cost RCMP lives. That comes out of the Moncton report.
Why does the minister force cutbacks, put Canadians at risk and even risks the lives of RCMP officers? Why?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, that is similar to the rhetoric we heard in committee this past week.
Let me talk about one of the witnesses who did appear before committee. Inspector Irwin has more than 30 years of experience in law enforcement and intelligence gathering. What did this credible witness say about Bill C-51? He said that existing laws “are too restrictive” and that there was an absolute need for the new measures contained within this bill. What else did he say about the need for information sharing? He said that it was absolutely crucial. In general, with respect to the bill, contrary to what the opposition parties like to put out, he said that it provided the necessary safeguards.
In the same meeting, we heard opposition witnesses say that the bill had absolutely nothing to do with—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Canada PostCharmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, the City of Terrebonne wants a moratorium on the installation of community mailboxes. Residents are outraged by the lack of public consultation.
Canada Post is ignoring the diversity of municipalities. More than 200 cities are shocked by Canada Post's attitude.
Will the government honour Terrebonne's request or will it plough ahead with the installation of community boxes without cities' consent?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post delivered about 1.4 billion fewer pieces of letter mail in 2014 than in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not receive mail at home.
Canada Post must balance its books without being a burden on Canadian taxpayers, and we would expect nothing less.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is not just mail that the Conservatives cannot deliver; it seems they also have a hard time with accounting.
The people in my riding of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin reject the Conservatives' decision to end home delivery at a time when Canada Post is posting record profits.
In fact, we have learned that Canada Post made a $194 million profit this year, but it is still halting door-to-door mail delivery. That is unbelievable.
Will the Conservatives finally listen to Canadians and deliver the mail?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that in 2014, Canada Post delivered nearly 1.4 billion fewer pieces of letter mail than it did in 2006. That is a further and continued decline in that business.
Canada Post has decided it needs to continue to take action. That is why it has a five-point plan. For the remaining third of Canadians who do not receive mail at their mailbox, that will proceed so they will have daily mail on the same terms as two-thirds of Canadians currently receive it right now.
Manufacturing IndustryMr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to creating and maintaining jobs in Ontario's vital manufacturing sector. Earlier this morning our government announced further support for manufacturers.
 Could the regional minister responsible for southwestern Ontario please update the House on this important announcement?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today our government was pleased to announce that FibreCast Inc. would receive a $10 million repayable contribution under the advanced manufacturing fund. This investment will help Ontario manufacturers create high quality high paying jobs and compete globally.
While we are standing up for the manufacturing sector, the Liberal leader said that Canada needed to start, “transitioning away from manufacturing-based employment as a driver in the economy”. This is just further proof that the Liberal leader is an economic novice who is incapable of managing the Canadian economy.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the MP for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River stated that RCMP statistics verifying their comment that 70% of missing and murdered indigenous women were attributed to native men would be released. Today the RCMP said that no, they will not.
 Why would the government members make that commitment and use the data in private meetings, only to be overturned in the public by the RCMP? Will the minister make good on the commitment?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier this week, last week I did a tour of the prairies and met with several chiefs, councillors, and stakeholders on the aboriginal file to discuss a wide range of issues. While I do not disclose specifics of closed-door meetings, I can assure the hon. members in the House that the discussions were productive, and our government will continue to work with first nations to address these issues.
TaxationMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many people say that the riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country is the most beautiful place on earth. Families in this riding are asking what can be done to help them in terms of tax relief and direct support. What they do not need is waste and new bureaucracies. 
I wonder if the Minister of Employment and Social Development can tell us what our government is doing to respond to families like those in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for a challenging but thoughtful question.
We have balanced our budget, and now we are helping families balance theirs. Our low-tax plan will allow income splitting for parents to put up to $2,000 back into their pockets. We have increased the Conservative universal child care benefit to almost $2,000 for every child under six and to $720 for every child six through 17. That means we put money directly in the pockets of families. 
While the NDP and Liberals would take that money away and raise taxes to fund new bureaucracies, we disagree. We are giving the dollars back to the more than eight million real child care experts who are out there, and their names are Mom and Dad.
Gun RegistryMr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD): Mr. Speaker, by a single vote, a majority of the Supreme Court has agreed to let the Conservatives destroy the gun registry data for Quebec.
Beyond the legal aspect, there is something called common sense. The federal government has the opportunity to prove that it can work with the Government of Quebec by transferring the data rather than hitting the delete button.
Why make Quebeckers pay twice for something that already exists?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that question.
As I mentioned earlier today, the Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear on this matter, and we are pleased, as a government, with the decision on this particular issue. 
As I mentioned earlier, we have a strong system of gun control in Canada, and our government has toughened laws and penalties for those who commit crimes.
Natural ResourcesJean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, we can see where TransCanada's priorities lie when it comes to the energy east pipeline. First, the company refuses to be transparent by providing its documentation in French for the people in my riding. Then, it disparages an independent study commissioned by elected officials in the RCM of D'Autray who want to know more about what the risks really are.
What is the government waiting for? When will it intervene to ensure that Canadians have all the information available on the risks associated with the pipeline?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has fulfilled its requirements under the Official Languages Act. Any documents produced by the National Energy Board must be published in both official languages. Questions related to documents filed by an applicant should be directed toward the project proponent.
LabourMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, last week, we learned that the government, before reversing its position, wanted to cut 50 jobs at a federal sorting facility. Those positions were filled by people with intellectual disabilities. These jobs, which were useful to and enjoyed by these workers, were more of a symbolic gesture than an actual way to earn a living since workers were paid only $1.15 an hour. 
Many people share the same concern and are wondering about this. Does the government think it is right to be paying hard-working and capable employees $1.15 an hour?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more inspiring than people who want to work, regardless of the challenges they face in life. That is the case with these 50 extraordinary workers who have been serving the government and all Canadians for over 35 years.
Their contract with the government is expiring and I am pleased to announce that we will be renewing it for another three years. We give the money directly to the organization that manages their wages to prevent them from losing any of their provincial benefits.
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the fact that these people are paid only $1.15 an hour.
That being said, is there now a labour policy adapted to the needs of this client group? It is not an impossible task. All it takes is the willingness of the government.
Will the government commit this morning to proposing a labour plan that provides for decent wages for people with intellectual disabilities?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more inspiring than people who want to work despite the obstacles life puts in their way. Such is the case with roughly 50 excellent workers who have served the government and the people of Canada for over three decades in sorting, recycling, and shredding sensitive documents at Tunney's Pasture. 
Their contract was expiring. We have agreed to extend it for another three years. The salaries are set by the association for people with disabilities to avoid having provincial benefits clawed back. But we will continue to work to create jobs for people with disabilities.

Routine Proceedings
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 responses to five petitions.
Statutory Release Reform ActDiane Finley: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make a consequential amendment to the International Transfer of Offenders Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Support for Families ActHon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Universal Child Care Benefit Act and to make related amendments to another Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsJohn Weston: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of over 100 Canadians, mostly located in the beautiful province of Ontario, who are concerned about apples. In fact, they are concerned about the possibility that a genetically modified apple may be approved by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They suggest that this should not happen.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of tabling a petition from Edmontonians who want to draw to the attention of the Government of Canada that the Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP veterans and their families deserve the deepest gratitude and care. Many veterans and their families cannot access adequate health care, pensions, or other vital services. They are concerned about the closure of front-line veterans offices.
The petitioners wish to call on the government to support and implement the NDP plan to end service pension clawbacks, to reopen shuttered veterans offices, and to widen access to quality home care, long-term care, and mental health care services.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition referring to the right to save seeds. These citizens of Canada recognize the inherent right of farmers, derived from thousands of years of custom and tradition, to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18, an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, which would further restrict farmers' rights or add to farmers' costs.
Furthermore, they call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable right of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Bangladesh celebrated the 44th anniversary of its independence. Canada was one of the first countries to recognize the existence and independence of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, and we have enjoyed a great friendship ever since. Over the years, the Canadian Bangladesh diaspora here in Canada has made a tremendous contribution to Canadian society.
The signatories to this petition are calling upon the Government of Canada to designate March 26 each and every year as Canada Bangladesh Day in recognition of the partnership and ongoing friendship between our two countries.
François Pilon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents. They are calling on the government to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, so that they can preserve and freely use their seeds.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 1049.
Mr. Ryan Cleary:  With regard to Transport Canada and the Crown corporation Marine Atlantic: (a) what security protocols are in place for the inspection of commercial and recreational vehicles, as well as drop trailers and passengers boarding ferries; and (b) what security protocols are in place for the inspection of Marine Atlantic employees and their vehicles?
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, MARSEC stands for Marine Security. MARSEC levels easily communicate preplanned responses to increased threats levels. MARSEC Level 1 is the appropriate security measure under normal operating conditions. 
The protocols in place for MARSEC Level 1 stipulate that a percentage of all people, which includes passengers, employees and visitors, and a percentage of all vehicles are screened when entering and while on Marine Atlantic property. Drop trailer units must be sealed and remain sealed while on the property. Drop trailer manifests are reviewed and seals are checked regularly while on the property. 
The protocols in place for MARSEC Level 1 stipulate that a percentage of all people, which includes passengers, employees and visitors, and a percentage of all vehicles are screened when entering and while on Marine Atlantic property. Drop trailer units must be sealed and remain sealed while on the property. Drop trailer manifests are reviewed and seals are checked regularly while on the property. 
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski:  Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 1038 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Hon. Scott Brison:  With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Western Economic Diversification Canada since June 4, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Military Contribution Against the Islamic StateHon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 17, at the next sitting, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned. 

Government Orders
Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be read a third time and passed.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North has two minutes left to conclude his remarks. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to conclude my remarks on Bill C-26. As I indicated, the Liberal Party supports the bill and recognizes that it would have a positive impact in our communities.
 We like to think that in addressing the issue of child exploitation, it involves more than just bringing in legislation. We want to see a government that is prepared to allocate the resources necessary to work with the different governments and support our many different non-profit and other organizations in our communities and throughout our country that deal with the issue of child exploitation, especially when we look at the ways it has expanded. 
I will conclude my remarks by very briefly commenting on how technology has been used to advance something that is so abhorrent and unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians, and that is the sexual exploitation of our children. This problem is a growing concern. I understand that in the last couple of years we have seen a 6% increase in child exploitation through the Internet. I suspect it is even higher than that. 
There is so much more the government could be doing and should be doing to try to resolve an issue that has such a profound negative impact on our children in all regions of our country and in all the socio-economic strata of our children. There are some children who are put in vulnerable positions more than others and we need—
The Speaker: Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was impressed by my colleague's speech. He mentioned an institution that I am sure does good work, but I was alarmed it is anchored in the values of the Sisters of Good Shepherd. If we look at history, in Ireland this order ran four Magdalene laundries. If we look at the history of faith based orders taking care of these problems, we can see that in Canada we had forced adoptions at many of these maternity homes, although not this one in particular.
 I know the member for Winnipeg North is a man of faith. He voted for Motion No. 312. Is it the Liberal plan to increase funding to faith based agencies to deal with the problems of child sexual abuse?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, can assure the member that, for the last 100 years, Marymound has had a positive impact on hundreds of children.
I was a member of the Manitoba Legislature for just under 20 years. From what I can recall, Marymound received the unanimous support of virtually every MLA, not only during the 20 years I sat inside the Legislature but even before that.
This is an organization that has, first and foremost, put the welfare of vulnerable children first. Individuals who have been involved over the years go beyond just individuals of any particular faith. Maybe the member should become better acquainted with it.
The point I was trying to get across is that there are many non-profits and other organizations out there that deal with individuals who are in the very vulnerable position of being exploited. There are many organizations that deal with the victims and try to give them better opportunities. I think we need to look at how we can support these organizations, whether they are faith based or not. Both have a role to play in our society.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to bring in all kinds of laws and so on to put people in jail and do all of that.
The question is how do we prevent these crimes from happening. Much of the damage that is done through child predators and bullying, and whatever is going on through Internet, is pretty horrendous for the children. Sending someone to jail for 50 years might make us feel good, but it is not helping in the prevention of that very issue.
I would like to hear more from my colleague about what we can be doing. I am hosting a forum on how to protect children on the Internet. I would like to hear more from my colleague on the issue of how we can do better at preventing this from happening.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member for York West has a candid way of getting right to the issue that is so important to the constituents we represent.
The best example that I could give, that has been raised and brought to the attention of the government, is the group called Circles of Support and Accountability. It has done an incredible amount of work. What is important to note is that the government has cut back funding. The member is talking about prevention. Let us imagine, and this is coming from a government report, that 240 sexual crimes never happened because of Circles of Support and Accountability. 
We can do more to prevent crimes of this nature from taking place. When the member makes reference to cyberspace or Internet exploitation, we just need to look at how the government has mandated that departments save money and not spend their full budgets. We have the RCMP unit responsible for child exploitation over the Internet which has constantly underspent by $2 million. By doing that, we are allowing for child exploitation, and that could have been targeted by the RCMP had they spent their full budget. We are talking about $10 million.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, this gets back to the question of resources allocated. Any bill that calls for much stricter monitoring of people charged with or convicted of committing sexual offences against children requires resources. Whenever the government introduces these kinds of bills, however, it rarely includes additional resources for our police forces and law enforcement agencies.
Another important aspect is the issue of prevention. One of my constituents has initiated a movement to raise awareness about pedophilia, among other issues. Unfortunately, this problem does still exist today, and people need to be aware of it.
I would like to hear what my colleague from Winnipeg North has to say about the resources that should be at the government's disposal, not only to impose tougher penalties but also to prevent these acts from happening in the first place and to raise awareness about the scourge of sexual assault against children.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. It is more than just passing legislation. Bill C-26 has the support, from what I understand, of all members of the House. I do believe that all members recognize the importance of the issue, and we are voting in favour of and passing the legislation.
However, there is a great deal of difference between this side of the House and the government side of the House in terms of what the government is doing to provide the resources that are necessary and demonstrating the leadership that is necessary, if I could focus on this point, to work with the different stakeholders, to deal with the issue of child exploitation, whether on the Internet or in the communities, whether dealing with socially dysfunctional families in our communities to those troubled youth who are having a difficult time because of circumstances that they have found themselves in, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There is so much more that we could be doing. That means working with the different groups, the non-profits and others. It means working with the different levels of government at the municipal and provincial levels and developing a more comprehensive plan to deal with this very important issue. This is something that the leader of the Liberal Party is committed to doing and that our caucus and, I suspect, other caucuses are attempting to do. From the Liberal Party's perspective, we take this issue seriously and we challenge the government not only to present the budget but to deal with issues of this nature in the budget, along with middle-class jobs I must say.
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.
I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. Bill C-26 seeks to ensure that child sex offenders are held accountable for the horrific crimes they commit against the most vulnerable members of our society, Canadian children.
 This bill proposes to achieve this important goal through a range of different measures, which include amendments to the Criminal Code and the Sex Offender Information and Registration Act, as well as the creation of a high risk child sex offender database.
The objective of Bill C-26 should be one that all parliamentarians support, yet some have questioned the necessity of the proposed amendments. These amendments are necessary, sadly, because the incidence of child sexual offences continues to rise. 
In 2013, police-reported sexual offences against children increased again, this time by 6%, and 2011 and 2012 each saw a 3% increase. As Statistics Canada noted, “...sexual violations against children was one of the few categories of violent offences to increase in 2013.” These numbers are cause for concern, and we feel compelled to reinforce our response to these serious crimes.
Bill C-26 better reflects the seriousness of child sexual offences by proposing to increase mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for many child sexual offences. I can say from personal experience, from meeting these young children in emergency departments, that these are horrific crimes. These children are damaged for life, mentally and physically, and it is appalling to me that some members of the House may not be supporting these most basic protections and may not be supporting how we propose to treat the individuals who perpetrate these crimes against children.
In addition to increasing the penalties for making and distributing child pornography, which is also included in the bill, Bill C-26 proposes to make these offences strictly indictable to better reflect their severity. Child pornography offences have devastating and long-lasting impacts on victims, particularly when they are posted on the Internet, where they can reside for someone's entire life. 
The bill would also ensure that it would be considered an aggravating factor to commit an offence while subject to a conditional sentence, order, parole, or statutory release. 
To assist in preventing future offences by known or suspected child sexual offenders, Bill C-26 proposes higher penalties for those convicted of breaching supervision orders. It is our responsibility, once those offenders are released into the community, to ensure that supervision orders imposed on them are observed and that breaches of conditions imposed to protect children result in serious consequences. 
To achieve this objective, Bill C-26 proposes to increase the maximum penalties for breaches of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds. These types of orders often contain conditions intended to protect children. Maximum penalties for breaches of conditions of any of these orders would be increased from six to 18 months if proceeded on by summary conviction and from two to four years if proceeded on by indictment.
Our government is committed to ending sentence discounts for child sexual offenders. To that end, Bill C-26 requires courts to order, in all cases, that sentences imposed for child pornography offences be served consecutively to sentences imposed for other contact child sexual offences. Bill C-26 would also ensure that offenders who sexually abuse multiple children do not receive sentence discounts just because they are sentenced at the same time for offences involving multiple victims.
Bill C-26 would clarify the text of the subsection of the Criminal Code that contains the general rules regarding concurrent and consecutive sentences. Its current wording is the result of an amalgamation of rules that predate Confederation and, as such, require clarification and modernization.
 Bill C-26 also proposes to codify certain sentencing rules applicable to the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences, such as the imposition of concurrent sentences for offences committed as part of the same criminal transaction, also referred to as the “same event or series of events” rule.
Bill C-26 also proposes to codify certain sentencing rules applicable to the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences. By way of example, one such rule provides for the imposition of concurrent sentences for offences committed as part of the same criminal transaction, also referred as “the same event or series of events” rule. 
However, courts have also acknowledged that consecutive sentences should be imposed in certain circumstances even if the offences in question were committed as part of the same event or series of events. Bill C-26 would recognize two of these circumstances. An offence committed while fleeing from a peace officer would be served consecutively to any other sentence arising out of the same event or series of events, and a sentence imposed for an offence committed while on bail would also be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed.
Bill C-26 would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of individuals accused of child pornography offences are compelled witnesses for the crown. In some situations, the testimony of an accused's spouse may be required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. An example would be a case in which child pornography was found on a home computer.
Our government recognizes that criminal legislation alone is an incomplete response to child sexual abuse, and the criminal justice system's response to sexual violations against children must be multi-pronged. Bill C-26 forms an integral part of that response. I must say that I am also particularly pleased that our government has allocated over $10 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime. These centres assist in the recovery of children and youth who have undergone this incredible trauma. 
As I can say from personal experience with the children that I have met, these resources that are being made available now through child advocacy centres across the country are needed. We as a government are focused on a multi-pronged approach that uses legislation and enforcement to not only make sure that the perpetrators of these crimes are held accountable but also that these young victims of crime receive the support they require so that they can rehabilitate and have prosperous lives. 
I hope that all members of the House will support this important legislation to protect children at third reading.
Emmanuel Dubourg: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.
 The Liberal Party agrees with the measures in Bill C-26. It is important to take appropriate measures to combat the growing problem of child pornography and child abuse. We have to do something. We also agree that there should be more penalties set out for these situations.
We still do not know when the next budget will be tabled, but can we expect it to include money and resources to address this situation?
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speculate on what is in the next budget, nor will I. That is obviously something we will all learn in the future. However, what I will say—and I ask the member opposite not to mislead the public—this government has made substantive investments in making sure, through a multi-pronged approach—that children are protected and supported.
Child advocacy centres across the country in more than 20 locations provide exactly those supports. As well, the government's substantive investment to support victims since 2006 amounts to over $120 million. These are things that the opposition members have not supported in many cases, so if they are passionate about this and we move forward on these initiatives, I would urge them to please support all of them. Victims of these heinous crimes deserve their support, and I would hope that the members opposite would find it in themselves to continually support these initiatives.
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, while the minister was delivering her speech, I went online to search for child advocacy centres and looked at some of the statistical information with regard to the number of both female and male children and youth who have suffered some form of sexual abuse before the age of 18. I found the statistics actually quite staggering. I was shocked to read those in print on multiple sites.
I am wondering if my hon. colleague could elaborate on the importance of the child advocacy centres that are across Canada.
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for public safety. She is doing outstanding work, particularly in areas like this and on other bills, such as Bill C-51.
The child advocacy centres across the country serve an important purpose. They have teams of professionals who support children. They also provide opportunities for victims to bring forward their stories when they are under the most traumatic of circumstances. The Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre in Calgary, for example, which is supported by this government, is one of those centres and makes sure that the young victims of these horrendous crimes are well supported. 
In addition to that, our government has been very focused on a number of initiatives to make sure that children in particular are safe. I encourage all members in the House to look at getcybersafe.gc.ca and to tell others about it. It is a substantive initiative to make sure that young Canadians are protected in their own communities.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.
The NDP obviously supports this bill. We are not opposed to virtue. In fact, there is nothing more important to our society's future than our youth. There is nothing more destructive for them than the shocking attitude of these psychopaths who are very active online, for instance.
I understand my colleague's irritation when the party that was not more active than hers asks for more money. However, I deplore the attitude of the Conservatives when they said that they do not know what is in the budget and, above all, that we voted against this type of initiative. 
As we speak, we can see that the Conservatives want to rush to make these announcements and ignore what certain experts said in committee. The witnesses who told us their stories said that it is not a bad bill and that they actually support it, but that it would be better if the Conservatives were more open-minded.
Why are the Conservatives so doggedly determined to attain their own objective rather than seeking more of a consensus on something that everyone obviously agrees with?
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear on the reason we are pressing on this issue. I will be frank: I am not here to protect child predators; I am here, and my impression from the member opposite is that he is as well, to protect Canadian children. 
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.
Before I begin, I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their important study of the bill and for moving it forward in an expeditious manner.
Since our government was elected, we have taken tremendous steps forward to ensure that streets and communities are safe places to live, work, and raise our families. We have worked tirelessly for these changes, especially when it comes to protecting the most precious and vulnerable members of our society, our children.
In 2011, we strengthened the National Sex Offender Registry through the implementation of the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act. This legislation ensures that every individual convicted of a sexual offence is automatically registered with the National Sex Offender Registry and must provide a DNA sample to the National DNA Data Bank. It also added provisions to include on the National Sex Offender Registry those individuals who have been convicted of sex offences abroad and who then return to Canada.
In addition to these key reforms, the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act addressed several important operational issues, such as the inclusion of registered sex offenders' vehicle information in the National Sex Offender Registry and allowing federal and provincial correctional services to notify registry officials when a registered sex offender is admitted into custody or is released into the community, including for temporary releases of seven days or more.
Through the Safe Streets and Communities Act, passed in 2012, we strengthened the Criminal Code's prohibitions against sexual exploitation by creating new mandatory minimum sentences for existing offences related to child exploitation and by increasing the mandatory minimum penalty for other existing offences; by prohibiting convicted child sex offenders from having any unsupervised contact with a young person under the age of 16 or having unsupervised use of the Internet or other digital devices; and by prohibiting convicted child sex offenders from being in public places where children can reasonably be expected to be present, requiring them to remain in specified geographic areas, and requiring them to abstain from drug and alcohol abuse or use.
We have also passed legislation that makes it illegal to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence against that child.
We have increased the age of protection, the age at which a young person can legally consent to sexual activity, to 16 years of age, where previously it was 14.
We also continue to keep Canadians safe at the border with our Canada Border Services Agency officers employing effective border policies that prevent sex offenders from entering Canada. In fact, in 2014 alone, referrals provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection concerning sexual offenders travelling to Canada led to 59 instances when the Canada Border Services Agency was able to refuse entry at the border.
We have reached significant milestones to make our streets and communities safer for everyone, but there is still work to do. 
Canadians have the right to go about their daily lives without fear, and that is especially true when it comes to the fear of their children experiencing the emotional turmoil of sexual abuse.
In 2013, police reported approximately 4,200 incidents of sexual violations against children. That is a 6% increase from 2012. I am sure that all members can agree that one child victim is one too many. 
We must ensure that our focus is balanced and that it protects the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens. This brings me to why I am speaking today. The changes proposed in Bill C-26 before us would allow our government to strengthen measures to better protect our children from sexual exploitation.
 First and foremost, there are a number of amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, including requiring that those convicted of contact child sexual offences against multiple children serve their sentences consecutively, one after another, to recognize the serious nature of the offence against each victim; requiring that those convicted of child pornography and contact child sexual offences serve their sentences consecutively; increasing maximum and minimum penalties for child sexual offences; increasing penalties for violations of conditions of supervision orders; and allowing spouses to provide testimony that is often needed to secure convictions in these important cases.
This legislation will also make vital changes to the National Sex Offender Registry by enhancing law enforcement's knowledge of registered sex offenders who are travelling abroad. For example, a registered sex offender would be required to give advance notice of the dates and every address or location at which they expect to stay for travel of seven days or more outside Canada. Those with a conviction for a sex offence against a child would be required to provide this information for all travel, regardless of the duration of the trip.
As part of this legislation, we would improve information sharing about high-risk sex offenders between officials responsible for the National Sex Offender Registry and the Canada Border Services Agency. As it currently stands, officials in charge of the registry are not authorized to share information on registered sex offences with Canada Border Services Agency.
What is more, officers at the border are not able to provide information to the officials at the National Sex Offender Registry to confirm the date of a sex offender's departure and return and where the person has stayed outside Canada. It is of utmost importance that we give our border services officers the authority and information they need to do their jobs and keep Canadians safe.
Therefore, we are proposing that all registered sex offenders be required to report every driver's licence number and passport number they hold and the name of each respective issuing jurisdiction. This would enable officials to disclose this information to the Canada Border Services Agency with other identifying information about registered sex offenders, particularly in cases of high-risk child sex offenders, and ensure that they are included in the Canada Border Services Agency lookout system.
The final element in this bill would further contribute to the safety of our communities by providing the public with access to a database of information regarding high-risk child sex offenders. The high risk child sex offender database act would authorize the RCMP to establish and administer a national publicly accessible database containing information on high-risk child sex offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. Public safety officials are consulting with their provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss public notifications for high-risk offenders and the criteria to be used to determine which high-risk child sex offenders would be included in the database.
In summary, the bill before us today would ensure that penalties for child sexual offences better reflect the serious nature of these crimes. We believe that all child sex offenders should be held fully accountable for their actions.
These heinous crimes cause unimaginable devastation in the lives of children and their families. This is why, as a government, we must do everything in our power to protect our most vulnerable. I am very pleased to know that all hon. members in this House support this important piece of legislation.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has been fairly clear on this piece of legislation. We support it. We feel that there are things the government can do to improve the conditions for dealing with child exploitation. This is a bill that will provide an opportunity to assist. To that extent, members of the Liberal caucus will be voting for it.
In my speech and in the speeches of other members, and in particular that of the Liberal Party critic, we have talked about the importance of resources. I wonder if the member is prepared to provide any thoughts on what she believes should or could be incorporated in the budget in terms of resources, emphasizing that it takes not only legislation to deal with this very important issue.
[Interjection]
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, while I will not speculate with regard to what will be in the budget, it is my understanding that no new federal funding will be required. Both the RCMP and CBSA will be able to apply the new legislation within their current resources.
We know that policing across Canada involves many jurisdictions and that there may be resource implications for the provinces and territories in implementing the measures in this bill, as they are responsible for the implementation of the SOIRA in their respective jurisdictions, including enforcement orders by police.
We will continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners in the implementation of the legislative proposals introduced in this bill.
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I decided to get into politics was because of my strong views on improving the criminal justice system and support for victims, but I have to say that at the top of the list was the protection of the most vulnerable members of society, our children. 
I remember that when we introduced this legislation, I wrote directly to my constituents and received overwhelming support for the measures contained in this act, including those for ending the two-for-one deals child sexual predators were given when multiple offences of child sexual abuse were committed against different children.
I would like to ask the member why this legislation is so important for the protection of children.
[Interjection]
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, reforms enacted by the Safe Streets and Communities Act, specifically those relating to child sexual offences, came into effect in August 2012. They increased the penalties for some child sexual offences, but more needs to be done to further protect our children.
Every day in Canada vulnerable children are the victims of sexual abuse. As was mentioned, over 3,900 sexual violations against children were reported to police in Canada in 2012, an increase of 3% from 2011, and the same increase was seen from 2010 to 2011.
 There are also increased concerns regarding the mobility of travelling sex offenders. Internationally, approximately one million children are exploited by sex tourists and sex traffickers each year. This is unacceptable, and we must do more to deter and punish offenders. The new measures now being introduced would assist in ensuring that all child sex offenders are held fully accountable for acts of child sexual exploitation and abuse.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if she could expand on her comments about the punishments associated with these reprehensible acts and also if she could give us a perspective on what her constituents would support in this important area. It seems that many Canadians would be surprised that the laws are not already stricter.
[Interjection]
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, these amendments would increase penalties for many child sexual offences to better reflect the serious nature of these offences and would ensure that sentencing takes into account each victim in these cases. 
Currently, when an offender is sentenced for multiple separate offences, courts can require that the sentences be served consecutively, one after the other, or concurrently, at the same time. The new law would require these sentences to be served consecutively in certain cases.
As a mother and a grandmother, I know that this legislation is very important when it comes to our children and the real fear that they will experience the emotional turmoil of sexual abuse should something ever happen, and I know that my constituents reflect that view as well.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.
I support Bill C-26 to amend the Criminal Code to do a number of things to deal with the scourge of child predators. It would amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and create a high-risk child sex offender database, as well as make a number of changes to the Criminal Code, which I will discuss during my remarks.
This bill is consistent with the zero tolerance policy that my party, the NDP, has with respect to child sexual crimes. Sexual crimes against children have to be dealt with in the most effective manner possible. The issue then before us is whether this bill will do what it says it is trying to achieve, a goal which we applaud. The question, then, is whether some of the mandatory new minimum sentences and the consecutive sentences provisions will do the job or whether judicial discretion, which has been the case before this, will still be a relevant way to proceed.
It will be my argument that although the bill is useful in some regard, it seems to ignore the evidence in a couple of key provisions, evidence that was brought before the committee that studied the bill, which I will refer to during my remarks.
It would increase existing mandatory minimum and maximum penalties. It would amend the Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused would be competent and compellable witnesses where child pornography would be involved.
It would also amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting requirements when sex offenders travelled outside the country. There is some question as to wether the laudable end goal would be achieved in practice. It would enact a high-risk child offender database to establish a publicly accessible database containing information that police would have previously made accessible to the public in other places. We have that under the legislation in my province and in others, I understand. This would create that kind of accessibility across the country.
As I said at the outset, our party has a long-standing zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children and we therefore wonder whether this bill will do the job, protect children and keep our communities safe. For reasons I will describe, I am not sure it will do so. Simply having a tough on crime rhetoric and building more prisons and the like will be ineffective, as many of the experts said when they testified.
It is a question of having the resources available in the communities to do the job, as well as having legislation, which in and of itself is a partial measure. However, if we give people the tools and they do not have the ability to implement them because they do not have the budget, what good have we done except disappoint Canadians in our response? Therefore, are the necessary resources available? The answer appears to be no. 
We have suggested that necessary resources be earmarked for the RCMP registry and budgets be made available to support victims. For example, the NDP fought for the Circles of Support and Accountability program only to find out that the measly $650,000 in funding that Correctional Service Canada offered was simply all and that it would not do the job.
 CoSA, which is the Circles of Support and Accountability to which I have referred, receives funding from the National Crime Prevention Centre, which will end this fall. It costs $2.2 million a year. CoSA has been extraordinarily successful in having people settle into normal lives. Just having coffee and ensuring people are on track has proven, as it has been studied, to actually work and make a difference. Will there be money available for such programs? I do not think so, and that is what is so problematic about the bill.
If the government really were tough on crime, aside from getting good talking points, it would put its money where its mouth is.
Let us talk about what some of the experts have said about the specifics of the bill and see whether it is evidence-based or merely populous.
The politics are that we all join in wanting to make our communities safer for children, but one of the ways the Conservatives think they will do so is to have what they call mandatory minimum sentences for various offences. A long list is created.
The law requires, however, that there be a proportionate sentence for the offender and the offence. That is what the Constitution tells us. Rather, the Conservatives have mandatory minimum sentences throughout this. The message from Mr. Michael Spratt, who testified on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers' Association to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, is that it will not work. From evidence on February 16, he said: 
 —the message that's being sent, that minimum sentences and harsher sentences make us safer. You know that's not true. You've been told that before. You've been told that by me, and you've been told that by other experts. The evidence suggests quite the opposite —minimum sentences don't make communities safer. They don't deter the commission of offences. They impede rehabilitation. They are costly, and they can be unconstitutional. 
 It looks good, sounds good, but it does not work.
Another witness from the Canadian Bar Association, a former crown attorney, Mr. Paul Calarco, said that there were very significant increases in this statute with respect to minimum offences, but stated:
 I believe it is far more likely now that there will be constitutional challenges, there will be a finding of gross disproportionality, and that means the entire sentencing regime must be struck down. 
 Does that sound like a good way to protect our children?
It is not just these people. The famous Professor Anthony Doob from the University of Toronto testified that, “mandatory minimum penalties of this kind do not deter crime”. “Steve Sullivan testified, not only speaking to the ineffectiveness of minimum sentences but also how they can make the situation worse”. So many experts testified, asking and making the same point, that it would be likely to be held unconstitutional, therefore being a waste of time.
Also in terms of lack of evidence regarding the sexual offence registry, Mr. Calarco talked to the fact that:
 There is little evidence to suggest that sexual offender registries, as they are presently constituted, prevent sexual assaults. This can be seen in both the reports of the Auditor General of Ontario and the John Howard Society.... 
 [The] bill does not make the prevention of sexual exploitation any more likely. [Its] reporting requirements are unlikely to have any discernible effect on public safety, or will be unenforceable when they deal with matters outside [the] country.... 
 He goes on to say that so many of the people involved in these horrible crimes are in family situations and that it will do nothing for them. A registry would not prevent these kinds of incidents. One of the most important ways to ensure a safe and just society is by rehabilitating the offenders.
Is that not what we want, to rehabilitate as opposed to simply show society's disgust with the crimes at issue?
 If the experts and the evidence are saying that these kinds of measures, minimum mandatory sentences, simply will not work, if they are saying that we need more money to do the job, and if they are saying that the registries are not particularly effective, we need to address why in committee the Conservatives rejected the amendments that were proposed by the NDP to try to improve the bill.
 The New Democrats suggested, for example, that the information in the new database could not be used to identify the victims and that it should be clarified. That was rejected. It was suggested to require that the minister report annually to Parliament on whether the bill was working. The Conservatives did not want that either. It is unclear why they would reject that kind of accountability. The Conservatives like to brag about accountability in their rhetoric, but when it comes to actually doing the job, they do not want to take those steps.
This is a position that puts us in great difficulty. Of course we support this bill because we have zero tolerance for sexual crimes involving children. However, we are dubious as to whether it will achieve its objectives. We wish it were more evidence-based because the evidence before the committee and before Parliament is that some of these measures will not do the job. 
Nevertheless, we stand in support of the bill, wishing the Conservatives would allow a review, as they have done with other legislation, after a certain period of time so Parliament can assess whether it has been effective.
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-26.
Like most members on this side of the House, I am a bit concerned. We will support this bill at second reading, but I would like my colleagues across the way to keep an open mind so that we can study the bill calmly and ensure that it does what it claims to do.
This bill is entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. It is commonly referred to by the Conservatives as the tougher penalties for child predators act.
The Conservatives always try to make themselves look good by saying that they are against child sex offenders and depicting the members from the other parties as defending the offenders. I would say that everyone in the House is against child predators. It is often the government's approach to things that we disagree on.
This bill was introduced over a year ago with much fanfare. We soon realized that the cases mentioned in the many press conferences held by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister were more than 10 years old. The government is using certain cases that are already quite old. This is yet another bill that will essentially increase the existing mandatory minimum penalties. In recent years, this government has amended a lot of laws by adding mandatory minimums. 
Furthermore, Bill C-26 increases the maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds. It clarifies and codifies the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences. I should point out that there is currently a case before the Supreme Court regarding the lawfulness of consecutive sentences. In the short or medium term, a lot of the decisions made here could be looked at from a whole other perspective. That is why we need to examine this bill calmly in order to eventually achieve what the government claims to want to do, which is to reduce the number of crimes committed against children.
 The bill will require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children. It will ensure that a court that imposes a sentence must take into consideration evidence that the offence in question was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence. 
What is more, the bill will amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused are competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases. It also amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting obligations of sex offenders who travel outside Canada.
What is new about this bill is that it enacts the high risk child sex offender database act to establish a publicly accessible database that contains information—that a police service or other public authority has previously made accessible to the public—with respect to persons who are found guilty of sexual offences against children and who pose a high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts.
The NDP has always had a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children, despite what the Conservatives would have people believe. One of the tactics they used to colour people's opinions with omnibus Bill C-10 was to refuse to split the bill since we disagreed with some of its provisions. Because we planned to vote against that bill, the Conservatives said that we were voting against a bill that goes after sexual predators. They wanted to make it look like we were defending these individuals, which is completely ridiculous.
 It seems that it did not work because the provisions of Bill C-10 to implement several mandatory minimum sentences do not seem to have had the desired effect. I would like to hear the minister tell us, in committee, how these new mandatory minimum sentences will succeed this time when they failed in the past.
That is one of the serious concerns that I have about this file. Many Conservative bills do nothing but increase mandatory minimum sentences while claiming to solve the problem of a particular type of crime, and this does not have the desired effect.
Every time we debate this we ask the Conservatives to back up their statements. Is it because the sentences are not tough enough? If there is an increase in crime, is it because of the sentence or because of anything related to the services? We are given very few clear answers to these questions.
Canada now has 34 million inhabitants. Let us take a look at some sexual crime statistics. In 2008, 241 people were accused of sexual interference; in 2009, there were 574; in 2010, there were 818; in 2011, there were 918; and in 2012, there were 916. The number keeps going up. Still, this is probably the least serious sexual crime in the Criminal Code compared to sexual assault on a child, for example.
For invitation to sexual touching, there were 56 cases in 2008, and that number rose to 206 in 2012. For sexual exploitation, there were 17 cases in 2008, and that went up to 49. It was fairly stable from 2010 to 2012. Of course, we do not yet have any statistics about making sexually explicit material available to a child because that new offence was created in 2012. Luring a child using a computer rose from 54 cases in 2008 to 127 in 2012.
We must not lose sight of the fact that all of these statistics are from years under the Conservative reign. During that time, we have, on many occasions, instituted or increased mandatory minimum sentences. According to these statistics, that approach has not deterred criminals. 
Scientists have shown that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter criminals from committing crimes. I agree with criminologists that the likelihood of getting caught is what deters people from committing crimes, not the remote possibility of being sentenced to 10, 15 or 20 years. That does not deter criminals. It is clear that mandatory minimum sentences have had no effect in this area either.
Moreover, RCMP personnel strength keeps dropping. Commissioner Paulson mentioned recently in committee that he has had to shut down large squads that fight organized crime and assign the staff to other positions. That is completely ridiculous. The government is also not giving the RCMP any additional resources to establish this new data bank that it wants to create. It makes no sense. The RCMP will once again be forced to make cuts to other squads in order to get it done.
We have been raising the problem of updating criminal records for years now. We are not moving in the right direction. Let us give the RCMP the power to carry out its mission and stop moving in a direction that is doing nothing to deter criminals. 
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.
When we are talking about a bill such as this one, we have to talk about resources. We also have to talk about prevention. My colleague has put his finger on one of the major problems associated with this kind of government bill, which tightens the rules and imposes harsher penalties after the fact. Very limited resources are available, and there are no additional resources for our police forces to enforce the law or to put towards prevention, in order to help the social and community groups that are trying to raise awareness about the issue.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of prevention and the lack of resources allocated by the government to address this issue.
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising these important points.
Indeed, I was talking about this at the end of my speech, when I ran out of time, so I will come back to that now. Very few resources are being given to police officers. Minimum sentences are being increased, which means the prison population is increasing, but the budgets keep shrinking. Criminals are being sent to prison for longer periods. Services are being cut, including rehabilitation services that are necessary for ensuring that individuals do not reoffend when they are released.
 These people are being sent into prisons that do not really have the resources to handle them. The RCMP is being given more responsibilities just as their budget is being cut. This makes no sense at all and it is not the first time this is happening. There have been a number of bills whereby the RCMP gets more responsibility and less money, or at least is not given the necessary budget to do its work.
In this case we are talking about creating a sex offender registry without giving more money to the RCMP. This government is not going in the right direction. It is also making cuts to rehabilitation services and to funding for the community resources that provide prevention services.
Having a balanced approach would be much more effective than relying on mandatory minimum sentences or stricter rules—in some cases, this is good—without giving correctional services or the RCMP the money they need. We are going nowhere with this.
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, it is the whole administration of justice problem that is at issue here. In theory, punishment is a good thing, but in practice, the theory must translate into effective action.
Unfortunately, there was a terrible situation in Quebec recently. The police were able to bring down a criminal organization known as the Hells Angels. Everything was going well. All the members were arrested. Unfortunately, they forgot about the Conservative Party. Serious mistake. There were not enough judges to preside over the trials because of the Conservatives' systematic cuts. The time limits were exceeded. It took too long and the accused were released. Good going. That is marvellous. That is being tough on crime.
My question is quite simple: what is the use of having laws that sentence an individual to 150 years in prison if the government's actions prevent that person from ever going to court because there are not enough judges? 
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for that clarification and the information provided.
As I mentioned, there is a problem with the administration of justice. There is a dire shortage of judges and Crown prosecutors, which means things are not going anywhere. We are not headed in the right direction. Criminals are put in jail for longer periods and the budgets for all these people are being cut. That makes no sense. We are not going in the right direction in many areas. Furthermore, the provinces are not consulted. With Bill C-10, prisons are overflowing. The prison population has increased by 10%, but not the budget to deal with it. The government is sticking the provinces with the bill.
The Speaker:  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
 I see the hon. member for Oxford rising on a point of order. 
[Interjection]
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Speaker:  Shall I see the clock as 1:30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource Development[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 21, 2014, consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona has six minutes left to conclude her remarks.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to complete my remarks, begun some months back, in support of the motion by my colleague, the member for Manicouagan. To reiterate, his motion calls on the government to submit natural resource development projects to a broader consultation with first nations and other citizens affected by such activities, and that public willingness be included as a measure of public interest. He is calling for a central voice for communities in decision-making, respect for commitments made to first nations, and assurance that the benefits of resource projects flow to the impacted communities.
Interestingly, just yesterday a joint first nations and federal government working group issued its final report, called “First Nations and Natural Resource Development Advancing Positive, Impactful Change”. This report urges Canada to eliminate socio-economic disparities by making resource revenue sharing with first nations a priority, and to involve first nations directly as participants in the regulatory processes, including project reviews, and the planning, design, management, ownership, and reclamation phases of all projects.
This working group was among pledges made by the Prime Minister more than two years back, when he promised to commit to a nation-to-nation relationship. I am pleased to note that the working group included Alberta Regional Chief Cameron Alexis, a highly regarded first nation leader in Alberta.
The recommendations echo those by the government-appointed special advisor on west coast energy projects, Douglas Eyford. His report determined that delays in major energy projects can be attributed, at least in part, to the failed efforts by the federal government to properly consult and accommodate first nations. The recommendations also mirror recent determinations by the Supreme Court of Canada, in particular its 2014 Tsilhqot'in decision confirming the fiduciary duty of the Crown to recognize and respect aboriginal title and to consult and accommodate their rights and interests.
In recent publicly held pipeline hearings in Alberta, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation was denied timely access to the environmental reports on a proposed bitumen pipeline. It was finally forced to pull out of the hearings because it was not given reasonable access to the document or a reasonable time period to review this major document regarding a pipeline that could potentially impact its traditional lands. Remarkably, the proponent claimed that it had absolutely no duty to assess impacts on these lands. The question is, where was the federal government, which has the fiduciary obligation to protect the rights and titles of first nations?
It is not just in federal review processes where the government has downgraded the reviews and downgraded federal environmental laws so that many impacts to the environment, first nations communities, and their health, peoples, lands, and waters are now not being considered. It is also happening in the provincial review processes, where the federal government is absent.
The ball is now in the court of the government to finally act to change policy, process, and procedure in accordance with these sound recommendations that have come forward. The courts, the Constitution, Canadian law, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples all clarify that the rights of indigenous peoples and other Canadian citizens are to be given a voice in resource decisions impacting their health, environment, lands, waters, or cultural practices. Regrettably, over the past decade, as I mentioned, the government has instead intentionally set about eroding those rights and opportunities and limiting first nations' and other Canadians' rights to participate in resource project reviews or design.
The special fund established under the MPMO in support of aboriginal consultation, recommended by Mr. Eyford in his report, which was commissioned by the government, sunsets this year. Even the funds that were previously set aside, where there was this great commitment two years ago to engage and help finance the constructive participation of first nations, are sunsetting. We do not know what will happen next because we are still waiting for the next federal budget.
There is a clear recommendation to the finance minister. Let us hope that the Conservatives not only bring back that fund, but substantially increase funds to deliver on the recommendations from Mr. Eyford and the government's own task force.
Last year, the Minister of Natural Resources, at an aboriginal minerals summit, apparently committed to better engagement of first nations. Yet, we discovered this week that he has done nothing but go across western Canada, insulting first nation leaders and their councils. This does not bode well for a new, positive, constructive nation-to-nation relationship. We can only hope for better.
We therefore anticipate, given all of the recent reports and undertakings, that we can expect unanimous support for this motion, and hopefully real concrete action.
Pat Perkins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this motion before us and to reinforce some of the points made so persuasively by some of my colleagues.
Canada already has a robust, independent, and science-based review process for natural resource projects. In fact, the existing review process involves some of the most extensive public consultations that Canada has ever seen, including unprecedented engagement with aboriginal communities.
Our government understands and fully agrees that successes in responsibly developing our natural resources is dependent upon open and sustained dialogue with all Canadians. We have taken practical steps to build partnerships with aboriginal communities, including creating our major projects management office – west, which engages aboriginal leaders on energy resource development on the west coast.
One example of the work being done by that office is the series of workshops it has held with aboriginal communities. These workshops discussed how communities can play an enhanced role in our marine and pipeline safety systems, as well as the training and resources needed to make this happen. 
Every day, we dedicate ourselves to building trust and fostering inclusion in the review process for major projects. We are committed to promoting better communication and stronger dialogue.
 Unfortunately, this motion would do nothing to enhance those efforts. Instead, it would short-circuit a review process that is specifically designed to foster full and meaningful public engagement. Indeed, it could pre-empt efforts to achieve a comprehensive determination of whether a project is in Canada's broader public interest. Quite simply, this motion would replace extensive science-based decision-making with one based on perceptions.
 Canadians deserve better. That is why our government has implemented its comprehensive plan for responsible resource development. Under our plan, we have developed a process that provides for inclusive public participation, a process that ensures environmental, economic, and social impacts are appropriately considered in determining whether a project should proceed. Our government has been clear time and again: projects will not proceed unless they are proven safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.
Responsible resource development strengthens environmental protection and enhances aboriginal engagement in every aspect of resource development. Indeed, over the past two years, our comprehensive approach has significantly enhanced marine, pipeline, and rail safety.
 We are confident that we are creating one of the safest energy transportation systems in the world. It all starts with ensuring that we take every possible step to prevent incidents from occurring. 
Our government recently introduced the pipeline safety act, which will enhance Canada's world-class pipeline safety regime by building on the principles of incident prevention, preparedness and response, as well as liability and compensation. The pipeline safety act will enshrine the polluter pays principle into law. This will ensure that as pipeline companies respond in the unlikely event of a major incident, they will be required to maintain the highest minimum financial resources in the world.
 We are also expanding the power of the National Energy Board to enforce compliance. To further boost safety, we will also ask the National Energy Board to provide guidance on the use of best available technologies in the materials and construction of federally regulated pipelines.
 For both marine and pipeline safety, we have mandated major increases in surveillance inspections and safety audits, as well as greater powers of enforcement. 
In the case of marine safety, we have enhanced Canada's world-class tanker safety system by investing in state-of-the-art technology and modernizing navigation systems.
With all of these efforts, we are seeking to foster great public confidence in our country's ability to develop its resources and to do so responsibly. We know that building public confidence in major resource projects requires a comprehensive approach.
In the case of engaging aboriginal people, that means making progress on reconciliation and treaty negotiations. That is why the new measures announced last summer by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development are so important. These efforts are advancing treaty negotiations and reconciliation in a number of ways, and are clarifying the Government of Canada's approach to resolving shared territory disputes in the context of resource development.
Our government's goal is to work in partnership to promote prosperous communities and economic development for the benefit of all Canadians. The impact of a major resource projects extends well beyond a particular local area. While the NDP has opposed all forms of resource development, our government takes a balanced approach to resource development.
The natural resources sector is significant to Canada's economy, and it provides nearly 20% of our GDP and supports 1.8 million jobs. All of this activity generates royalties and revenues for governments to provide important social programs, from health to education to pensions, for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The motion before us may be well intentioned, but it is poorly defined, and it would only serve to undermine the exhaustive process we have already established for considering resource projects. As I have noted, Canada already has an extremely rigorous regulatory regime in place to consider major resource projects. 
Let us also remember that any recommendations on projects are made by independent regulators based on the entirety of the evidence collected. It simply makes no sense to cut short such an exhaustive process and ignore scientific-based facts for evidence. Canada deserves better, and Canadians know they can count on our government to deliver it.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the private member's motion. It is long overdue. 
The real issue is, why is it even needed? One would think that with the Supreme Court ruling the government would understand that consultation with first nations was not simply a courtesy or something that might be good to do but in fact an obligation under the treaties. It has been proven time and time again that not only is it a good idea to consult with first nations, it is one of the ways to get projects moving more quickly. For a government so intent on getting resources to market and so intent on getting resources out of the ground, one would think that reaching for better practices would not be something that the opposition would have to compel it to do, it would simply adopt the idea and move forward. One would think it would listen to the Supreme Court and move forward. 
I listened to the previous speaker talk about the exhaustive process that is under way in terms of processing these applications. What has actually happened is the processes have been exhausted. They have been retired. They have been gotten rid of. The federal environmental assessment in particular has been reduced to such a telescoped and shortened process that it is virtually laughed at by cities, first nations and environmentalists. It is even laughed at by the proponents because they know how simple it is to clear a hurdle. That is why these projects so often end up in court.
We have a project, not a resource extraction project but a proposal from a federal agency in Toronto that is going through an environmental assessment right now. The proponents get asked, “Is this a good idea?” and if they answer “yes”, it is done. It is a project that has been developed on the lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit. Have they ever been consulted about it? No, they have not, not once. They sit back in opposition to the project waiting for the environmental assessment to be completed because that is the day they march off to court and say, “You forgot to consult with us”. 
It is critical for a modern economy to move forward in concert with its partners. Any mayor in our country worth his or her salt knows that when municipal partners are not included in the planning of infrastructure or economic development or federal programs, when city councils and mayors are not included, they end up designing programs badly that do not land or work in the cities of choice, effectively. They end up in front of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at its federal conference held once a year being screamed at by hundreds of mayors from across the country.
We are a confederation. Our Constitution implies collaboration. It rewards collaboration. Our economy moves forward more quickly with collaboration. Instead, what we get is a government that, when it cannot rule out collaboration and act unilaterally, refuses to meet with other levels of government, including first nations, but also the provinces and the municipalities. As a result, private members' bills are required just to force the government into a conversation. That is ludicrous in this day and age.
 I would be impressed if the government opposite, in an act of collaboration looked across the aisle, looked to this private member's bill and took a lead. It would allow it to respect rulings from the Supreme Court and respect treaties that all of our ancestors have signed and all of us are governed by. It would allow it to work with provinces in a particular municipality in co-operation and we could start to build a country instead of simply building arguments. 
The government continually looks for the battleground instead of the common ground. It talks about being a government that is embracing the new economy. There is not a private sector company out there that looks to go around creating fights with people in order to make progress in this modern economy. In fact, what we see is private sector companies doing the consultation in spite of being told by the federal government they do not need to, because even the private sector understands that collaboration is far less costly than being tied up in courts and in front of regulatory bodies. 
We would hope that the government would learn from the lesson that is being offered here and the legislation that is being tabled here, would stop its knee-jerk reaction to opposing it and start looking at the benefits of working together with Canadians, whether they come from first nations communities, municipalities, provinces or from other political parties. There is no monopoly on good ideas in our country. Ideology alone will not get the problem solved.
Members of this government, this Parliament, need to learn how to work together. This bill is an excellent opportunity to show the country that the last 10 years was a mistake and the future is a better one.
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight right off the bat.
The mining industry provides good jobs, as does the oil industry. We are not talking about $15 or $12 an hour, but $30, $35 or even $40 an hour. There are people who like having good jobs.
Obviously setting up a mine or a refinery has its advantages. However, believe it or not, Canadians are a strange bunch: they know that there are two sides to every story. Although one side might be quite attractive, they still want to get a full picture of the other side. That is the problem here.
Right now, there are 350,000 jobs in Canada connected to natural resource development. These jobs come with a whole lot of benefits that we do not want to give up. However, since we are responsible, we would like to ensure that the proposed new operations do not pose problems. That is the issue here.
Rather than solving the problem, the government made it worse by trying to force things down people's throats. It is unbelievable. Today, every time anyone wants to build a mine or refinery, legal action is immediately taken. In the past, during a time that was less Conservative and more favourable to informed development, projects were discussed and changes were made, a process that took several years.
However, the Conservative government wants to get things done in a year, a year and a half or two years at most. Here are the results: the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario has been rejected; the pipelines in northern British Columbia have been rejected; the pipelines that cross Quebec have been rejected; and the uranium mines have been rejected—and I hope they always will be.
This does not take two or three years. Before, it took four or five. Now it takes 10 years because of the legal proceedings. The whole notion of the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario is at a standstill because of this great government. This shows that when you do not do things right, you do not necessarily get the results that you want.
Whenever something as big and invasive as a mine, a refinery or a major industrial facility is proposed, people should be consulted and should be able to participate throughout the decision-making process. My colleague who spoke earlier said that the government had done everything in its power to make these projects safe. I would like to hear her say that to the people of Lac-Mégantic.
In northern Ontario, there have been three derailments in less than two months. Is that what they call safety? They say they will make companies liable. Sure they will. An oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez, sank in Alaska. That was when Ronald Reagan was president. People paid a terrible price for that oil spill, so they asked for compensation. They are still waiting. The companies that made terrible messes in the Gulf of Guinea, the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Alaska are the same companies operating here in Canada. 
Now the government is telling us that these companies that have behaved badly elsewhere will have to respect the environment and Canada's peoples. I am skeptical, because we sometimes have little problems, like the one in Lac-Mégantic.
It is extraordinary that the first person who appears after a disaster is not a someone from the company itself who arrives with a cheque in hand and says that the company will pay for everything. No, no. Instead, the company's lawyer appears and says that before the company will pay for anything, we must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the company is indeed guilty. They ask for help, they ask people to be understanding and, above all, they want to get out of paying anything and they want to shirk their responsibilities. This practice must stop.
Some projects must have a social licence. When a project does not havea social licence, it can get lost in the legal weeds and absolutely nothing happens. Sometimes, even great projects that create jobs might prompt people to say that progress is being made, but without a social licence, they do not work. One example I can think of is a uranium mine.
People are afraid, and they will continue to be afraid even if we give them the best arguments in the world. At some point we may just have to accept the fact that the people do not want a project.
The Conservatives have introduced their pipeline bill, and that has people worried. I can guarantee to the House that no one in Quebec is interested in seeing four inches of oil floating all over the St. Lawrence River.
Nonetheless, we can build refineries and secure the energy supply because certain aspects make this attractive. People are prepared to listen to what the Conservatives have to say, especially when they say that this type of project will bring in billions of dollars for the province and create an awful lot of jobs. People will listen closely, but they will also look at the other side of the coin and will have a say.
As for the people who have to live with a major industrial, mining or oil development project in their region, they are entitled to not only have a say, but also to be listened to and take part in the decision-making. If we dismiss them out of hand, then the whole process will go nowhere, and that is what is happening right now.
Many projects are not approved, from shale gas development in many municipalities to oil development in certain national parks. It is too bad, because some of these projects deserved to be better defended. 
It is not true that people are short-sighted. It is not true that the NDP, and everyone for that matter, is automatically opposed to every mining project and that the first nations are starting a civil war. No, no. They are interested in having discussions and listening, especially if they get an attractive offer.
However, if the offer is not an attractive one and profits only one side, while the people assume all the risks, only the Conservatives are surprised that the people are not going to like this type of deal where they will always be the losers and the friends of those in power will be the winners.
It is vital that at some point the government finally decide to be Canadian for a day. Is it so horrible to ask that the government be Canadian from time to time? Unfortunately, the government does not often listen to us. However, we should not take it to heart.
The election is fast approaching and the good Canadian people may decide one day to give the boot to those who systematically defend interests that are not those of Canadians. 
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult act to follow, but I will do my best. 
Motion No. 533 is very specific in what it requests. It talks about how the federal government, in exercising its jurisdiction, should be submitting natural resource development projects to a broader consultation with first nations and citizens in communities and urban areas. That is the breadth of what is being proposed here. It makes a very broad yet very succinct request of this House. 
In addressing the motion, I would like to talk about the nature of public participation, the nature of environmental assessment processes and the aboriginal issues relating to that, and finally about projects in British Columbia that are before us today, namely the Enbridge northern gateway and the Kinder Morgan projects, a lens through which I hope to examine the failure of a credible public participation process—not only, as the motion said, for first nations, but also for citizens in our various communities.
There is a vision for a new energy future that the Leader of the Opposition has articulated in the Policy Options magazine in September and October last year. It is quite interesting, because in that article he starts by talking about the crossroads we are at when it comes to aboriginal involvement in development. He talks of the Supreme Court of Canada's watershed case in the Tsilhqot’in matter that has driven home the fact that resource development will simply not happen without proper first nations consultation and accommodation. 
I stress the word “proper” because it is not a “nice to have”, as the government treats public participation; it is a constitutionally required activity, a consultation that is not just about counting boxes and putting little ticks beside them to confirm we have had a chat. It is about a genuine good faith engagement with first nations when resource development affects either their rights or aboriginal title. When I say “title”, of course that is the burden of the Tsilhqot’in case that has been such a watershed development in our part of the world and across Canada.
Let us remember that in the Haida decision, the Supreme Court of Canada said:
 Prior to establishment of title, the Crown is required to consult in good faith with any Aboriginal groups asserting title to the land about proposed uses of the land and, if appropriate, accommodate the interests of such claimant groups. 
In comparison, the court was clear in Tsilhqot’in that after aboriginal title has been established, the default focus is consent:
 After Aboriginal title to land has been established by court declarations or agreement, the Crown must seek the consent of the title-holding Aboriginal group.... 
What has the Government of Canada done in response to that? What has it done in response to the excellent report by its hand-picked appointee, Mr. Douglas Eyford, who worried that projects are failing because industry has been left alone to navigate the consultation and accommodation process? The government has done nothing. It has left us with a vacuum. It has left us with projects that may or may not be in the public interest but will never proceed, because first nations have not had the constitutional rights accorded to them by the current government.
The government first tried to download it to industry, which pushed right back and said that it was the honour of the crown that was at issue and that industry was not the crown. That has been a bit of a dead end, and it is tying up development that may be in the public interest across this land. It is simply shameful.
The ultimate form of consultation in our province is called the treaty process. This past week we heard that the Government of British Columbia is essentially walking away from the BC Treaty Commission. It cannot seem to find a person to appoint to that process. 
Has the Government of Canada been yelling from the rooftops that it is committed to this process, that it has spent billions of dollars trying to engage first nations in unceded land and that through the process of good faith negotiations, it is trying to address those land claims? The answer is no. I have not heard the government say one thing about the crisis facing the BC Treaty Commission. I have heard Chief Sophie Pierre say it and I have heard Jerry Lampert, the federal appointee on the commission, say it, but I have not heard the Prime Minister or a single parliamentarian address that crisis. 
It is a crisis not only because billions have been spent, but because that is the way in which we truly engage with first nations to achieve resource development that is meaningful and in the interests of not just the first nations communities but the people of Canada. It is a crying shame the Conservatives seem to have let that wither on the vine.
 Douglas Eyford, whom the government appointed after the debacle of the Enbridge process, recommended a special fund for consultation with first nations. That dies this year. The government will not bring a budget forward and we do not know whether it will be continued and, if so, to what degree. That is another example of the lack of concern the Conservatives have for engaging in what the courts have termed “nation-to-nation consultation” with our first nations communities.
 It is no wonder this motion was brought forward to demand that this occur. It is not only in the interest of first nations, it is in the interest of all Canadians that the process of reconciliation, which the Supreme Court has demanded of us, be finally addressed, and it is not.
 I could spend time on first nations and more so, but I want to talk about the environmental assessment process. 
Everyone knows that Bill C-38 gutted the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We heard that loud and clear in the travesty of the Enbridge northern gateway consultation process. Over 130 first nations across British Columbia announced their opposition. Nearly 10,000 Canadians told the joint review panel that they opposed this project. Towns and cities across Canada oppose it. The community of Kitimat, in a referendum, told the people of Canada that they did not want any of this. Was it approved? Yes. The Government of Canada did not seem to care. So much for consultation. The level of cynicism that the Conservatives have engendered in the people of my province is absolutely tangible.
 When we talk to younger Canadians about their engagement in the process, they say “Why bother?” The Conservatives create these little processes and ignore them. It does not matter how many people speak out because it does not seem to make any difference.
 If we get into a protest, for example on Burnaby Mountain, and Grand Chief Stewart Philip is arrested, he tells us that under the new and improved national security legislation, his advocacy, protest and dissent will not be in that context lawful because it is subject to an injunction and that he will somehow be on a terrorist list. So much for participation in that project.
What the Conservatives do not seem to get is that they cannot proceed with resource development that may well be in everyone's interest unless they get a social licence. People in our province are having none of these projects because they realize the process by which they are being reviewed completely ignores the consultation that is required.
That is why I was so proud to stand in this place and support a bill introduced by my colleague, the MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Bill C-628. It would, among other things, absolutely improve the level of consultation that this motion would require us to do. One of the things that bill would do would require a report to be submitted to a joint review panel or National Energy Board, as the case may be, that would include a summary of those positions taken by municipalities, first nations and individuals and specify how the board took each position into account in deciding whether to recommend the issuance of a certificate for a pipeline. Accountability is about that. It is ensuring what people say actually matters. That is why they would be unable to ignore the 10,000 people opposed to the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline proposal. Yet the government has the audacity to simply say no problem going ahead.
Closer to home, in my community, we have another proposal coming forward, and that is the famous Kinder Morgan project, in which Trans Mountain's application to double its pipeline and radically increase the number of tankers on our coast is being considered. How can the proponent ever achieve the social licence required when so many people have said that the process of consultation is broken?
The former head of BC Hydro, in a scathing letter, withdrew, saying it was a joke. Standing is being restricted to those “directly affected, reducing the number and diversity of interveners and limiting the participation to a single letter”. That is of course is subject to a charter lawsuit claiming it violates freedom of expression.
Consequently, that is another example of why the motion is so desperately required that government can begin to take consultations seriously so it would improve the life of not only first nations, but all Canadians.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to have the opportunity to speak in support of Motion No. 533. As the urban affairs critic for the NDP caucus, I take a special interest in the motion, and I especially applaud the member for putting forward a motion for the inclusion of urban areas that are affected by the establishment of a natural resource development. 
Too often, we are presented with false dichotomies by the government and the false choices that flow from them. That people see remote rural life as distinct and separate and unconnected to urban life has a partial explanation in the phenomenology of those lives. They are very different. They are very different experiences. People see very different things on a day-to-day basis. 
People say I am talking about an urban agenda for Canada, but what about rural and remote Canada? This is not to deny that there are issues distinct to rural Canada and distinct to remote Canada, nor is to deny that there are distinctly urban issues and considerations. In fact, our party has urged consideration of the peculiarly urban issues in the cities of Canada by the government, and as the critic for urban affairs, I developed and released an urban agenda for Canada for all Canadians to read and consider. 
 However, the urban agenda and our views on cities and urban life in this country are very much mindful of, and informed by, the fact that urban Canada, our cities, sit in a broader context. They are part of a broader ecosystem. Our water comes usually from somewhere other than our cities. The preponderance of our food usually comes from somewhere other than our cities. It is captured in that common phrase that we see on the bumper stickers: farmers feed cities.
Therefore, cities are shaped by the broader landscape in which they are embedded, and the converse is true as well. Cities shape the broader landscape in which they are situated, and this is true of all cities. It was true in a city in Saskatchewan that I visited. It was in the context of a booming extractive economy there that the chamber of commerce told me it is not just about environmental assessments but that they also need to have community impact assessments for resource development happening outside the boundaries of the city. The suggestion was that before the next big project goes in, there needs to be an assessment of whether that city can handle the traffic that flows from that project, handle the housing required by the influx of workers for that project, and so on. 
In another city in Saskatchewan, a large community service agency told me that it was only when the rural and remote extractive economy started to boom that the extent of the true challenges of homelessness in that city actually emerged. As with any ecosystem, the system flows one way or another. 
I would like to tell a story about a natural resource development project close to Toronto. It was the Melancthon Township megaquarry. 
Melancthon Township sits about 80 kilometres north of Toronto. It is class 1 farmland and provides about half the potatoes eaten by the citizens of Toronto annually. The land is called the headwaters because it sits atop a number of watersheds that provide fresh water to about one million people in cities in Ontario. 
Thousands of acres of the headwaters and of class 1 farmland were purchased a few years back by what was then considered to be the tenth-largest financial hedge fund in the world. The plan was to build a megaquarry where that farmland existed. It was to cover 2,300 acres and go down 200 feet for the purpose of getting aggregate rock to ship into our cities to continue to build out the sprawl of Toronto and the surrounding municipalities.
Now, 2,300 acres is actually about half the size of my riding of Beaches—East York, so it was obviously worthwhile to share with people a vision of what this thing would like. It would be half my riding, going down about 20 stories. One of the interesting things was that being the headwaters, the water table sat just below the surface, about 20 feet down, requiring the pumping of water in perpetuity for the mining of this aggregate. 
Efforts were made repeatedly to engage the environmental assessment process on this, but that process has been so ravaged and degraded that there were really no hooks.
What was understood by thousands upon thousands of residents in Toronto was that this issue was their issue, that the building of a megaquarry on class one farmland, 80 kilometres outside of Toronto, was in fact an urban issue.
 At one point, thousands of Torontonians went north one weekend and clambered across fields and through the woods for a local food cook-off put on by professional chefs. On another occasion I organized a bus tour for constituents of mine and other NDP MPs in Toronto to go north to meet the farmers who were holding out on the hedge fund and hanging onto their farmland.
Finally, there was a soup day to support the fight against the megaquarry. It was held in my riding in a park, and 40,000 Torontonians came out to my park to buy soup, but most importantly, to support the concerns of those farmers and other residents living in and around Melancthon Township about the development of this megaquarry.
Similar activities have taken place outside of Toronto and have engaged the citizens of Toronto. Not all of these have been about natural resource development. Some have been quite the opposite. In fact, on the federal lands in Durham region, the government and previous governments, going back to the 1970s, have proposed taking class one farmland and building an airport, just paving it over, for the continuing development of the city.
However, like the megaquarry, the citizens of Toronto understand that issue and that project to be an urban issue. Those farmlands outside the city are important for local food security for our city so that we have, close to urban life, easy access to fresh food.
As with the megaquarry, it was easy to fill a bus of constituents and head out to tour those lands in support of farmers who are living lease by lease on those lands.
It is clear that where there is an ecosystem, where our cities are embedded in a broader landscape, there is also a social ecosystem, and we are connected. The first nations both within our city and outside our city, whose lands these are, the farmers whose lands these are, and urban residents, as well, understand that we are connected this way.
This was and remains my attraction to the opportunity Bill C-40 presented to us. Unfortunately, it was an opportunity spoiled. It was an opportunity for Canada's first national urban park so that we could begin to at least aspire to the notion that urban Canada and the concept of ecological integrity in our cities, being more energy sufficient and more food sufficient and secure in our own cities, is possible. We can begin to build and shape our cities so that urban life can exist in this landscape.
Let me conclude by applauding the motion in its entirety. More specifically, let me applaud the inclusion of urban communities in the motion and by extension the kind of collaborative and inclusive decision-making processes that will rise up from the passage of this motion.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I will use this right of reply wisely and focus on the points raised by my colleagues in their remarks about the motion on public willingness with regard to natural resource development.
I would like to dispel some of the doubts and reservations that were expressed by members of the House who believe that the expression of public willingness is equivalent to a right of veto. 
That is not the case. We need to put the whole thing in context. When I talk about taking into account public willingness, I am talking about one criterion in the permit process. There are other criteria, which seem to be more important to some, such as the economy, jobs, the environment and health. The expression of public willingness would be part of the criteria that are already taken into account out of necessity before a permit is issued to develop a mine or extract a natural resource.
In her speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources emphasized the need for the public to provide evidence to back up their claims regarding natural resource extraction undertakings. She said: “People's views need to be substantiated with evidence”.
I agree, and that is why the information about resource extraction or mining initiatives must be made available to the public. Canadians need to have access to all of the information, not just when the matter is closed and everything has already been signed, but in the preliminary stages, when people are called upon to express their opinions and take a position. It is essential that everyone have all the information.
Making all of the information about a given project available is an inherent part of the notion of expression of public willingness, which is at the heart of the motion before the House.
The parliamentary secretary stressed the need to base a position on facts and science. I would like to acknowledge the informed position taken by a number of people, including people in Sept-Îles. I am talking about people like Mr. Bouchard and Ms. Gagnon, who have based their position on scientific data. It was a huge job, especially if you consider that they did not have extensive financial resources at their disposal. They did everything they had to do to get the information they needed. Now they are practically experts. I am, of course, referring to Mine Arnaud, a proposed apatite mine in Sept-Îles. These are people who taught themselves over the years and developed expertise out of necessity.
As I said, I think it is essential that the public have access to all the information associated with a project. That is precisely the problem with Mine Arnaud. At the end of the day, the information does not get beyond the employers and the industry. The information is not passed along, which is why we are seeing this public outcry from the people of Sept-Îles and other places.
The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources demonstrated openness to people taking a stand by telling the House that claims have to be based on evidence suggests to me that all parliamentarians can work together to reduce the harmful impact of public opposition to economic initiatives in Canada. I have talked about that harmful impact several times in the House. Every public outcry has a direct impact on stock market value. We can see that by looking at stock market value. At least for corporate entities that issue IPOs and are publicly traded, we can see the effects of public uprising: their market value plummets. 
I would also like to talk about my meeting with the parliamentary secretary to the minister in her office because I want to illustrate the inclusiveness underlying this motion. I told the parliamentary secretary that I was open to amendments and that I wanted to work inclusively and collaboratively with the Conservatives, the Liberals and my own colleagues. That remains the key feature of this motion. It would ease tensions across the country and prevent that uprising.
The Conservatives could really benefit from this motion, since we will be having an election In October, and that is pretty bad for their brand.
I submit this respectfully.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion, the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday April 1, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. 
It being 2:15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)