2019-06-19

The Speaker:  It being 12 a.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28 and pursuant to Standing Order 24(1) the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m.
 (The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)
The Speaker: It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the O'Canada led by the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. 
[Members sang the national anthem]
Hon. Jane Philpott (Markham—Stouffville, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the final report of the advisory council on pharmacare. I strongly support universal single-payer public pharmacare so Canadians have access to medicines. I hope the recommendations will be implemented.
However, I am concerned about the prices Canadians pay. There has not been progress to reform the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. In 2017, I proposed regulatory changes to help the PMPRB protect consumers from high prices. This included changing the countries with which we compared prices. We said that value for money should factor into drug prices. We proposed that refunds should be reported to increase transparency and set fair prices. Those changes were to be in place by the end of 2018, but this has not happened. 
National pharmacare is essential, but it must be accompanied by good stewardship of public funds. Canadians should not pay the third highest drug prices in the world. I encourage the Minister of Health to proceed with the PMPRB reform without further delay.
Government PoliciesMr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past three and a half years, our government's policies have been very beneficial for my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler.
The Canada child benefit has supported more than 20,000 children, who have received a total of $246 million in tax-free benefits. Our middle-class tax cut saved 2,800 of my constituents an average of $1,000. Our housing plan funded the building and repairing of 1,440 homes and subsidized 2,240 units. Our doubling of funding for the Canada summer jobs program provided jobs for 658 people. We lowered the small business tax from 11% to 9%, saving an average of $7,500 for small business owners. When we doubled the gas tax transfer, Kitchener and Cambridge gained more than $11 million. That was on top of the $118 million for infrastructure funding that went into transit, water facilities and roads.
I am looking forward to returning here in November to continue the hard work for Canadians.
Dominion DayMr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—University, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this July 1, millions of Canadians will wish each other a happy Canada Day. I will join them by wishing them a happy Dominion Day. 
Drawing its inspiration from Psalm 72:8, “And he shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth”, the term “dominion” has a distinctly Canadian origin. It was proposed by Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley of New Brunswick, and it is a beautiful term to describe this vast land we call Canada. The loss of Dominion Day, to quote former Senator Hartland Molson, was “another very small step in the process of obscuring our heritage.”
Dominion is a term of dignity, beauty and poetry. It signified that Canadian origins were different from the republics and kingdoms of the world. It is a term and a day that needs to be brought back.
Therefore, let me wish my fellow Canadians, this July 1, happy Dominion Day.
GatineauMr. Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, so many great things have happened in Gatineau. Here are some numbers. Over the past four years, we increased support for seniors, restored the retirement age to 65, created 624 student summer jobs and supported 2,178 affordable housing units. Every month, 11,230 families receive $550 tax-free per child thanks to the Canada child benefit. We are investing in our infrastructure and public transit. The Gatineau 2 project is the biggest building project in Canada.
We restored respect for the public service and are on track to fixing the pay problems the previous government left us. I am proud to have helped bring about the adoption of prompt payment for businesses working on federal projects and, most importantly, recognition in the budget that we need a sixth crossing.
The Government of Canada has higher hopes for Gatineau's future than ever before. The best is yet to come.
Gilles GervaisMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to say a few words about Gilles Gervais and to wish him a happy retirement.
Mr. Gervais has worked on the Hill for more than 30 years. He started out in the 1980s as a constable, then he was a sergeant in the galleries, and more recently an Assistant Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms. Throughout all that time he always carried out his duties with professionalism. He always treated his assignments with care and treated others with respect.
Soon he will be retired and will no longer have to take time off when the fishing is not so great. He will have plenty of time to work on his sculptures and take up new hobbies.
We will all remember his sunny disposition and we will certainly miss his special sense of humour. Right, Darryl?
I thank him for his commitment to the House of Commons and for his fine service to all parliamentarians and everyone who has worked here.
Gilles, on behalf of all my colleagues, I wish you a happy retirement. Thank you for your dedication.
2019 General ElectionMr. René Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 2015, Canadians placed their trust in us to put an end to 10 years of austerity.
Four years later, our numbers do not lie. Our policies have lifted over 825,000 people out of poverty, including 100,000 seniors and more than 278,000 children. We now have the lowest level of poverty in Canadian history.
We have cut taxes for families and small businesses, one million jobs have been created since we were elected and we have the lowest unemployment figures in 50 years.
For rural regions, we doubled the gas tax fund by investing an extra $2.2 billion for municipal projects across Canada. We also announced over $164 million for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Small communities in Canada need this infrastructure.
Our government has invested in Canadians and their communities. The results are plain to see, and now is not the time for a return to the harmful policies of the opposition.
Retirement CongratulationsMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we close out this session and go into another election, we often celebrate the contributions of MPs who have decided to retire from this place.
It is also important to take some time to acknowledge the incredible work done by people who serve around the parliamentary precinct. That is why I would like to recognize Marguerite Charlebois.
Marguerite has worked in the parliamentary restaurant since January 21, 1981, close to four decades. She will be retiring at the end of this week. Imagine trying to manage all of the different political parties, people and personalities and making sure they end up in the right place and at the right table so their conversations are kept private as much as possible.
Since my first days in Ottawa in 2004, Marguerite has been exceptionally pleasant, welcoming and friendly. I am not sure people realize how difficult it is for the parliamentary restaurant staff to manage their personal and professional lives around a challenging parliamentary calendar.
I think I can speak for all members in the House and our Wednesday crew, who have had the pleasure to get to know her, in wishing Marguerite all the best in everything she does in the next chapter of her life.
I thank Marguerite. I hope our paths will cross again. Marguerite is always welcome to my home town of Niagara, where I look forward to serving her.
Fundy RoyalMrs. Alaina Lockhart (Fundy Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I walked up the Hill last night, I took pause to look at the beauty of Parliament Hill and all that it represents. Serving the people of Fundy Royal in this 42nd Parliament has been a true honour and the most challenging work of my life.
To understand local and national issues and to represent the interests of my constituents is a duty that I have not taken lightly. I am inspired by local community leaders, organizations and individuals, who are all as passionate as I am about the future of our area.
By working together, we have delivered supports for people at all stages in their lives, and we are making real progress. Over 14,000 children in Fundy Royal are better off today thanks to the Canada child benefit. As well, 825,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years and we finally have population growth in Atlantic Canada.
I thank the people of Fundy Royal for working with me and inspiring me. This is what working for Fundy Royal truly looks like. Together, I know we will continue to make a difference when I am sent back here as the member of Parliament for Fundy Royal.
Pierrefonds—DollardMr. Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the citizens of Pierrefonds—Dollard and Île Bizard for giving me the honour of serving them as their member of Parliament.
Our community is rich in cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic diversity, and I was proud to represent it. No one can do everything on their own, and I was lucky to have the support of many wonderful employees and volunteers.
I believe politics to be an honourable profession. I have been greatly impressed by my colleagues in this House, and when I say colleagues, I mean all members of Parliament. I believe that all of us come here in good faith to do what we believe is right for our country, Canada, and I salute them all.
Finally, I thank my wife, my children, my parents and my entire family. They are the world to me.
Events on June 19Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a historic day. On June 19, the Hillcrest mine explosion in Alberta killed 189 miners. It was Canada's worst mining disaster.
lt was also the day that Hungarians threw out Soviet troops, thus ending Soviet occupation, restoring their democracy and restoring their freedoms.
June 19 was also the day that the comic strip Garfield appeared in print for the first time.
Today Canadians are also learning that according to the PBO, the Liberal carbon tax will need to increase to a minimum of $102 per tonne, adding 23 cents to a litre of gas, to meet the Paris targets. Canadians now see that the Liberal carbon tax is a revenue plan, not an environmental plan.
Another reason today is a historic day is that at 5:00 p.m., the leader of Canada's Conservatives will unveil the first credible environmental plan that has the best chance of achieving our Paris commitments, exposing the Liberal carbon tax plan as a fraud and that this Liberal Prime Minister is not as advertised.
University of Quebec in MontrealMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year, the Université du Québec à Montréal is celebrating its 50th anniversary. UQAM contributes to society's social, economic and cultural progress. Social issues have always been the primary focus of its actions. This public French-language university is proud of its international influence, research labs and the quality of education it provides at its downtown Montreal campus.
UQAM has trained 269,000 graduates through its 300 study programs and it employs 5,400 people. I commend its founders for their vision and congratulate the administrative and teaching staff, including those officials who are visiting Ottawa today.
Fifty years of UQAM is 50 years of daring, drive, innovation and pride. I, too, am a proud graduate of UQAM.
I wish UQAM a happy 50th anniversary.
Retirement CongratulationsHon. Andrew Leslie (Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this will be the last time I have the pleasure of rising in this place.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Orleans for trusting me to speak on their behalf on the Hill.
It has been an honour and a privilege to serve among all members.
However, that is not why I am rising today. I am here to recognize Luc St-Cyr, who is not only a constituent but a dedicated employee who has worked with all of us in this place for many years.
He served for 18 years as a constable with the House of Commons Security Services and an additional 16 years with the page program. He started when he was just 22 years old, and he has not changed a bit.
When Luc started here in 1985, there were only 285 MPs.
He has worked alongside six prime ministers and has seen seven Parliaments come and go. There have been 640 pages who have passed through his training hands.
He has witnessed state visits by Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama. He even witnessed Nelson Mandela's address.
Thank you, Luc, for your 34 years of exemplary service.
I wish him all the best in his retirement.
Carbon PricingMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after announcing a climate emergency, the Liberals have not been able to identify any specific or immediate actions they would take. They do not have a climate plan; they have a tax plan. 
While our leader will roll out a real environment plan today that will help the planet, the Liberals are putting all their eggs in the carbon tax basket. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, as well as environmental experts, have said the carbon tax will not work. We see that already in B.C. and Quebec, where there has been a price on carbon for a decade and their emissions have gone up.
Experts say the carbon tax would have to increase by five times to do anything. That means a painful 23¢ a litre more for gasoline, as well as higher costs for home heating and groceries. However, the Liberals are not telling Canadians this before the election; they will wait until after the election, when they no longer need their votes but still need their money. 
The carbon tax is not a climate plan. It is a tax plan, and it is definitely not as advertised. 
Retirement CongratulationsMr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to recognize a constituent and long-time employee of the House of Commons. Mr. Gilles Gervais, the current assistant deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, is retiring after 35 years of service.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for not giving him the order to drag me out of this place once in four years.
Mr. Gervais joined the House of Commons security services in 1985. Over the years, Gilles rose through the ranks of the House of Commons security services, and some might remember the years he spent as a sergeant in the gallery before accepting his current position, Assistant Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms.
I would like to thank his wife, Susan, for sharing her husband with the House of Commons for 35 years.
Gilles, I hope you get to enjoy lots of time travelling and with family and plenty of sunshine at your Lac Gervais cottage. You deserve it. Thank you for 35 years of service.
Betsy BuryMs. Sheri Benson (Saskatoon West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the wonderful, passionate Betsy Bury and to honour her 97 years of a life well lived. Betsy died in April.
Betsy fought for a world that was safe from nuclear weapons and war, a world safe for all women and children. She did this both as part of social movements and in the realm of partisan politics.
In 1962, when Saskatchewan doctors went on strike to oppose universal health care, Betsy, along with a small group of women, started the Saskatoon Community Clinic to provide free care to anyone who needed it. Those women are a big reason that we have universal health care today. She helped start the first planned parenthood organization in Saskatchewan and the first public kindergarten in Saskatoon, and the list goes on.
From Tommy Douglas's campaign to my own personal campaign, from the CCF to the NDP, Betsy was there volunteering, leading, advising and supporting.
In 2017, Betsy received the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case for her lifetime dedication to bringing about gender equality.
Losing Betsy is devastating, but our broken hearts are comforted by the lives she touched and the young leaders who will follow in her inspiring footsteps.
2019 General ElectionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the Prime Minister promised an open and transparent government, modest deficits and a balanced budget in 2019, electoral reform and real change.
What did the Prime Minister actually deliver? A government branded by his four ethics violations, astronomical deficits and attempts to influence the election. He did deliver one real change. Unlike the Conservatives, who want to make life more affordable, he raised taxes on all Canadians.
He promised an environmental plan, but he gave us a tax plan instead. The only thing he knows how to do is tax all Canadians without being able to deliver results. What is more, the government's true intentions have been revealed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who calculated that the carbon tax will have to be five times higher than announced in order to meet the Paris targets. 
All Canadians, even Quebeckers, will have to pay more, since everything will get more expensive because of this Liberal government. We know now that it wants to raise taxes more and more. The environmental—tax—no, environmental plan, sorry, on taxable paper—uh, what I mean is, it is not what was promised.
On October 21, Canadians will send the Liberals packing.
Marc GabrielRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prime ministers do not normally get to give a member's statement, so I thank the other party leaders for allowing me to rise today to recognize the life and service of Marc Gabriel, a good man taken from us by cancer at just 47.
With 23 years in the RCMP, Marc served as an outstanding member of the PM's protection detail.
He had a big heart, an incredible inner strength, and a little smile always tugging at the corner of his mouth, despite being a consummate professional. His tenacity, his love of the outdoors and his adventurous spirit will be greatly missed.
A proud New Brunswicker, equally proud of his native heritage, Marc was a loving husband to Kelsey and a great dad. Dawson, Devon and Cadian know that his commitment to making our world a better and safer place was grounded in an immense love for them and a determination to bring about their best possible future.
Marc, my friend, you are deeply missed by us all.

Oral Questions
Natural ResourcesHon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the Prime Minister promised that construction on Trans Mountain would begin.
Not one ounce of dirt has been moved so far. Canada's entire economy is suffering as a result. Every day of delay is costing Canadians $40 million. The Prime Minister promised that Trans Mountain would be built and operational in 2019.
Why did he mislead Canadians by making a promise he could not keep?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Stephen Harper tried building pipelines to new markets and failed. He failed because he did not understand that major projects like this one can only move forward if we work with indigenous peoples and protect the environment. The Conservatives still do not grasp this.
That is exactly how we chose to move forward with the Trans Mountain pipeline. We followed the court's directions, and I am pleased to announce that construction will begin this summer. 
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, again, he keeps saying things that are just not true. The previous Conservative government saw the private sector build four major pipelines, including one to tidewater, increasing our capacity to foreign markets. It is under the Liberal government that major pipeline proponents have pulled out of Canada. In fact, the C.D. Howe Institute estimates that $100-billion worth of energy projects have been killed by the government.
The Prime Minister committed to Trans Mountain being completed and in operation this year, but it is over a year later, and there is still no start date. His failure is costing Canadians. Why did he not say so?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Mr. Harper and his Conservatives failed to get one pipeline built to new markets. The Conservatives talk about the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop, but that pipeline goes nowhere near a port. 
The reality is that the Conservatives did not understand, and still do not understand, that the only way to build energy projects today and into the future is to protect the environment at the same time and to work in partnership with indigenous peoples. That is exactly what we have done with the Trans Mountain pipeline, moved forward in the right way.
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, all the Prime Minister has done is buy a pipeline with taxpayers' money that he still does not have a plan to build. It is a terrible indictment of his record that in Canada, under his prime ministership, the government must nationalize a project to get it built. Under the Conservatives, the private sector did that. 
We should not be surprised. After all, this is the Prime Minister who wants to phase out the energy sector and who has a senior minister who tweeted that they want to landlock Alberta's energy. 
Why does the Prime Minister keep hurting our energy sector and the thousands of Canadians who work in it?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives just will not take yes for an answer. The reality is that we approved this pipeline, and it seems to cause tremendous consternation on the side of the Conservatives that we are actually succeeding in doing what the Alberta energy sector has long been asking for, which is access to new markets other than the United States.
We know that accessing new markets and having the money to pay for the transition to a cleaner, greener economy is important for building our future. They, quite frankly, do not know what to do or what to say, because they are wrong.
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, we know what to do to get these projects built, starting with replacing the Prime Minister, scrapping the carbon tax, repealing Bill C-69 and giving our investors certainty that when they meet those standards, they can actually get it built.
The Prime Minister is great at saying yes. He just cannot get it done. Yesterday was another approval without a plan. Canadians did not want to see a photo op yesterday. They wanted a date on which this project would start. 
Why did he fail to do that?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what is very clear to everyone in this House, and indeed to all Canadians, is that the Conservatives still do not understand why they failed for 10 years to give the support to the Canadian economy that was needed. In the 21st century, the only way to move forward on big projects is to have a real plan for the environment and to bring in and work with indigenous communities. They refused to do that for 10 years, and they still do not see that the way to move forward is in partnership.
FinanceAndrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can take great comfort in knowing that a real plan for the environment is coming at five o'clock. What it will not include is special deals for Liberal insiders. 
Under the Prime Minister, well-connected friends of the Prime Minister have done very well. He rewards his well-connected billionaire friends with taxpayer handouts, like $12 million to Loblaws. He interfered in a criminal court case to help his corporate friends at SNC. He targeted entrepreneurs and small business owners while protecting his vast family fortune. 
Why do the well-connected Liberals and the wealthy always get a better deal under Liberals?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned his climate plan. 
We have been waiting 416 days to see this climate plan, but members will forgive Canadians for being a little skeptical about what is going to be in that climate plan, because the Leader of the Opposition thinks that pollution should be free. He thinks that plastic pollution is not a problem. He will not admit that climate change contributes to extreme weather events, and he continues to not understand that the only way to move forward on creating better energy projects is by protecting the environment at the same time.
The EnvironmentMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): After a year of higher temperatures and more floods and forest fires, people across the country are feeling the effects of climate change. The decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion is not going to help people deal with climate change.
The Liberals are spending more than $10 billion to expand a pipeline. Why are the Liberals not investing this money in green initiatives to build a secure future for generations to come?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are going to do.
Over the past four years, we have done more for the environment than any other government in Canada's history. We have put a price on pollution. We are safeguarding our oceans. We are investing in public transit. We are reducing plastic pollution. We have also listened to Canadians about their desire for a cleaner future. Therefore, every dollar from this project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition. With this project, we are creating jobs, opening new markets, accelerating the clean energy transition and generating—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby South.
Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, that is a ludicrous proposition, given that no profits are going to be made in this project. 
The race to the bottom with this pipeline, between the Liberals and Conservatives, is taking us in the wrong direction. Instead of ending fossil fuel subsidies, the Prime Minister is buying pipelines. Instead of legally binding emissions targets, the Prime Minister is continuing with Stephen Harper's targets. Instead of building a new relationship with indigenous communities, the Prime Minister has stuck with grand symbolism. New Democrats are proposing a better way.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to protect coastal communities, indigenous communities and our environment?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, during the last four years, we have done more for the environment than any other government in Canada's history. We have put a price on pollution, we are safeguarding our oceans, we are investing in public transit and we are reducing plastic pollution. We have also listened very carefully to Canadians about their desire for a cleaner future. Every dollar from this project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition.
We are creating jobs, opening new markets, accelerating our clean energy transition and generating new avenues for indigenous economic prosperity.
Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, I can summarize the Liberals' position on the environment. On one day, they pass a motion recognizing a climate emergency, and then on the very next day, they approve a pipeline. That is the government's track record.
The Liberals will dramatically increase our emissions, threaten coastlines and disrespect coastal and indigenous communities. The new hearings failed to look at the impact of climate, and they failed to meaningfully consult.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to back up symbolic gestures with concrete actions to defend our environment?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, over the past four years, we have taken more concrete actions to protect our environment than any government in Canada's history. We are going to continue to move forward on that in partnership with indigenous communities and in respect of environmental concerns.
We on this side of the House recognize that not all indigenous communities support the way we are moving forward, even though we have consulted with them extensively.
My question for the leader of the NDP is, why will he not recognize that there are indigenous communities that actually support this pipeline expansion?
Indigenous AffairsJagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty low bar to set when we have the Harper Conservatives to compare with.
Indigenous and coastal communities vehemently oppose this project. Tanker traffic will increase nearly sevenfold. The risk of spills will increase considerably for those living on our coasts. The Prime Minister is ignoring those very valid concerns. We need to take decisive action to protect our environment.
How can the Prime Minister tell people that approving this pipeline will protect our environment, when that is not the case? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are disturbed by the dramatic increase in the transportation of oil by rail over the last few years.
We know that transporting oil by rail is more polluting and more dangerous. We will still need to use oil for several years. By building a pipeline in a responsible manner, in partnership with indigenous peoples, and by committing to invest all tax revenues from the pipeline in the clean energy transition, we know that we are building a better and more prosperous future for Canadians. 
EthicsHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, breaking ethics rules is par for the course for the Liberals. There have been so many ethics investigations of the Prime Minister and his caucus that there is probably a speed dial from the commissioner's office to the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister himself has been found guilty of breaking four laws with his illegal vacation.
Could the Prime Minister tell us, with all of these scandals, exactly how many times he has been interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner. Is he proud of his legacy of scandal, corruption and entitlement?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again, we see the Conservatives unable to actually challenge us on the economy, on the environment and on indigenous peoples, so they choose to sling mud.
We are confident that Canadians will look at how we listened to them, how we worked for them and how we saw the creation of a million jobs, the lowest unemployment in 40 years and the lifting of 825,000 Canadians out of poverty, including 300,000 kids.
Canadians know that this government is on the right track for growing the middle class and helping people working hard to join it.
JusticeCandice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister believes that there is one set of rules for him and his friends and one set for everyone else in this country. For example, there are his well-connected friends at SNC-Lavalin. They have given over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberals, and they got unprecedented access to the Prime Minister and his office.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he inappropriately pressured the former attorney general just to help his buddies at SNC-Lavalin?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Conservatives are struggling for questions to ask, because they keep returning to this approach. It did not work for them before. It is really a sign of desperation as we head to meet with Canadians and talk about our plan for the next four years.
We have worked to create over a million new jobs in this country. We have delivered in lifting hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty. We are continuing to demonstrate what leadership on the environment, leadership on the international file and reconciliation with indigenous peoples look like. That is something the Conservatives have a lot of difficulty with.
EthicsMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister is the first in Canadian history to be found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act not once, but four times. He took $215,000 of taxpayer money to travel illegally with his family and friends to the Aga Khan's private island. These offences could constitute a violation of subsection 121(1) of the Criminal Code.
I have one simple question for the Prime Minister. How many times did he meet with the RCMP and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as everyone can see, the Conservatives are resorting to personal attacks.
The Conservatives are focusing their attention on us, while we remain focused on Canadians. We have created one million new jobs over the past four years. Canada's unemployment rate is at a 40-year low. We have lifted 825,000 Canadians and 300,000 children out of poverty.
The reality is that our plan to invest in Canadians and to create growth for everyone, including the middle class, is working.
JusticeAlain Rayes: Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the SNC-Lavalin affair and Vice-Admiral Norman.
The Prime Minister tried to cancel Davie's contract to help his Liberal Party friends. The Prime Minister did everything in his power to destroy the reputation of Vice-Admiral Norman, an honest and conscientious man of integrity, just as he did to the former justice minister and the former president of the Treasury Board.
Why did the Prime Minister try to ruin the careers of these honest people who simply wanted to stand up for the interests of Canadians?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this fall, Canadians will have a clear choice to make. They can vote for a party that protects the environment, creates economic growth and shows respect for Canadians by lifting hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty and putting Canada back on the international stage, or they can vote for the Conservative Party, which learned nothing from the Harper government's failures, continues to make divisive personal attacks, and continues to focus on me while we are focusing on Canadians.
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Milton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the work of the opposition on this side is to simply hold the Prime Minister to account for his own actions. He broke the Conflict of Interest Act, so did a number of his cabinet ministers. When two female cabinet ministers spoke truth to power, they were shoved out of caucus.
When the Minister of Finance, the former minister of fisheries and the Prime Minister himself broke conflict of interest laws, with a little wink and a nod, they were forgiven. I am wondering if the Prime Minister can tell us if the reason for this is because simply, “Well, it's 2019”.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives remain focused on us, we will stay focused on Canadians. That is how we delivered creating over one million new jobs, lifting 825,000 Canadians out of poverty, the lowest unemployment in 40 years, 300,000 kids lifted out of poverty, with measures that the members opposite voted against.
We have a plan to continue to grow our economy in responsible ways, while Conservatives resort to personal attacks and petty issues.
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, sadly, the Prime Minister seems to want to run on the notion that the means, no matter how bad they are, justify the ends and I would caution that is an inappropriate way to continue with the Canadian public. However, I am going to give him one chance to do something really appropriate on his last day today.
Admiral Mark Norman was put through hell for the last three years because of the concerted efforts of the government to ensure that he was put on the spot. We apologized to the House. Will the Prime Minister stand in his place today and apologize—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Justin Trudeau: Once again, Mr. Speaker, on this last day of Prime Minister's question period, the members opposed are choosing to make personal attacks and not talk about the things that actually deeply matter to Canadians.
I will highlight that during these Prime Minister question periods, I have taken over 3,200 questions from the members opposite, including 237 different MPs. Mr. Harper, during his last term as prime minister, took only 1,400 from about 34 MPs. We know that greater accountability, greater opportunity to participate in debate—
The Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the House when people are trying to answer questions. They may not like the questions or the answers, but it is important in a democracy to hear both and not to be speaking when someone else is speaking. The hon. member for Carleton will come to order.
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
The EnvironmentMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have suddenly realized that green-lighting the expansion of Trans Mountain will not wash, especially after declaring a climate emergency the day before. Now they are trying to create a diversion by saying that any profits from the pipeline will go into a green fund.
They are spending $15 billion to create more pollution. That is what I would call trading four quarters for a dollar, especially when that dollar is the equivalent of three million cars' worth of pollution.
Why not immediately invest that $15 billion in renewable energy and the good jobs of tomorrow, as the NDP is proposing?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, during the last four years, we have done more for the environment than any other government in Canada's history. We have put a price on pollution. We are safeguarding our oceans. We are investing in public transit. We are reducing plastic pollution.
We have also listened to Canadians about their desire for a cleaner future. Every dollar from this project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition. We are creating jobs and opening new markets. We are accelerating our clean energy transition and generating new avenues for indigenous economic prosperity.
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there are no profits. It is losing $150 million a year. What an empty gesture. That is just our point. The Prime Minister asks Canadians to wait for pharmacare, affordable housing and so much else and then he splurges $15 billion on Trans Mountain. He says he respects reconciliation and then runs roughshod over indigenous rights. He pushes a climate emergency motion and then, within hours, is trying to ram through a raw bitumen pipeline that trashes the Paris Agreement. 
Why did the Prime Minister choose oil lobbyists over a future generation?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was plenty wrong with the statements made by the member opposite, but I will focus on one. 
There is a strong economic case for getting access to new markets and for investing in the clean energy transition, but we will all understand that New Democrats have always had challenges with economic plans and approaches. They think there is a choice to be made between protecting the environment and growing the economy. They do not understand that the only way to build a stronger future for all Canadians is to do them both together.
EthicsHon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC): The memory lane hits keep coming, Mr. Speaker. Who can forget the Prime Minister's disastrous India trip, the many days of answers from the PM, the public safety minister and others blaming the Liberal member for Surrey Centre for inviting a convicted terrorist on that bhangra-dancing, diplomatic train wreck. In the end, we will recall the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report revealed it was the Prime Minister's Office that put the convicted terrorist on the guest list.
Can the Prime Minister tell us when he last spoke with Jaspal Atwal? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again, we see on this final day of the mandate—our final last days of this mandate that the Conservatives continue to not understand what Canadians—
The Speaker: Order, order. No singing. Members can sing outside. It is a bit more like the last day of school, it seems to me.
The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on these last days of this mandate, I will say the same thing that I will say in the first days of our next mandate. We are going to stay focused on Canadians, growing the economy, protecting the environment, reconciling with indigenous peoples, and creating opportunities for the middle class and people who are working hard to join it.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil has said quite a bit today, without having the floor. I would ask him not to do that and to show respect for other members.
The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.
Public SafetyHon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent were killed in terrorist attacks inspired by radical Islamism here in Canada. Global News reported that the Liberals want to bring 30 ISIS terrorists to Canada and give them poetry and podcasts instead of throwing them in prison.
Why is the Prime Minister rolling out the red carpet for terrorists who fought against our values, our soldiers and Canadian values?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are once again playing extremely dangerous games with public opinion and with the truth itself. We know that one of the fundamental responsibilities of any government is to keep Canadians safe. That is exactly what we are doing. The safety of Canadians and the choices and actions of our border and police services are essential to the work we are doing. We will not engage in petty politics and fearmongering because of that.
Veterans AffairsMr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a convicted terrorist a multi-millionaire when he paid the murderer of U.S. army medic Christopher Speer ten and a half million dollars. The Supreme Court did not order any monetary compensation for Omar Khadr, but the Prime Minister said that because of the actions of the previous Martin Liberal government, he just had to write the cheque. Why has the Prime Minister spent over $40 million to fight Canadian veterans in court, but decided to pay ten and a half million dollars to a convicted terrorist, without putting up a fight?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, here is something the Conservative politicians just do not understand. When we violate the rights of anyone in Canada, all of us end up having to pay. The Conservatives refuse to recognize that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to everyone. Quite frankly, I am glad that Canadians are angry about that payment to Omar Khadr because I am too. No government should ever have violated any Canadian's fundamental rights.
Mr. Phil McColeman (Brantford—Brant, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave $10 million to Omar Khadr because he did not want to fight him in court. 
However, he spent over $40 million fighting our veterans in court. He refused to revoke the veterans benefits going to convicted cop murderer, Christopher Garnier. When did the Prime Minister decide that veterans were asking for too much?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite well knows that he was part of a Conservative Party that nickel-and-dimed veterans and used them for photo ops, while shutting down their offices to balance the budget at all costs.
The reality is we invested $10 billion in our veterans over the past four years to give them more support, more help for them and for their families; and to reopen the veterans offices. We have done more to support those men and women who have served our country so valiantly than the Conservatives ever had done when they were in government.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodRuth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, the dairy and cheese industries are losing $450 million a year. In 2014, my motion to compensate producers following the signing of the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons. Five years later nothing has been done. There is still no money in the budget for the compensation, and we are still waiting for measures and a program to support our farmers. Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have failed our Quebec farmers.
When will the government take action and announce a compensation plan for our farmers?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP, which continues to oppose every free trade agreement that is good for Canadians, our workers and our farmers, we know that increasing trade and supporting our farmers is the right way to create prosperity for all Canadians.
That is why we are working with farmers and dairy producers to ensure that they receive proper compensation for losses incurred under trade agreements while we create growth and wealth for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the NDP does not understand that. 
HealthMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a man living in Ottawa Centre has been denied OAS because of his rare form of dementia. The family is now owed $18,000, and the Liberal government is refusing it because he does not meet their criteria.
A one-size-fits-all approach to dementia patients is completely inappropriate.
Will the Liberal MP for Ottawa Centre stand up for her constituent or will the Liberals continue to make empty gestures, while abandoning Canadians in need of dementia care?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this government has moved forward with a national strategy on dementia that includes support for caregivers and more research into prevention. We recognize that there is always more to do.
I am not familiar with the case that the member opposite brings up, but I will ensure that we follow up on that one. We need to ensure that everyone is getting the support he or she needs. That is a commitment made by this government.
Natural ResourcesMr. Randy Boissonnault (Edmonton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's energy sector is a key driver of our economy and an important source of good, middle-class jobs in my community.
Edmontonians and all Albertans want to see good projects move forward in the right way. They know first-hand what happens when they do not.
For 10 years, the Conservatives cut corners and failed to get a single inch of new pipeline built to non-U.S. markets. We were elected on a plan to do things differently, and we have delivered.
Could the Prime Minister please update the House on our government's decision on the Trans Mountain expansion project?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this project will create thousands of good, middle-class jobs, and includes economic opportunities for indigenous peoples.
We have a plan to fight climate change and protect our oceans and respond to the concerns we heard in consultation. Every dollar earned through this project will be invested in clean energy.
We were elected to deliver real change. That is exactly what we are doing by moving forward on this project in the right way.
FinanceMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have some very bad news for our friend the Prime Minister of Canada.
Sadly, we all remember when he suggested that budgets balance themselves. I have bad news for him, but especially for Canadians: in the four years he has been Prime Minister, there have been four budgets and four consecutive deficits. That is the hallmark of this Prime Minister.
Since he promised exactly the opposite four years ago, could he stand in his place, on this last day when we can ask him questions, look Canadians in the eye and tell them, “I was wrong”?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons from the Conservatives, who ran eight consecutive deficits.
The reality is that the investments the Conservatives made did not create any growth because they made bad investments. The Conservatives still believe that the best way to create economic growth is to give advantages and benefits to the wealthy.
It is by investing in the middle class that we created one million jobs, reduced poverty, lowered the unemployment rate and helped middle-class Canadians.
Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh the memories of the Prime Minister and all his Liberal henchmen.
Four years ago, he promised that they would run three small deficits and then balance the budget in 2019. Four years later we know what really happened: they ran three big deficits and then a $20-billion deficit in their so-called zero-deficit year.
Again, I ask the Prime Minister: Will he stand in his place, look Canadians in the eye and tell them, “I lied to you”, since that is what he did?
The Speaker: The hon. member knows that he used an unparliamentary word. I would ask him to apologize.
Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives added $150 billion to our national debt, all while posting the worst economic growth under any prime minister since R. B. Bennett during the Great Depression.
The reality is that not only did our decision to invest in the middle class, lift children out of poverty and invest in our communities and infrastructure create good economic growth, but it also set a record in terms of reducing poverty and making life better for Canadians. This is unheard of in the world—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, remember this great hit. “I'm looking Canadians straight in the eye and being honest, the way I always have. We are committed to balanced budgets, and we are. We will balance that budget in 2019.” The Prime Minister only missed that promise by $20 billion.
When he looks Canadians in the eye in the next election and promises not to raise their taxes again, why should anyone believe what he says?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the promise we made in the last election was to invest in Canadians and create growth that for 10 years, Stephen Harper was unable to build.
That member opposite was part of a government that added $150 billion to Canada's national debt with nothing to show for it; the worst growth rate since the Great Depression. Why? Because the Conservatives insisted, and continue to insist, that the way to create growth was to give advantages to the wealthiest. We know that does not work. That is why we invest in the middle class.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, when the previous Conservative government was fighting the great global recession, that member said that we should spend more, spend now, spend faster. His only complaint was that the deficits were not big enough. 
We left him with a balanced budget. He promised that in 2019 the budget would balance itself. He is off by just $20 billion on top of the taxes he raised on the middle class.
The Prime Minister broke that promise. Which other promises will he break if he is re-elected?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what Canadians wanted from that Conservative government was for it to invest in the kinds of things that would create growth. Instead, the Conservatives invested in signs, door-knobs and gazebos.
We instead chose to invest in the middle class, in lifting kids out of poverty, in ensuring everyone had a real and fair chance to succeed. It is working. A million new jobs have been created over the past four years. We have the lowest unemployment in 40 years, because we are investing in Canadians.
Indigenous AffairsMs. Georgina Jolibois (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Denesuline of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba were supposed to sign an agreement with the government after 18 years of negotiating for their land, harvesting and resource rights. A week ago, the minister backed away and now refuses to meet with them. She broke her promise and betrayed the Dene.
Meaningful reconciliation is about working with indigenous people and meeting in good faith. Will the minister meet with the Dene while they are in Ottawa and explain why she broke her promise, face to face?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no relationship is more important to Canada than the one with indigenous people. Working to renew relationships on the basis of affirmation and implementation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership is central to everything we do.
Concerns have been raised by indigenous groups in the Northwest Territories about the terms of the agreement and the impact on their communities and their rights.
We have a responsibility to meaningful consultations with communities in order to understand and work through the issues that they have brought forward.
The EnvironmentMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today a report on the state of Canada's birds is expected, with findings of dramatic declines in many species, most of this resulting from habitat loss. For instance, over the last 40 years, we have lost over half of our grassland bird populations, birds like meadowlarks and burrowing owls.
The Liberals promised to protect 17% of Canada's wildlands and water by 2020, but have only hit 11%. An NDP government would protect 30% by 2030.
Why are the Liberals making nothing but empty gestures and breaking their promise to protect our wildlife?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, speaking of empty gestures, the NDP have put forward targets with no plan to reach them. On the contrary, we are going to be reaching our targets to protect marine and terrestrial areas. We have worked very hard on that. We recognize that protecting our environment is not just about growing the economy; it is also about fighting climate change. 
We recognize the importance of wetlands and a broad range of environmental ecosystems, which have a significant role to play in fighting climate change as well. This is why we are continuing to move forward with a real plan to protect our environment and fight climate change.
Carbon PricingMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here are some sobering numbers: 48% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency and 24% cannot meet their monthly obligations. To make life harder, the Prime Minister has stepped on the throats of Canadians by imposing a carbon tax on the necessities of life in Canada. The carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. 
How could he raise taxes on those who can least afford it, like seniors, but give advantages to the wealthiest by giving $12 million to his billionaire friends at Loblaws for fridges?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite continue to mislead Canadians. The reality is that the climate action incentive and our plan to put a price on pollution actually get more money in the pockets of middle-class Canadians than without a price on pollution. This is in fact an environmental tax break for middle-class families. That is what we are moving forward with, a way to both protect the environment, fight climate change and make it affordable for Canadians. 
The plan that the Leader of the Opposition is planning on putting forward tonight surely will not do that.
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here is another one of the Prime Minister's shining moments.
Many will recall his infamous January 2017 tweet, which said “To those fleeing persecution, terror and war, Canadians will welcome you... #WelcomeToCanada”. Since that day, more than 45,000 people have come from New York, seeking asylum at Roxham Road. Meanwhile, genuine refugees continue to suffer in UN camps.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he made a huge mistake in January 2017?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the UN reported this week that 70 million people are currently displaced around the world.
I am sure the hon. member does not think this is because of something I tweeted a few years ago. The reality is that more and more people are immigrating all over the world. Canada has a robust system to ensure that everyone who arrives in this country, through regular or irregular migration, is processed properly.
All of our system's rules are carefully followed.
EthicsHon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a law firm that the member for Steveston—Richmond East owns had been implicated in a scheme that allegedly laundered money in the Vancouver area for a foreign drug lord. Today, the member is at the Prime Minister's right hand. He is front and centre. Compare that to another Vancouver area MP who got kicked out of his caucus simply for standing up to him and doing what was right. 
This begs the question that if he is such a feminist, why the obvious, on display, double standard? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to a robust regime to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
With budget 2019, we created the action, coordination and enforcement team and the money laundering centre of expertise. These will help better identify and meet evolving threats. We have provided over $160 million to the RCMP, FINTRAC and CRA. We support policing and real estate audit teams. 
The Conservatives actually cut over $500 million from the RCMP's budget, while we will ensure that law enforcement teams have the resources and tools they need.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Manning ought to remember that the time to speak is when he is called upon and has the floor and not otherwise.
The hon. member for Nepean.
HousingMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has made unprecedented investments in giving more Canadians a place to call home.
This week, we unveiled details about the new first-time homebuyer incentive, which will help middle-class families by making their mortgage payments more affordable.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House how the first-time homebuyer incentive will help middle-class families in my riding of Nepean and across Canada achieve the dream of buying their first home?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nepean for his question and his hard work.
With the first-time homebuyer incentive, we are helping middle-class families achieve the dream of home ownership by increasing the RRSP withdrawal limit and reducing their monthly mortgage payments without increasing the amount they need to save for a down payment. 
We are putting home ownership within reach for more middle-class families. We are building on our historic commitments to giving more Canadians a safe and affordable place to call home.
Government PrioritiesMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, right now in Cape Breton we are seeing a story as old as time. The Liberals are taking $18 million from taxpayers to fund a private airport at the elite Cabot Links golf resort for their millionaire friends to park their private jets. This Liberal decision is decimating the Allan J. MacEachen Port Hawkesbury Airport and small businesses like Celtic Air Services.
Will the Prime Minister put small businesses ahead of his millionaire Liberal golf buddies and stop any funding for a competing private airport in Inverness?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Conservatives pretend they stand up for the middle class. We know their approach has always been to give advantages and benefits to the wealthiest in the hope that it will trickle down to growth for everyone else.
The first thing we did as a government was lower taxes for the middle class and raise them on the wealthiest 1%, and the Conservatives voted against it.
Then we brought in a Canada child benefit that gives more help to nine families out of 10 by stopping the cheques being sent to the millionaire families the Conservatives kept helping.
The Speaker: Some members seem to feel that it is vital to have constant noise when someone is speaking. I think they are mistaken, and I don't think Canadians appreciate it. I kind of wish the media would actually report on who does it.
The hon. member for Burnaby South.
Government PoliciesJagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's symbolic gestures do not match up with his actions. He promised change, but four years later medicine is still unaffordable, corporations are still avoiding billions in taxes, Canadians are still paying sky-high cellphone bills, and people still cannot afford to find a place to live. 
The Liberals are buying pipelines and still using Stephen Harper's climate targets. 
I believe better is possible. Why do the Liberals keep trying to convince Canadians that they have to settle for less?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, while the NDP works hard to come up with catchy slogans, we actually moved forward on delivering for Canadians. We have lowered the prices of drugs by taking an approach that includes creating collaboration with provinces as we move forward toward pharmacare.
We are also moving forward on a $40-billion national housing strategy, because we know that Canadians need to have affordable homes and the security that comes with it. 
We have also been investing in new training, jobs and opportunities for Canadians, while lifting people out of poverty. 
While the NDP has been working on slogans, we have been acting.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. Michel Picard (Montarville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that rural communities have a significant impact on the national economy. They provide jobs to over four million Canadians and contribute nearly 30% of the GDP, which is considerable.
It is important for our government to have a “made in rural” plan to address the unique infrastructure needs and economic opportunities facing rural communities.
Can the Prime Minister tell us about our government's efforts to support Canada's rural communities?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Montarville for his tireless work.
We have always been partners with rural regions. We created an infrastructure fund especially for rural communities. We are currently crafting a strategy for rural Canada based on the ideas of the very people who live there. We have connected 380,000 households to high-speed Internet, and our investments will make it possible for every Canadian household to connect.
Our record is proof that rural Canadians are always a priority for us.
Canada Summer Jobs ProgramMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister put a values test on the Canada summer jobs grants, targeting groups that do not agree with him. More than a week ago, it was brought to the attention of the Liberals that the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore awarded funding to a group with links to terrorism. 
It has been more than a week since the minister said that she would do a so-called review of this matter. The CRA has already suspended this group's charitable status, and the government is well aware of its current links to terrorism.
My question is this. Since the minister cannot seem to get the job done, will the Prime Minister step in and do the job?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are unequivocal. We will always stand up for a woman's right to choose. The fact of the matter is that we have seen around the world women's rights eroded by conservative governments, by conservative leaders, by conservative politicians. The reality is that Canadians deserve to hear political parties and leaders stand up unequivocally to say that we will defend women's rights. We will defend women's rights to choose.
Why can the Conservatives not just say that?
The EnvironmentMs. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has no credibility when it comes to the environment. Just 24 hours after declaring a climate emergency, he gave the green light to the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will produce more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Quebec's industries combined.
He is apologizing by saying that he is going to invest $500 million in green energy, but he is investing $14 billion in pollution. 
How is the Prime Minister going to fight climate change by investing our money in a project that creates more pollution than all of Quebec?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are still politicians who believe that we have to choose between the environment and the economy.
The reality is that the only way to move forward as a society is to protect jobs and the environment at the same time. That is exactly what we are doing by safely accessing new markets for our resources while investing historic amounts in the transition to green energy. All the profits from this pipeline will be put toward the transition to green energy because Canadians know that we need to show leadership in that regard.
Sri LankaMs. Cheryl Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I am hopeful that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. 
I move:
 That the House, (a) extend its condolences to all the victims of violence and war in Sri Lanka; (b) call on the Government of Sri Lanka to promote justice for those affected by the Easter Sunday attacks, protect the rights of religious minorities and defend all places of worship; (c) reaffirm Canada's call for Sri Lanka to implement its obligations within a clearly specified time frame, as mandated under the UN Human Rights Council resolutions 30/1 and 40/1 as well as Canada's support in advancing accountability, peace and reconciliation among all people on the island; and (d) call upon the United Nations to establish an international independent investigation into allegations of genocide against Tamils committed in Sri Lanka, including during the last phase of the armed conflict in 2009. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)

Government Orders
Ways and MeansThe Speaker: It being 3:20 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 18, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 34.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Private Members' Business
Federal Courts ActThe Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-331.
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
Diabetes Awareness MonthThe Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 173 under private members' business.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Routine Proceedings
Canada Account Annual ReportMr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the 2017-18 Canada Account as prepared by Export Development Canada.
Ottawa River WatershedHon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and in accordance with Motion No. 104 put forth by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa South, and adopted by this House on May 3, 2017, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report on the long-term sustainability and management of the Ottawa River watershed, entitled “A study of governance, existing data, potential indicators and values in the Ottawa River Watershed”.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 10 petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsRandy Boissonnault: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas representing its participation at the bilateral visit to Brazil, held in Brasilia and São Paulo, Brazil, from April 23 to 26, 2019. 
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation respecting its participation in the 47th annual meeting of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association, held in Gard and Alpes-Maritime, France, from April 8 to 12, 2019.
Committees of the HouseDenis Paradis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages entitled “Modernization of the Official Languages Act”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mr. Neil Ellis (Bay of Quinte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, entitled “Effects of Mefloquine Use Among Canadian Veterans”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Phil McColeman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the issue that this report addresses, which is mefloquine, and point out that part of the report is a supplemental dissenting report requesting that the government take immediate action so that the veterans who are currently suing the government over this toxic medication they were forced to take while in service will not go any further forward and that the government will not fight these veterans in court.
Mr. Nick Whalen (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 26th report of the the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Improving Settlement Services Across Canada”.
I would like to take a moment to thank the clerk, Evelyn Lukyniuk, and analysts Julie Béchard, Isabelle Lafontaine-Émond and Madalina Chesoi for their excellent work at the end of the session to deliver our report on time. 
I would also like to thank the retiring member of Parliament for Dufferin—Caledon, who was the previous chair of this committee and provided excellent advice and support during his entire tenure on the committee this session. 
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, we will be tabling a dissenting opinion. We do not feel the report that was issued by the government members adequately addresses the strain on resettlement services that has been created by well over 40,000 people who have been allowed to illegally enter the country and claim asylum status in Canada. 
We know that many of these people do not have valid claims and yet are able to access language training services. We also do not feel that the report dealt with some of the recommendations coming out of the resettlement services communities to make these services more effective for people who need them to integrate into the Canadian economic and social fabric. 
Mr. Stephen Fuhr (Kelowna—Lake Country, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, entitled “Improving Diversity and Inclusion in the Canadian Armed Forces”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response. 
It was a privilege and a pleasure to serve as the committee chair in the 42nd Parliament. I would like to thank the members, the clerk, and the analysts for their great work. This is another unanimous report. 
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last time, I mentioned the great work of the committee clerk and the researcher. As this may be my last time up on these reports, I would like to congratulate all the committee members. I think we had a number of free spirits on our committee. I congratulate them for always making their decisions with integrity and based on what they believed. As can be seen, there has been a large volume of work.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 99th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled “Advice for the Consideration of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee in the 43rd Parliament”.
Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these will be the last reports I ever table in Parliament, so I want to thank the public accounts committee for its good work in this Parliament. As well, I would like to thank our clerk, Angela, and our analysts, Dillan and Sara, for the work they have done.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 69th report, entitled “Processing of Asylum Claims, Report 2 of the 2019 Spring Reports of the Auditor General of Canada; and the 70th report, entitled “Call Centres, Report 1 of the 2019 Spring Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to these two reports.
Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, November 10, 1995, was the last time any committee reported 100 reports. Peter Milliken was the chair of PROC at the time.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, at this historic moment, the 100th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Advice for the Consideration of Committees of the House of Commons in the 43rd Parliament”. This references procedures related to in-camera meetings and the Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame procedure.
The committee wanted to dedicate this report to a former member of Parliament, who we all had great fondness for. I will read the dedication: 
 The Committee dedicates its one hundredth report to the memory of the late Arnold Chan, who was the member for Scarborough—Agincourt, and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. As a colleague and friend, he was widely respected for his sharp legal mind, willingness to listen and pursuit of fairness. Mr. Chan was a driving force behind the motion to establish rules on the use of in camera meetings for the Committee. The rules were established in close collaboration with his fellow Committee members. 
To Arnold Chan.
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Raising Her Voice: Confronting the Unique Challenges Facing Women Human Rights Defenders”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I would also like to thank the witnesses who had the courage to come forward, many of them at great risk to themselves, to testify before the committee. 
As this is the last report I will be tabling, I also want to say that it has been a tremendous honour to be the chair of the subcommittee on international human rights. I want to thank all the committee members for working together collaboratively on some of the most difficult issues of our day.
I would also like to thank the support staff, our two clerks, the analysts, the interpreters and the technical staff, for the tremendous work they have done for the committee.
The Speaker: The next hon. member comes from the same place as former speaker Edgar Nelson Rhodes, who served as the speaker between 1917 and 1921. That is Amherst, Nova Scotia.
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note that you are the second speaker from Nova Scotia, and we are very pleased about that.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Violence Facing Health Care Workers in Canada”.
This was an amazing study we did on violence against health care workers, people who are there to help people. We made nine important recommendations, ranging from investing in best practices to prevent violence faced by health care workers to working with the provinces and territories to update the pan-Canadian health human resource strategy. Over five meetings, we heard 21 witnesses, who gave insightful and heartfelt testimony about their experience in the health care field.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. We wish health care workers all the best.
I want to thank our committee. All members from all parties came to every committee meeting for three and a half years with their homework done, ready to do their jobs and speak on behalf of Canadians.
I also want to thank our clerk and our analysts, who have done a great job. I want to thank my vice-chairs as well.
All members of the Standing Committee on Health have done a great job.
Putting Victims First ActMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-463, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (orders of prohibition and orders restricting publication).
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce Bill C-463, putting victims first. While the Criminal Code guides our justice system, sometimes it does not necessarily put victims at the heart of it.
With this bill, we would like to change section 161 to protect children up to age 17. Currently, it only protects them to age 15.
We would also like to establish a method to allow a victim to remove the publication ban on his or her own name. I am thinking in particular of the case of Rehtaeh Parsons, a young girl from the east coast who committed suicide and was subsequently the subject of an investigation. Later on, after it was cleared up, her family was unable to speak about the case because there was a publication ban. The bill would allow her family to lift the publication ban without having to go to court.
The last piece of the bill would put a reverse onus bail restriction on people who have trafficked other people.
I think all three proposals are common sense. I look forward to reintroducing the bill in the upcoming Parliament and to seeing it pass forthwith.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Supporting Small Breweries, Wineries and Distilleries ActRuth Ellen Brosseau: moved to introduce Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (small brewery, winery or distillery tax credit).
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend, the member for Jonquière.
This important bill seeks to introduce a tax credit that would help businesses increase their productivity, hire employees, and generate more revenue. That money would be entirely reinvested in the business and would help stimulate the local economy. I would like to see this bill passed soon. I know that people love their microbreweries, their vineyards and their distilleries, and this is a way to encourage them. I would like to list some of the companies in Berthier—Maskinongé.
In D'Autray, there is the Aux pieds des noyers vineyard, Vignoble Carone Wines, the Lano d’Or vineyard, the Saint-Gabriel vineyard, the Vent maudit vineyard and Domaine du Mont d'Or. In Maskinongé, there is the Prémont vineyard, Domaine &amp; Vins Gélinas and Vignoble et Domaine Beauchemin. 
We also have extraordinary microbreweries such as Microbrasserie Nouvelle-France, Brasserie Dépareillée and Microbrasserie L'Arsenal. There is also a distillery in Louiseville, the Distillerie Mariana.
This tax credit would help businesses across Canada and Quebec.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Labour CodeMr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-465, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (automated external defibrillators).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill, which is the result of a collaboration with one of my constituents, Claude Leblanc, who was recently honoured. Sadly, he passed away a few weeks after I met him.
We worked together on the idea of this bill. Claude Leblanc was instrumental in getting automated defibrillators installed all over the riding of Sherbrooke and even all across Quebec. He wanted to push his idea even further and make it mandatory to install defibrillators in government buildings and buildings housing federally regulated businesses.
The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that federally regulated businesses and federal government offices with a certain number of employees, which will be prescribed by regulation, install automated defibrillators in the workplace. We estimate that this would save hundreds of lives a year. It would ensure that this kind of assistance is available in all regions of Canada when needed.
I am grateful to Claude Leblanc for his years of hard work.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Mr. Michael Levitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask for leave to please return to committee reports to present the reports of the foreign affairs committee.
The Speaker: Is there agreement?
Committees of the HouseMichael Levitt: Mr. Speaker, before I begin presenting these reports, I would like to thank the committee assistants, translation staff and, of course, our clerk, Erica Pereira, and our analysts, Brian Hermon and Scott McTaggart, for all their hard work over the last four years.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Democratic Strain and Popular Discontent in Europe: Responding to the Challenges Facing Liberal Democracies”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Human Rights Situation in Russia”. Following the testimony of Mr. Mustafa Dzhemilev, the committee supports recognizing the Crimean Tatar deportation of 1944 as a genocide and designating May 18 a day of remembrance for the Crimean Tatar deportation.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Situation in Sri Lanka”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Finally, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “The Human Rights Situation in Iran”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
The Speaker: In the current spirit of harmony, I wonder if there is unanimous consent to return to the introduction of private member's bills so that we could allow the hon. member for Milton to introduce her bill.
Corrections and Conditional Release ActLisa Raitt: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-466, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims).
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in 11 years I have had the honour of being able to table a private member's bill in this place. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to do so. 
Today I am introducing a private member's bill because very often, victims of crime, such as Lisa Freeman and her family in Oshawa, Ontario, are caught off guard when they are notified that an offender is eligible for forms of parole before the 25 years indicated on the certificate of conviction.
I believe that it is the responsibility of government to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. This legislation would require that information regarding review and eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated, in writing, to the offender's victims. The written documentation would also require an explanation of how those dates had been determined.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Business of the HouseKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, on Thursday, June 20, 2019, after the taking of any recorded division deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions, the House shall proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business for two hours to consider, during the first hour, the motion for second reading of Bill C-431, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act (investments), and, during the second hour, the motion for second reading of Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (packaging), after which the House shall return to consideration of Government Orders until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to) 
Broadcasting of Committee ProceedingsKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, there have also been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, in relation to the broadcasting of committee proceedings, after the opening of the 43rd Parliament, and once the necessary infrastructure has been installed, the House authorize: 
 (a) televising or webcasting of up to six simultaneous meetings, provided that no more than two of the meetings are televised; 
 (b) that the electronic media be permitted to video record meetings that are not televised, in accordance with the existing guidelines; and 
 (c) that Standing Order 108(3)(a)(v) be amended to read “the review of and report on the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees;”. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to) 
Military Family Appreciation DayPhil McColeman: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the sacrifices Canadian military families make on a daily basis, the contributions of these families to the fabric of our society, and show appreciation for their ongoing commitment to the safety and security of Canada by designating the third Friday in September of each year “Military Family Appreciation Day”. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to) 
PetitionsMrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in this House on behalf of the good people of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
I have two petitions to table. The first petition is from people from Hearst, Dubreuilville, White River, Echo Bay, Wawa, Richards Landing, Hawk Junction, Elliot Lake and Sault Ste. Marie.
The petition is in support of public, universal and comprehensive pharmacare for all. The petitioners note that right now, one in 10 Canadians cannot afford their prescription medication under the current system that prioritizes drug companies' bottom line. If we replace our current system with single-payer pharmacare that benefits everyone, the country will save $4.2 billion each year. The petitioners add that Canada is behind the times, as we are the only OECD country with a universal health system that does not cover prescription drugs.
They point out that implementing a universal pharmacare program will give Canadians collective buying power that will lower the cost of drugs and health care. People could therefore feel more secure about their health in the future.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to eliminate this oversight in the health care system and bring in a public universal and public comprehensive pharmacare plan.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of the creation of the defence of Canada medal for the men and women who defended our country during the Cold War. The medal would officially honour those who served in the defence of Canada's borders from 1946 to 1989. 
The petitioners note that this medal would recognize the support of the many men and women who gave countless hours of service to their country as they trained and prepared in case of an attack on Canadian soil, which fortunately never happened.
The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-270, which would create a defence of Canada medal.
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting three petitions to the House today from the constituents of the Yorkton—Melville area, as today is the very last day I will be in the House to do so before the summer break and ensuing federal election.
The first petition is signed by 85 petitioners who are calling on the government to establish a national strategy on palliative care.
Cathay Wagantall: Mr. Speaker, the second petition holds 550 signatures of petitioners who are calling on the House of Commons to scrap Bill C-71, the firearms legislation that would do nothing to provide the resources to front-line police forces to tackle the true source of firearms violence, gangs and organized criminal enterprises, and instead targets law-abiding gun owners.
Cathay Wagantall: Mr. Speaker, the third petition I wish to present contains 75 signatures of petitioners who are calling on the government to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selected pregnancy termination and the use of ultrasound for this purpose.
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition to the House today.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to amend the Cannabis Act to allow licensed and regulated pharmacies and pharmacists to sell and distribute cannabis for medical purposes.
Mr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here on behalf of the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and present two petitions from my constituents.
The first comes from people who go to the Body Shop at Woodgrove mall. They draw the attention of the House to animal testing for cosmetic products. They want the House to know that the European Union has banned cosmetic testing since 2013 along with a number of other countries and yet their cosmetic industries continue to grow.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to support Bill S-214, and ban the sale and/or manufacture of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients in Canada moving forward.
Paul Manly: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in regards to the DND rifle range in the Nanaimo area. This range was established in the 1920s and the city has grown substantially since then. This is an area that is surrounded on three sides by parks and it has residential areas nearby. The petition contains thousands of signatures.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to clarify the safe operation of the DND rifle range, which has recently been closed for recreational purposes. They would like the government to establish a schedule for public access to the lands in the buffer zone of the range and order a feasibility study to look at relocating the range to a more suitable, less populated area. They would also like the government to engage in a community consultation with recreational users, the Regional District of Nanaimo, the City of Nanaimo and the Snuneymuxw First Nation about the future use of this land.
The Speaker: We have many members who wish to present petitions today. I would ask members therefore to try to be very brief in presenting their petitions, although at the end I will see if there is agreement to perhaps allow a little extra time. 
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, this will be the last time I ever present a petition in the House. I want to thank you for your services as Chair.
I rise today to present a number of petitions on behalf of my colleague, my seatmate and my friend, the member for Langley—Aldergrove.
In the first, the petitioners call upon Parliament to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Kevin Sorenson: Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by approximately 1,000 people, who are asking the Government of Canada to make a number of changes to the current drinking and driving laws in Canada.
Kevin Sorenson: Madam Speaker, the third petition is signed by a group of petitioners who are calling on the House of Commons to specifically identify hospice palliative care as a defined medicinal service covered under the Canada Health Act.
In the speech given by the member for Langley—Aldergrove, he spoke a lot about palliative care.
Kevin Sorenson: Madam Speaker, lastly, I present a petition calling on all members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
I would like to take one minute to let our friend and colleague the member for Langley—Aldergrove know that our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.
Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am tabling a number of petitions from my riding of Courtenay—Alberni.
The first is a petition for pharmacare for all. 
Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, the second is a petition to withdraw Bill C-27 to protect defined benefit plans.
Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, the third is a petition to honour the automatic guaranteed income supplement program. 
Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, the fourth petition calls for a national cycling strategy.
Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, the fifth petition is in support of my motion, Motion No. 151, to combat plastic pollution in aquatic environments.
Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, the sixth petition asks to create a zero-waste Canada.
Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, the seventh petition asks the government to invest in girls and women in the world's poorest countries.
Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, the final petition is for a framework for action to promote eye and vision care across Canada.
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Madam Speaker, today I am presenting a petition calling for the creation of a national strategy to combat plastic pollution in our waterways.
This type of pollution is extremely worrisome, particularly because it affects aquatic fauna. I have been fishing for as long as I can remember and I am deeply concerned about the increasing number of fish that ingest plastic, which then ends up in our food chain. 
This is a critical issue, especially if we consider the communities for which fishing is a traditional activity.
Mr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre, Lib.):  
[Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight the work of students at the Met School and other schools in Winnipeg, who, as a school project, raised the issue of water for indigenous peoples. Their fashion project “Strut for Shoal” was a great success. The federal government has finally built Freedom Road, with its grand opening last week, connecting the community with better access. 
The students also created a petition calling upon the federal government to ensure a water treatment plant is built and available in Shoal Lake 40. These are fine, young Canadians who are doing fine work for all indigenous peoples and all Canadians.
Mrs. Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents who are concerned about the deteriorating situation in Libya. They call upon the Government of Canada to condemn the unjustifiable and continued offensive military operation by General Haftar on Tripoli; to play an active role in condemning the well-documented war crimes and human rights violations committed by General Haftar's Libyan National Army; to assume a needed, effective leading position to assist in bringing the perpetrators to justice; and to assist UN efforts by providing necessary humanitarian aid to the internationally recognized Government of National Accord, the Red Crescent charities and NGOs to help the war victims and the thousands of displaced people.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions on two subjects.
The first consists of eight petitions, including an electronic petition, with almost 4,000 signatures. The petitioners call on the government to ensure that conscience rights of medical personnel are protected by passing Bill C-418.
David Anderson: Madam Speaker, the second petition references that on April 7, 2017, Arianna Goberdhan and her unborn child Assara were murdered in a brutal act of domestic violence. At the time of the murder, she was nine months pregnant with her soon-to-be-born daughter. Assara and other preborn children in similar circumstances deserve to be recognized as victims of a crime and should be entitled to justice and legal recourse. Therefore, petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass legislation that recognizes that when an assailant in the commission of a crime attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her preborn child, the assailant may be charged with an offence on behalf of that child.
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, especially in light of the announcement yesterday by the Prime Minister on the Trans Mountain pipeline, which re-announced the project, which had absolutely no start date or any sort of plan to actually build the thing, I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents who would like Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, repealed, as well as for the government to review the equalization formula, given the punitive positions that the government has taken against Canada's energy sector. I support this petition.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member knows that she is not to indicate whether she supports a petition, she is just to table it and give a summary of the petition itself.
The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.
Rachel Blaney: Madam Speaker, I am here today to present several petitions from my riding.
The first petition is with respect to cellular phone service in my riding. We have many areas that do not have access to cellular service. 
The people who have signed these two petitions, with hundreds of signatures, are from Gold River, Alert Bay, Port McNeill, Port Alice, Courtenay, Hyde Creek, Quatsino, Victoria, Woss, Port Hardy and Sointula.
The petitioners ask the Minister of Rural Economic Development to acknowledge that this is an important public safety concern. It is very stressful for families and members who are driving to have to travel up to 30 minutes to reach a cellphone service area or landline to contact 911. Therefore, this is a major concern of public safety.
Rachel Blaney: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions with respect to saving our seeds, signed by people from from Powell River, Lund, Comox, Van Anda, Black Creek, Gillies Bay, Gibsons, Royston and Courtenay.
The petitioners ask for support in looking at the inherent rights of farmers to freely save, reuse, select, exchange, condition, store and sell seeds. This is very important to local farmers.
Rachel Blaney: Madam Speaker, I have another two petitions, asking for an increase to the old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits for seniors.
As we know, many seniors across the country are struggling. We have signatures from Campbell River, Comox, Merville, Courtenay, Cumberland, Victoria and Vancouver.
The petitioners ask the government to intervene and fully commit to a mandate of improving the lives of seniors across the country by increasing the benefit amounts to address the increased costs of living for senior citizens in Canada.
Rachel Blaney: Madam Speaker, my last petition, which is from Campbell River and Quadra Island, is a national pharmacare petition.
The petitioners ask the government to recognize that the costs of prescription medications and necessary medical supplies in Canada is excessive and varies greatly from province to territory, that it needs to ensure the costs are affordable. They ask for a pan-Canadian single-payer universal pharmacare program that ensures all Canadians can access medically prescribed and necessary medications, regardless of their ability to pay.
Hon. Bardish Chagger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because many members want to make brief comments on their petitions, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to add up to 10 minutes to petitions today.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Is that agreed?
Alexandre Boulerice: Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition that was launched in Quebec and signed by over 2,300 people. The petitioners are calling on us to immediately end all forms of discrimination in the Indian Act, to comply with the United Nations Human Rights Committee decision stipulating that all those whose equality and cultural rights were violated are entitled to reparations, and to take all necessary measures to abolish the Indian Act's racist and patriarchal regime as soon as possible.
Alaina Lockhart: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the good people of Fundy Royal, as well as hundreds of other Atlantic Canadians.
I should note that a number of members of Parliament, across party lines and from all regions of the country, have been filing similar petitions with respect to the rights of farmers and the use, reuse, exchange and selling of seeds.
The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell seeds.
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Scarborough—Rouge Park, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition from Canadians of Pakistani origin relating to the Pakistani nationals of Christian faith who are refugees in Thailand.
The petitioners are seeking Canada's intervention in assisting them to resettle in Canada.
Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of a constituent, who has collected over 800 signatures from Canadians in all provinces and territories.
The petitioners call on the government to review the records under the control of the Privy Council Office and to transfer all historical records to Library and Archives Canada. Researchers and historians rely on this information to write Canada's history. Historical records that do not threaten national security should be open and accessible by default.
Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC): Madam Speaker, I hereby present 103 petitions on two different subjects, and especially on behalf of the member for Langley—Aldergrove, who now needs a lot of care. I would take this opportunity to extend our best wishes, our prayers and thoughts.
The petitioners request that the House of Commons in Parliament specifically identify hospice palliative care as a defined medical service covered under the Canada Health Act.
The second petition notes that in the 41st Parliament, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion calling on the government to create a national strategy on palliative care to ensure every Canadian would have access to high quality palliative care at the end of life.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many people from Sherbrooke.
Whereas every minute, 31 people are forced to flee their homes, the petitioners are calling on the House to do more to address the underlying causes of forced migration around the world.
The petitioners are calling on us to ensure that humanitarian assistance is available to all refugees and their host communities; to support grassroots organizations that promote democracy, peace and human rights; and to invest more in diplomatic and peaceful solutions to armed conflicts.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Madam Speaker, the residents of Rang du Fleuve in Saint-Barthélemy wish to draw the attention of the House to a few points. Infrastructure in the area is crumbling as a result of the 2017 and 2019 floods, and emergency services and public safety officials have not had a single opportunity to visit and meet with the residents of Rang du Fleuve in Saint-Barthélemy. The petitioners are calling on the federal government to provide financial assistance to upgrade the infrastructure.
I want to thank and congratulate Marylene Gervais, who initiated this petition. I thank her for her work and involvement. I also want to thank public safety officials, firefighters and everyone who came out to help those struggling with the 2019 floods.
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, today, I am tabling a petition calling on the government to protect the banks of the St. Lawrence River corridor.
This petition follows on an e-petition signed by about 700 people that has already been submitted. This time, the clerk certified 1,500 signatures on this paper petition. In the past, when Canadians came to Parliament Hill, the Minister of Transport refused to meet with them. We hope that, even if he does not meet with them, he will still respond favourably to the petition. The erosion of the banks of the St. Lawrence River is a very important issue for the petitioners. It affects their daily lives. I think the minister should show a little humanity.
Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise to table a petition signed by 502 citizens and residents of Canada
The petitioners call upon the government to take further measures to deter fraud marriages. Some of the measures include stopping renewal of work and residency permits of the accused in fraud marriages until criminal cases are brought to justice in India. Others include action by CBSA in cases where accused are criminally charged in India for fraud marriages, among various others.
Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to table a petition that was signed at the Guelph Farmers' Market. A lot of advocacy goes on there every Saturday between 6 a.m. and noon.
This petition is delivering community power to the post office in the post-carbon economy. There are a lot of ideas around greening the post office and providing more services for seniors.
The petition is signed by 48 Canadians.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition originated by a grade six student at the Royal Oak Middle School, Matthias Spalteholz, who has thought a lot about what we need to do to fight the climate crisis. 
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to put in an electrical vehicle fast charging network on all major highways to support the transition away from the internal combustion engine and to fight climate change.
The second petition is from residents throughout Saanich—Gulf Islands.
The petitioners call on the government to take the required action to avoid runaway global warming, to set ambitious targets to avoid going above 1.5°C global average temperature increase and a number of other measures that would achieve climate stability, including through arresting growth in oil sands expansion.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present signed by a number of residents from Cambridge, Ontario, pointing out the dangers of consumption and treatment services sites and safe injection sites.
The petitioners point to a notable escalation in overdose, drug trade, visible prostitution, damage to property and other activities. They state that these sites are also in conflict with children's charter of rights, particularly article 33, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and so on. They also contribute to significant and dangerous conditions, causing environmental contamination and increasing public health hazards.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to decline any and all applications for exemptions to operate safe consumption sites or overdose prevention sites, permanent, temporary or mobile, under the section 56(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, within the city of Cambridge, Ontario.
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be tabling seven petitions in the House.
The first petition is in support of Bill S-240, currently before the Senate, dealing with the heinous practice of organ harvesting and trafficking. It seeks to end Canadian complicity in that practice.
Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, my second petition particularly highlights the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China
The petitioners call for the Canadian Parliament to actively be engaged in defending the rights of Falun Gong practitioners and other minorities in China.
Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, the third petition highlights the fact that our concept of health care should include disease prevention and health promotion, not merely the management of disease. It highlights the importance of self-care options as part of health care.
The petitioners call on the Standing Committee on Health to undertake a comprehensive study of the impact of uninsured self-care products and wellness services and of the barriers that exist for those wishing to access them.
Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, the fourth petition highlights the persecution of and the challenges faced by Sikh and Hindu minority in Afghanistan.
The petitioners call on the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to use the powers granted to him to create a special program to help persecuted minorities in Afghanistan. They also call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be actively engaged with her Afghan counterparts on this issue.
Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, the sixth petition highlights challenges and violence faced by the Coptic minority in Egypt.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to prioritize principles of universal human rights and religious freedom in their foreign policy and particularly to act in support of Copts.
The final petition I am going to present in this Parliament highlights the persecution and challenges faced by Pakistani Christians, and in particular Pakistani Christians asylum seekers who find themselves in Thailand.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to take up this matter urgently with the Government of Thailand and urge for the protection and humane treatment of Pakistani asylum seekers. They also say that these asylum seekers must be provided the opportunity to apply for refugee status with the UNHCR and for resettlement without being arrested, detained or deported.
Ms. Tracey Ramsey (Essex, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise to present an e-petition on Cameroon. Over 500 citizens have signed this.
The petitioners bring attention to the fact that there are increasing restrictions on human rights in Cameroon; the government's violent policy of having the army and police open fire on civilians; and several years of deadly repression of the English-speaking populations that are repeatedly condemned by organizations such as Amnesty International.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to condemn all human rights violations against civilian populations in Cameroon and to prevent any human catastrophe that may be perpetrated by the Cameroonian government.
Tracey Ramsey: Madam Speaker, the second petition I am presenting today is about funding feminist women's organizations.
Again, the petitioners call attention to the fact that women's organizations are the most underfunded in Canada's non-profit sector, that the funding is insecure, competitive and is taking time away from women who are helping other women.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to dedicate the political and financial support, resources and funding to meet Canada's long-standing international and constitutional commitments on women's equality.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I see one more member is rising to present a petition. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to present the petition?
Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their courtesy. It has been an interesting time for presenting petitions.
I am tabling a petition signed by dozens of residents of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, who add their names to hundreds of others who have already tabled their names in the House of Commons.
The petitioners are concerned about the mini budget that was presented by the finance minister last November, giving $14 billion in Christmas gifts to the corporate sector.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to allocate money now for affordable housing to address the housing crisis aggravated by the heat wave linked to climate change, instead of giving billions of dollars to the corporate sector through tax breaks; immediately accelerate funding for affordable housing; and announce an emergency housing plan right across the country to ensure all Canadians have a safe and affordable place to call home.
Questions on the Order PaperKevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 2478, 2479, 2481, 2482 and 2484.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsKevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2477, 2480 and 2485 to 2504 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Is that agreed?
Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Is that agreed?
Motions for PapersKevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Is that agreed?

Government Orders
Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation ActMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): Madam Speaker, let me say, as I probably rise for the last time in this Parliament, how honoured I am to represent the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, how much I have learned from my colleagues here, but also how invigorated I am by the greatness of this country and my commitment to work hard for the people I represent.
As I join this debate today, I feel compelled to make a few observations. To be clear, Canada did not ask to be put in this position. However, as we know, the U.S. election resulted in a new administration, with a mandate, among other things, to renegotiate NAFTA. That is where all of this started.
I think we can all agree that this particular renegotiated agreement resulted in an outcome that is less than ideal, but of course, it could have been much worse. Many concessions were made, and we still have unresolved issues, such as the lack of a deal for Canadian softwood lumber, something that is critically important to my riding.
Ultimately, it is not a secret that the official opposition will be supporting this deal. Unlike the third party, we do believe it is better than no deal. However, that does not mean that there are not some lessons to be learned here.
To me, it is deeply troubling that the Prime Minister went into these negotiations with his usual theme of demanding things that are all about building his brand and appealing to his base of supporters. In other words, the Prime Minister thought he saw an opportunity to score some political points and feed the brand. This is not unlike what he tried to do when he approached China. 
In both cases, he failed miserably. Why would he not fail miserably? Would we as Canadians accept another leader trying to push his or her own values onto us? We simply would not accept that. What nation would? However, that is precisely what the Prime Minister attempted to to. Some may call this arrogance. Whatever we call it, it was easily foreseeable that it was a path to failure. 
However, the Prime Minister did not care and went about his virtue-signalling anyway, so we ended up on the sidelines: Canada, a world leader, on the sidelines. There we were, on the sidelines with our biggest trading partner, while Mexico was in the driver's seat, getting the deal done.
Here is the thing. Mexico did get it done. Let us look at its approach. Mexico did not use the trade negotiations as some sort of domestic political opportunity to score points. Mexico did not use this as an opportunity for virtue-signalling. Mexico did not have a lead minister giving a speech within the United States of America that took veiled potshots at the U.S. administration. Mexico discussed issues related to trade and did so professionally. It is easy to see why that approach worked so well for it.
Our approach, led by the Prime Minister, was a complete failure. It did not have to be that way. I can tell colleagues that, on this side of the House, we would have taken a much different approach. I am actually quite confident that there are members on the government side of the House, whom I have worked with at various committees, who I suspect would have also taken a much different approach. I believe it is important to reflect on these things so that we can learn from them. 
Canada should never again be in a situation where we are sitting on the sidelines with our greatest trading partner, while Mexico is driving the bus. I hope that is one thing we can all agree on. Perhaps that is why we are now hearing the name of Mark Carney, because there are other Liberals who feel the same way.
Now we have a new deal. Whether it is called the new NAFTA, NAFTA 0.5, USMCA, CUSMA, or whatever, there is something we should all think about. Recently, Jack Mintz wrote a very good piece on investment fleeing Canada. Members who have read the article would know that it debunks some Liberal talking points that had been carefully cherry-picked.
As an example, yes, investment in Canada was up in 2018. However, that sounds good until we consider that it was up from 2017, and 2017 was an absolute disaster of a year. Even in 2018, it was still below where things were in 2015. Yes, I mean that 2015.
Yes, investment in the U.S.A. is down, but that is outside investment. There is a large increase in U.S. domestic capital now staying in the United States. This means it is not coming to Canada.
Why should we care about that? Let us look at our automotive sector. Yes, there is still some investment in Canada, but there is considerably more occurring in the United States and Mexico. Mexico, in particular, has been a hot spot for automotive investment. Let us think about that. Mexico has no carbon tax. It has no new and enhanced CPP causing premiums and payroll taxes to increase every month. Much of its industrial power is cheap, and I would even say it is dirty.
CUSMA does more to address some of those issues than the NAFTA deal it replaces, but we also have to recognize that foreign investment in Canada is not the rose garden the Liberals are trying to suggest it is. This is a deal among three countries. If we become the most expensive, most regulated and most inefficient country to do business in, we lose collectively as a country.
The Prime Minister can continue to be virtuous. He can continue to ask people to pay just a little bit more. He can continue to lecture others for not sharing his values. However, at the end of the day, none of those things are going to attract the investment we need to make the most of this deal.
While we are on the subject of trade, I note that last week, during question period in this place, the Prime Minister vilified former prime minister Harper close to a dozen times. As the Liberals' good friend Warren Kinsella recently pointed out, the Prime Minister is looking “for an enemy to demonize”.
I mention that because the former Conservative government of Mr. Harper concluded more free trade agreements than any prime minister in the modern era. It is not as if the Liberals, or the Prime Minister, would be unaware of this, because they sat in this place during the last Parliament and voted in support of all those new trade agreements, yet the Prime Minister turns around and vilifies the former prime minister, who has a demonstrably more successful record on trade agreements.
However, perhaps that is preferable to talking about the lack of progress on Canadian softwood. I looked up on the Open Parliament website how many times the Prime Minister has even mentioned the word “softwood”. The answer is 18 times since 2016. The vast majority of those times were only because he was answering questions on softwood lumber asked by the opposition.
How many times has he referenced Stephen Harper? It is 190 times, and it will probably be more than 200 after today's question period. With the Prime Minister's priorities so focused on vilifying Mr. Harper instead of focusing on softwood lumber, is it any wonder he has made zero progress on this file?
Why do I point this out? I point this out because lumber mills are closing all across British Columbia at an alarming rate. My riding has lost lumber mills. I know first-hand what that does to a small rural community. It is devastating. However, there is complete silence from the Prime Minister regarding softwood lumber unless he is asked about it by the opposition in this place. Why? Maybe it is because he is too busy vilifying Mr. Harper. 
In my view, that is not acceptable. B.C. forest workers deserve better. They deserve to know that they have a prime minister in Ottawa working to reach a softwood lumber deal.
I sometimes wonder whether, if Mexico had a vibrant softwood lumber sector, we would now have a deal done by extension as well. It is clear that Mexico has a more effective track record in these negotiations than the brand-first approach of the Prime Minister.
To summarize, we did not ask to be in this situation, clearly. However, I believe the approach taken by the Prime Minister to try to use this as a political opportunity was deeply flawed and made a bad situation worse.
Again, as evidence of that, I say to look no further than the approach taken by Mexico and the success that it had while we sat on the sidelines. 
I have raised this point with ministers of the Crown. They told us that the meetings between the United States and Mexico were simply on bilateral issues that had nothing to do with Canada. However, they came out with a trilateral agreement, and Canada had a take-it-or-leave-it moment. 
Despite the many concessions that the Prime Minister has made on this file, we can still make the most of it, but only if we recognize that we need to be more competitive. We have a regulatory environment in which things can get done in Canada. Many people have raised alarm bells, particularly the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and not just about the lack of investment but also the ability to get things done. 
The Leader of the Opposition today clearly asked the Prime Minister several times for the date for the Trans Mountain pipeline. The Prime Minister promised the Trans Mountain pipeline, one of the most important projects on the deck and one of the only ones on the deck, would go forward to help build the national interest, but the Prime Minister cannot give a date. 
Originally, the Liberals said that it would be operating this calendar year. Again, I would submit that one need to look no further than the Trans Mountain pipeline as evidence as to where the challenges are. It has been four years, and still there is not a shovel in the ground. The fact that the Liberal government had to buy the project to save Kinder Morgan from the embarrassment of not being able to build it in a timely manner is all part of the problem. The fact that today even the government has serious challenges in trying to navigate the process to get it done is telling. Does anyone seriously believe that Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 will make it easier to invest in Canada? 
The Prime Minister says that tankers can operate totally safely in one part of British Columbia and in other parts of Canada, but are so dangerous in another part of British Columbia that they must be banned. Does anyone seriously think that makes sense? In fact, a number of the senators in the other place have commented on the lack of scientific evidence on Bill C-48. The committee that studied it in depth recommended that the bill not proceed.
The approaches of the current government do not reconcile. These are the types of mixed messages that are just not helpful. However, I remain hopeful that we can become more competitive and that as we move forward, we can ultimately try to fully capitalize on this agreement despite the many concessions. 
I would like to close on a more positive note, and I will add a few positive observations.
As we have established many times and in many areas, Canada and Canadians can compete and succeed against the very best in the world. As legislators, it is our job to ensure that they have a level playing field and unrestricted market access to do so. Therefore, I will vote in favour of this agreement as, ultimately, it will provide these opportunities. 
However, I must say one more time that until we have full, unfettered free trade within Canada's borders, we are, as a country, not owning up to the promise of Confederation, and that falls on us. It falls upon the provinces that have not allowed Canada to become not just a political union but an economic one. 
This will be my last speech in the 42nd Parliament, and I would like to share a few words on a personal note. 
We all share the collective honour of being elected members of this place, and our families all share the sacrifice for the many times that we cannot be there for them. It is my hope that our families, particularly our young ones, understand that in this place our collective desire to build a better country starts and ends with them. I would like thank all families of parliamentarians for their understanding and support.
I would also like to share a word with other members of this place. It is so unfortunate that much of the work we do here is often summarized by many Canadians as what transpires in question period. Much of the most important work that we do collectively happens at committee. 
On that note, I would like to sincerely thank the many members I have worked with on various committees. Everyone I have worked with shares the same commitment to help ensure that the federal government provides the best level of governance possible. We may disagree on programs, projects and approaches, but I have found that we share a commitment to making these programs work best for Canadians.
A final point I would like to make should not be lost by any of us. The former Conservative government introduced a program to provide supports for kids directly to their parents. At the time, the Liberal opposition mocked it, ridiculed it, and suggested that parents would simply blow the money they received on beer and popcorn, but when the Liberals formed their majority government in 2015, they did not kill that program. Liberals saw the merits of it and saw that it was working so they made improvements to it, and now it is working even more effectively. I wish to commend them yet again for that.
That is an example of two very different governments coming up with a program and finding ways to improve it to ensure that it helps support Canadian families.
Trade is similar. After all, we are a nation of traders. We need to have these things that make us collectively prosper, that allow us to build stronger ties and relationships and provide the security and the sense of certainty that it takes for someone to start a business or for a country to get behind a new program. These are great examples of the work that we do when we are here on behalf of Canadians.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the time you spend in the chair. I am sure there are many different ways you would rather spend your time than listening to me, but I do appreciate the work you do and I am sure my constituents do as well. I look forward to the challenges in the upcoming months and in the questions and comments I will hear from my fellow colleagues.
Lloyd Longfield: Madam Speaker, the member across the way is a fellow member on the INDU committee. We have had a lot of great discussions there, and a lot of them came as a result of our connections with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. 
I was the president of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce. I was on the board of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and worked very closely with Perrin Beatty and his group at the Canadian chamber, who were supportive all the way through our negotiations on the new NAFTA, in particular saying we had to hold our ground when it came to the section 232 provisions on steel and aluminum. When we were successful, the Canadian chamber put out a press release saying that it supported the federal government's efforts to have the unjustified U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum products lifted. It took all of Canada standing together. 
It sounds like the member was suggesting that we should be more like Mexico. Does he mean we should be reflective of the labour practices of Mexico, or the safety practices? How should we be more like Mexico?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the environment; the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia, child care; and the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, the environment.
The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
Dan Albas: Madam Speaker, in my speech I pointed out that this is obviously a three-way agreement and that trade is influenced by many different things: the ease of transport, the tax regime, and tariffs, obviously, because that is what a free trade deal is supposed to deal with. 
As I mentioned in my speech, Mexico has seen a rise in the development of its automotive sector because Mexico is not subject to many of the costs that are associated with doing business in Canada, such as the enhanced CPP, for which employers have to pay higher premiums, and the carbon tax, which increases the price of everything, particularly for processes that require a tremendous amount of energy, such as those in the automotive sector.
We must remain competitive if Canada, a nation of traders, is to compete in trade. We cannot take our products and services to other countries if we are priced out of the market because of our input costs. That is an area where we cannot allow Canada to fall back. I hope that when the time comes, the member will advocate for a new government to deal with the red tape and excessive taxation that the government has put on this country.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for his many years of service. I know this is not easy work, and he has been doing it for a long time now.
I would also like to say that my colleagues in the NDP and I are fully aware of how important our trade relationship with the United States is. We want to have the best possible agreement with the United States and Mexico, but we must recognize that that is not what we have. That is also why there are people in the United States who want to renegotiate the agreement to get a better deal.
Why rush the vote on this agreement, when we could very well improve on it by waiting a bit and continuing to negotiate? 
Dan Albas: Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate my thanks to the member for her kind words, and to say the same. We all should respect members who work so very hard for our constituents. I thank her for her service.
One thing I have learned as an elected official, both at the city council level and now as a member of Parliament, is that business asks for just one thing from government: certainty. While the negotiations kept going on, I heard right across the country at business round tables that people felt they could not make those once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-a-generation investments in their businesses on the Canadian side. Often the reason people chose to go south with those investment choices was that we did not have trade certainty.
I am fully cognizant that this deal is a sub-par deal that the government's approach led us to this position. I will support this only because the business owners I speak to and the people they employ are asking for that basic certainty. 
However, we need to make sure that our entrepreneurs, our producers and ultimately our employees have a level playing field. Right now, I am very concerned about the competitiveness aspects of our country. While we maintain trade ties with Mexico and the United States, competitiveness is going to become more and more important. It is something that we should never take our eyes off of.
Omar Alghabra: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his gracious final remarks.
We believe that in order for trade deals to be successful, they need to be inclusive. They need to bring onside the majority of the population so that all people benefit, not just the large multinational corporations.
Which of these provisions does the member find to be virtue signalling? Is the labour chapter in the NAFTA deal virtue signalling? Is the chapter that promotes gender equality virtue signalling? Is the chapter that enforces environmental standards virtue signalling? How about the committee that includes SMEs in the trade implementation? Is that virtue signalling?
Dan Albas: Madam Speaker, I will just go back to my speech.
Again, it is about putting forward values that may be important to the Prime Minister, that may be important to Canadians. He tried the same approach with China. China rejected that.
I would just ask it the other way around. If the leader of China came to Canada and said, “We want a free trade agreement, but here is what we want to see” and put values in it that are contrary to Canadian values, Canadians would rightly say that we were not in support.
In the case of Mexico, Mexico was laser-focused on where it could win. When we asked the government where it got any wins, the Liberals said that we kept chapter 19. If they cannot say where their wins are and can only say that they kept one component, it is not much of a win.
There was concession after concession, not to mention the steel and aluminum tariffs that kneecapped many in our industry. That was the wrong approach.
In my speech, I gave an alternative view. We should not have allowed Mexico to isolate Canada in those bilateral talks that ended up being trilateral ones. That was a key error, regardless of what the government says. I know there are Liberals on that side who would agree with that assessment.
Paul Manly: Madam Speaker, I have a question about how the member feels about investor state dispute settlements being removed from the agreement, and also about article 22, which limits state-owned corporations. 
In light of that, how does he feel about the Canada-China FIPA? It was an investment treaty, not a trade agreement, that was pushed through by the Harper government without any debate in this House, whereby Chinese state-owned corporations can use investor state dispute settlements to seek compensation for the loss of potential profit when our laws and policies get in the way of their profitability. 
I am just curious about how the member feels about investor state agreements in trade agreements, about state-owned corporations, and about the Canada-China FIPA in light of those things.
Dan Albas: Madam Speaker, the member seemed most offended by the Canada-China FIPA, so I will address that straight away. 
First of all, the member should review the Constitution. It is the executive, in this case the Prime Minister and cabinet, that has the authority to enter into agreements with other countries. It was actually the Harper government that made changes that allowed those agreements to be tabled for 21 days here so that parliamentarians could review them. 
If the member and his leader want to win enough seats to form an official party, they can make that the question on their opposition day.
When we push Canadian companies to sell their products and services abroad, and they choose to enter a place like China, they may not feel that they are going to be treated the same way they are in a rule-of-law country like Canada, like the United States and like many in the European Union, where there is due process and similar values in that due process. They would ask how they were going to protect themselves in case there was confiscation without compensation. Having that process in place in places like China allows some protection. 
I would be happy to speak with the member further about his views.
Omar Alghabra: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the new NAFTA. Before I start, I would like to point out that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
Let me take the time to highlight, first and foremost, our government's record on international trade. Consecutive governments have talked about trade diversification and trade expansion, but most governments have failed. I acknowledge that the previous government, under Mr. Harper, had started some negotiations, but unfortunately, it was not able to close the deals. When it came to the free trade agreement CETA, while the Conservatives started the negotiations, they could not close the deal. When it came to the CPTPP, the Conservatives negotiated the previous agreement known as TPP, but it failed. It took our government's leadership and our Prime Minister's leadership to renegotiate it to include progressive, inclusive elements and revive it, improve it and ratify it.
Canada is a trading nation. One out of six Canadian jobs is related to trade. Our government has recognized the value of trade. However, we also know that it is really important to make sure that when we sign trade agreements, they are inclusive. We keep in mind our middle class, we keep in mind small and medium-size enterprises and we keep in mind gender equality. Those issues are not virtue signalling. Those issues are economic issues. Those issues benefit all Canadians. They help lift many people out of poverty and invite them into our labour force to ensure that everyone is benefiting from those free trade agreements.
I want to talk about how we were able to close the deal on CETA, sign it and ratify it here in the House of Commons. We were able to renegotiate and improve the previous agreement known as the TPP, the CPTPP, sign it and ratify it here in the House of Commons. In fact, we were one of the first countries to ratify the CPTPP. We were also able to renegotiate NAFTA, and now we are in the midst of the ratification process.
If we add all that up, that is 1.5 billion new customers for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. Today Canada is the only member of the G7 that has a free trade agreement with all other G7 nations. These are not just any free trade agreements. They are fair, inclusive trade agreements that keep in mind the interests of all Canadians, particularly our middle class.
I also want to highlight our investment in expanding trade. Our government has put the largest investment into trade infrastructure and trade support systems in Canada's history. We have invested over $1.2 billion in expanding our trade corridors, including ports, roads and rail. We have invested in the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service, which is our best asset. It is our Canadian businesses' and Canadian workers' best asset. It is Canada's global sales force. It is present in 160 countries around the world, promoting Canadian businesses and promoting Canadian interests, and we are proud to invest in it and to expand its presence around the world.
We are creating programs that support small and medium-sized businesses that are looking to expand and trade, because we know that small and medium-sized enterprises that trade pay better, are more resilient and are more profitable. It is in our best interest, if we want to continue to create more jobs, that we support small and medium-sized enterprises that export. Today only 14% of our SMEs trade, and we want to increase that number.
We have created programs such as CanExport that help small and medium-sized enterprises that are thinking about trade but are worried about the upfront costs. We are providing support to those SMEs all across our great country so that they are able to take advantage of those new markets that are available to them.
It does not end there. In 2018, foreign direct investment in Canada grew by 60%. Why? Canada is receiving an unprecedented level of foreign investment, because the rest of the world is noticing that Canada has access to an incredible array of markets. The U.S. market does not have the same access to foreign markets as Canada does.
International businesses are noticing. International investors are noticing. That is why we have seen a 60% increase in foreign trade investment. Direct investment from countries other than the U.S. has increased by 300%. Those investments bring jobs to our middle class. Those investments bring wealth to our businesses. This is good news for our country and good news for Canadians.
Let me take a moment to talk about NAFTA. 
We had to renegotiate NAFTA when the current President of the United States campaigned on tearing up NAFTA. He told U.S. citizens that NAFTA needed to be torn up.
We started the negotiations with the new administration in good faith. We wanted to keep an open mind. NAFTA was over 20 years old, and it needed an overhaul. It was a tough negotiation process. 
I want to take a moment to acknowledge how Canadians of all political stripes and Canadian businesses rallied around our government as we were in the midst of a tough negotiation with our partners.
However, many on the Conservative benches, and other Conservative voices, were asking us to capitulate. The Conservative Party loves to brag about Stephen Harper's record. Here is a direct quote from a memo written by Mr. Harper in 2017. He wrote, “it does not matter whether current American proposals are worse than what we have now.” He wanted us to capitulate, and he was encouraging people to put pressure on the Canadian government to capitulate.
My colleagues on the Conservative benches were asking questions in question period, and this is on the record. They were demanding that our government capitulate to U.S. demands. I am glad, and I am proud, that our Prime Minister, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, and our team did not capitulate. We stood firm for Canadian values. We stood firm for what made sense for Canadian businesses. We ended up with a great deal. 
We did face a challenge with steel and aluminum tariffs, unjust and illegal steel and aluminum tariffs, but we hung in. We pushed and we advocated. At the time, my colleagues on the Conservative benches again asked us to drop our tariffs. They called them “dumb”. Our retaliatory tariffs worked, and we were able to negotiate the elimination of those tariffs with our partner, the United States.
My friends say that we were virtue signalling. I would like to know from them what part of this new NAFTA is virtue signalling. Is the new labour chapter virtue signalling? Is the new chapter on the environment virtue signalling? Is the new chapter on gender equity virtue signalling? These inclusive chapters will benefit all Canadians and will raise their wages. They will make sure that we have more productive jobs for the middle class.
I am disappointed in the Conservatives. I am relieved that they will be voting for this agreement. It does not make sense to me, but still I am relieved that they will be voting for it. I ask them to join us and agree that those provisions and this deal are good for Canadians and good for middle-class Canadians.
Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Madam Speaker, I need to straighten out the record. The parliamentary secretary said that his government saved the TPP. The reality is that it was signed, and if we had passed it, we would not have had to renegotiate NAFTA. What happened? The government stalled. The Liberals dragged their feet. They kept hesitating. They kept making it impossible for the U.S. to move forward. If the Liberal government had embraced it and ratified it, we would not be talking about NAFTA today. That is the reality.
The Liberals have upset many of our trade partners around the world: China, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines. Which country has the Prime Minister travelled to where he has not upset someone?
The reality is that this agreement is not perfect, but it would provide stability, and business communities want stability.
Our structural steel is going to face tariffs in August. Our softwood lumber has tariffs right now. What are the Liberals going to do to solve those problems once they ratify this deal?
Omar Alghabra: Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but I find it interesting that he is doubling down on the old TPP. I find it interesting that he has taken the side of the Saudi Arabian government over the Chinese government. I find it interesting that he is saying that we should not be upholding our own laws or values. I am really—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member for Prince Albert had an opportunity to ask the question. If he has other questions or comments, then he should wait for the opportunity to be recognized again.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Omar Alghabra: Madam Speaker, when we are defending Canadian interests and values around the world, my hon. colleague should support us in that effort. Yes, we have disagreements domestically, but I wish he would not take the side of the Saudis or the Chinese government's side. 
Our government has proven that we will continue to defend Canadians' interests. We will continue to defend the interests of the middle class. All of our trade negotiation results have proven that. We have a million jobs to speak for that, we have the lowest poverty rate in Canada's history to speak for those results and I am very proud of our government's record.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Madam Speaker, for some time now, the NDP has been calling on the government to establish a national pharmacare program that would cover everything.
However, the agreement we are currently discussing, and that the government wants to get signed quickly, includes patent extensions that would make pharmacare even harder and more expensive to implement.
Does my colleague not think that this kind of clause in the agreement with the United States and Mexico will hinder the implementation of a pharmacare program?
Omar Alghabra: No, Madam Speaker, I disagree with my hon. colleague. We have seen this before. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, the New Democrats were dead set against the original NAFTA. They said the sky was going to fall and that we were going to lose so many jobs. It has been proven that free trade is good for Canadians. Today, once again, they are trying to scare Canadians, again claim that the sky is going to fall and that drugs are going to be so expensive. It is not true. The short answer to her question is no.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the same question my colleague asked. He was quite right. 
I am going to read from an article by Bill Curry on November 19, 2015. This was 13 or 14 months before Mr. Trump was even sworn in. Mr. Obama was in Manila and stated, “We are both soon to be signatories of the TPP agreement.” In other words, as my colleague said, we would not have had these problems if the Liberals had actually moved ahead on it. Mr. Obama was the most progressive president around and now, by doing this, there seems to be no leverage for the outstanding issues, like my colleague said, on steel, softwood lumber and the Buy American clause. 
Could the parliamentary secretary please let us know how he is going to resolve those issues now that he has given away this leverage?
Omar Alghabra: Once again, Madam Speaker, I find it strange. Regardless of what Conservatives think of the TPP, and I disagree with him, the U.S. pulled out of the TPP. The claim is that if we had ratified the TPP, it would have solved so many problems, but the U.S. pulled out the TPP. 
To answer his question, I can point to our record. Our Prime Minister, the Minister of International Trade Diversification, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have proven that we will stand firm to defend Canadian interests and Canadian jobs.
Paul Manly: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and engage in the debate on NAFTA. 
Many of my constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith will know that I am very passionate about trade issues and concerned about international trade and investment agreements. 
First of all, I want to say that the Green Party of Canada supports trade. We think it is a vital part of our economy. However, what we want to see in trade agreements is respect for environmental regulations, labour standards, health and safety standards, and consumer protections. These things should be increased in trade agreements, the way that the European Union does. Countries that enter the European Union must increase their standards and regulations to meet the highest standards in the union. We think that those kinds of approaches to international trade are important.
About 15 years ago, I was focused on a lot of local issues and worked on films about local water. Somebody had asked me if I knew anything about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the SPP,, and I did not. Therefore, I went off to Ottawa to go to the people summit and learn about the SPP.
I went to Montebello to document the protests that were happening there, and I happened to videotape three police officers who were dressed as radicals with masks on who were attacking their own riot squad. They were unmasked in the process, and all of their boots matched with those of the riot squad. This raised questions for me about why the police would be involved in this kind of incitement, and I have footage of them banging rocks into shields, etc. I wondered why they would be involved in this kind of incitement at a peaceful protest, and they were later proven to be police officers.
I became interested in the Security and Prosperity Partnership and started to dig in. What I found was that in this process there was a deep integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico as part of a fortress North America after 9/11. It also included integration of our regulatory standards. I looked into who was negotiating on behalf of Canada for these regulatory standards. There were 20 corporations for each of three countries, Mexico, the United States and Canada. There were some great Canadian corporations representing Canada in this negotiation process, such as Home Depot Canada, Walmart Canada, Chevron Canada and Ford Canada. 
I started to study trade agreements a little more and found that there really was no involvement of civil society in these agreements. These were corporate agreements. Therefore, I really appreciate in this new version of NAFTA that the government has involved labour organizations and environmental organizations as part of the negotiating process, and I see that as progress. This is what we need to be doing in our negotiations on international trade and investment. They cannot just be secretive processes where only the corporations and the bureaucrats are involved. We need people who represent consumers, workers and environmentalists so that we have a fair process that can look at all aspects of trade and make sure that our regulations and standards are protected. 
One of the others things I learned working on this film was about investor-state dispute settlements. Chapter 11 in NAFTA was the first time that a developed country had signed on to this process. It was something that the Europeans had used with their former colonial states to kind of keep corporate control over mineral extraction, etc. However, when I looked into Chapter 11, there were cases such as Ethyl Corporation, which got $5 million when Canada blocked the use of MMT, an additive that was a neurotoxin in gasoline. Ethyl Corporation said that it was an unfair trade practice to ban it. There are also things in these investment chapters such as indirect expropriation, and we all know what expropriation is; national treatment; as well as most favoured nation status. These are all things that are used by corporations to challenge our laws and policies. Therefore, I was really happy to see that the investor-state dispute settlement was taken out of the new NAFTA. 
Let us look at cases like Bilcon, where a foreign corporation is challenging our environmental assessment process and getting $7 million for doing nothing. It is not a process that makes sense. We see this used as a big stick by mining companies to get developed countries to accept mining and extraction projects.
We need to do something about softwood lumber. That is an important issue in my community.
I am also concerned about the extension of patents for pharmaceuticals from eight years to 10 years for biologics and how that will affect the cost of drugs. We see many people, seniors in particular, who are having to make decisions about what they spend their money on: rent, food or pharmaceuticals.
Article 22, the state-owned chapter, has a carve-out for the Trans Mountain expansion project. That is a concern for me as well.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith will have four minutes coming to him when we come back to the debate later on this evening. He will have five minutes for questions and comments as well.
It being 5:30, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business
Parole SystemLisa Raitt: moved: 
 That, in the opinion of the House: (a) rights of victims deserve proper consideration in our criminal justice system; (b) the parole system must avoid unnecessary revictimization; and (c) the government should amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act prior to the next election, so as to provide victims with an explanation of how dates are determined for offenders’ eligibility for temporary absences, releases and parole. 
Mr. Speaker, in the interest of how important it is to advance the rights of victims in a timely manner, I will be very brief in my intervention today, given the fact that we are in the last hours of this House sitting in this session.
Earlier today, I introduced a bill that would make it a requirement that victims be provided with an explanation of how dates are determined for their offender's eligibility for temporary absences, for release or for parole. This is a simple change that would ensure victims are given information up front, rather than finding out through some other channel that their offender was returned to society. 
Mr. Speaker, I should be clear that I introduced a bill, and that today we are debating a motion.
This simple change could save a lot of heartache and unnecessary revictimization for the victims of crime. As such, I would suggest that if the government wants to demonstrate that it cares about victims, it can adopt the bill as its own. The official opposition is prepared to support it, at all stages, before this House rises, to ensure that victims are provided with the information that they need.
I have waited 11 years to be able to stand here and introduce my very first private member's bill and my first motion on the floor of the House of Commons. This is an issue of victims rights that is very near and dear to my heart. I am grateful for the opportunity and for the support of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Oshawa, in bringing this moment to today's floor.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, Lisa Freeman is a constituent of mine who has worked years to advance this motion about the parole system.
To provide a bit of background, Lisa's father was brutally murdered. At the age of 21, she had to identify her father's body. His murderer was sentenced to 25 years without parole. Lisa, like many victims, found out that he was going to be let go early. This happened out of the blue. There was no transparency.
Passing this motion is a very simply thing the government could do to give more transparency to the system. It would treat victims with dignity and give them timely and accurate information.
I cannot overemphasize that the system is rigged toward the rights of criminals versus the rights of victims. To give an example of how bad this is, Lisa's father's murderer was transferred to a correctional facility within 10 miles of where Lisa's sister lived. She only found out about it 24 hours after he was transferred.
The motion proposes a very simple change and it would give more transparency. The government has run on transparency. Does the member see any reason that an initiative like this could not get unanimous consent of the House?
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate all the work the hon. member for Oshawa has done on this file and for bringing Lisa Freeman's story to our attention and to my attention in the House.
Fundamentally, he government and the rest of the House could pass pass this motion very quickly, as we stand here today. It is a very simple amendment. It would add one single line, asking for an explanation as to why parole would be given parole in a certain way.
Transparency for victims in these matters is incredibly important. It helps them to understand how the system works.
In the case of Lisa Freeman, they were part of the system for at least 20 years. They should have the ability to understand, at the very end of their journey through the system, exactly what happened. It is an ask for the government from this family, and many other families in Canada, that makes sense and can easily be done.
I would ask that the government consider this so we can give some comfort to families like Lisa Freeman's and other families experiencing the same confusion and lack of transparency with respect to dealing with the corrections system as it currently stands.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the issue of victims. Over the last number of years, we have tried to come up with thoughts and ideas on how to prevent people becoming victims in the future.
I realize this may not necessarily be on topic, but could my friend provide some thoughts on tangible actions that could be taken to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place, actions to which individuals could relate?
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question relates to a broader and larger discussion that we will probably have in the next Parliament, should we be so lucky to be returned to this place by our constituents.
That being said, one concrete thing we can do to prevent re-victimization is to have the government adopt the motion and ensure it passes here and makes it to the other place. People become victims in the moment and the instant that horrendous crimes happen to them. However, they are re-victimized and they continue to be victims for the rest of their lives, as the process unfolds through incarceration, corrections and then further into parole.
This one tiny aspect of at least understanding the reason parole is being granted at early stages would be extremely helpful for the Freeman family in particular, and I am convinced for the rest of Canadians as well. I hope the government continues to consider it.
Mrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate, and I would like to thank the hon. member for Milton for moving this motion.
The motion comes just short weeks after Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. Members may know the objectives of that week.
The first objective is to raise awareness across Canada about the issues facing victims and survivors. They and their families must be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect at all stages of the criminal justice process. Victims, survivors and their families also have an important role in helping to ensure that justice is done, that during the parole process, for example, reliable and relevant facts about parole can be made. 
The second goal of this special week is to let victims and their families know about the services, programs and laws in place to help and support them.
The motion before us states that:
 ...the government should amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act prior to the next election, so as to provide victims with an explanation of how dates are determined for offenders’ eligibility for temporary absences, releases and parole. 
I will point out that information about offender eligibility dates is provided to victims already, but it is always worth examining whether there is room for improvement.
That said, the government already provides victims with useful and timely information in a number of ways.
In fact, last week, the government announced an important new step, a new victim outreach strategy to ensure that more victims would be aware of the information available to them and the role they could play in the corrections and conditional release process.
There was a great deal of collaboration in creating this strategy. Correctional Services Canada worked with federal partners, including the Parole Board of Canada, Public Safety Canada's National Office for Victims and the Department of Justice Canada, in consultation with victims and survivors. The result is a suite of communication tools to inform the public and victims of the resources and services available to them. The tools include infographics, videos and a social media campaign.
Another way that victims can receive information is through the victims portal. The portal is a secure online service, available to registered victims to receive information about the offender who harmed them. They can submit information electronically, including their victims' statements. These communication tools help victims stay informed, engaged and empowered to make informed decisions.
The Public Safety Canada portfolio is also working to ensure that victims of federal offenders have a voice in the federal criminal justice system. 
For example, there are now 8,000 victims registered with Correctional Services Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. They are entitled to receive over 50 types of notifications. Last year, they received 160,000 pieces of information.
Along with more avenues to obtain information and give their input, victims have access to resources such as dedicated victim service officers, who provide victims with information about correctional services and the offender who harmed them.
Victim service officers explain to victims how correctional planning works and how decisions are made. They provide victims with information on the offender's progress toward meeting their correctional plan. They advise when parole hearings are scheduled. 
It is fair to say that the rest of the motion aims to ensure that victims are treated even more fairly and respectfully by our criminal justice system. For decades, Canada's criminal justice system has been getting better at attending to the needs of victims and survivors, whether it is a matter of providing information, delivering support, or simply showing empathy and respect.
When Correctional Service of Canada prepares an offender's case for a parole hearing, for example, it takes into account the concerns that victims have raised in their victim's statements. Last year, victims presented over 300 statements at parole hearings. We are also taking steps to make the parole hearing process less traumatic for victims and survivors.
Members may recall that as part of the implementation plan for the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the National Office for Victims hosted consultations on the victims right to information, participation and protection in the corrections and conditional release system.
One of the early issues discussed at the round tables was the parole hearing process as legislated in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Under its terms, victims unable to attend the parole hearing can have access to an audio recording of the hearing. At round tables held by the National Office for Victims, we heard that attending a parole hearing could be traumatic, such that afterwards many victims did not have a clear sense of what exactly was discussed.
Why not make the audio recordings available to those who have attended the parole hearing as well as those who could not attend? Why not enable them to listen again at a time and a place of their choosing?
That is one of the proposed amendments we have included in Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, to strengthen victims roles in the criminal justice system.
This is just one way we can increase the number of avenues through which victims can obtain information and participate in the processes of the criminal justice system. There is always more that can be done, but we continue to take steps in the right direction.
One of the most important things we can do is prevent people from becoming victims in the first place.
The national crime prevention strategy provides leadership on ways to prevent and reduce crime among at-risk populations and vulnerable communities. The strategy's goal is to mitigate the underlying factors that might put individuals at risk of offending in the first place.
The Government of Canada is making up to $94 million available over five years to develop inclusive, diverse and culturally adapted crime prevention projects right across Canada.
The national crime prevention strategy is another example of this government's efforts to reduce crime and by the same token, reduce the number of victims.
The government will continue to work with all our partners to support victims in every way possible.
Once again, I would like to thank the hon. member for introducing this motion and I look forward to continued debate on this very important topic.
Mr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the sponsor of the motion, the member for Milton. Since I have been working on the public safety file, I have seen the consequences these cases can have on people's lives. If I may, I have more I would like to say on the subject. 
I should point out that I support the member's motion. During the previous Parliament, we supported the legislation that was introduced. We had many disagreements with the previous government on matters of law and order and on how to achieve our public safety objectives. We did not agree on how to protect our communities or how to promote rehabilitation. That is also important to achieving our public safety objectives.
In that context, we supported the Victims Bill of Rights. It is also important to understand the impact these crimes have on the victims. In some cases, repercussions can last an entire lifetime, depending on the seriousness of the crime. There are gaps with respect to the enforcement of the act and the resources available to the Parole Board of Canada.
One example comes to mind, and that is the legal obligation to inform victims when there has been a change in the status of an offender who could cause them harm, particularly in the case of the most horrific and violent crimes. In recent years, some high-profile cases have brought to light how badly the law is being enforced. Some victims were not informed or were not informed in a timely manner, which does not respect the spirit of the law that was passed.
The government surely does not intend to change the law, but it must ensure that these organizations have the resources they need to keep victims informed in accordance with existing legal obligations. That is one of the reasons why I support the motion.
It is not easy. In this digital age, there is a 24-hour news cycle and the news is available on television and on our phones. We know that, unfortunately, horrific crimes are being committed in every part of our society.
We need to look at this in several stages. I am sorry that I missed part of the parliamentary secretary's speech. At the end, I heard her talk about crime prevention. That too is important. From what I see and hear, victims often do not want other individuals or families to go through the same grief or trauma as they did.
Another way to show respect for victims is to prevent similar crimes from being committed against other individuals or other groups in our society. Unfortunately, as hon. members know, we have a lot of work to do in that regard. We know there are aggravating factors that can lead to a crime being committed. We need to address the housing crisis, deal with mental health issues and reduce poverty. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, people are in situations where their own illness or their difficult circumstances take them down a very dark path that has significant repercussions on the lives of other innocent Canadians. It is a scourge on our society. I think we can all agree that we need to address all this.
Something else that needs to be considered is the objectives of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is key to achieving public safety objectives. I have said that several times since the beginning of my speech, but it is important. Unfortunately, that is rarely a popular aspect to address.
There are significant, palpable tensions within our criminal justice system. They reflect the need to understand that these crimes involve victims, who need respect and adequate resources so they can get on with their lives and feel like justice has been done.
At the same time, we also have rehabilitation objectives that, sadly, do not always align with the popular will. Since becoming the NDP critic, I have seen several cases. Listening to the parents of victims, I can only imagine the grief and rage they must be feeling. Those feelings are completely normal. No one here would blame them.
That being said, we need to gear the system towards rehabilitation, not to diminish the impact of crimes on victims or the importance of victims, but to ensure that our society is safe. The issue of record suspensions is a good example, even though the offence in that case is not a particularly heinous crime. In the case we are talking about now, these are people who will be in jail for the rest of their lives and who will never get to seek that kind of relief. However, I still want to cite some statistics, because they are relevant, even though the crimes in this case are very different from the crimes that are eligible for a record suspension.
First, 95% of people who were granted a record suspension did not reoffended. Second, three-quarters of Canadians believe that record suspensions, which allow individuals to reintegrate into society, are a positive thing. As I said, these statistics are about a program that does not necessarily apply to the crimes addressed by my colleague's motion, but I did want to mention them, because we need to acknowledge the importance of rehabilitation.
No matter how serious a crime may be, if the system allows an individual to reintegrate into society, we, as legislators, want this to be done with zero, or almost zero, chance of reoffending. This is also important for other inmates. Prison is often referred to as a crime school, and we obviously want to avoid that. 
Since my time is running out, I will get back to the main point and reiterate that we support the motion. We do, however, have many concerns.
First, as I mentioned, we need adequate resources and ministerial direction to ensure that the current law is applied so that victims remain informed.
Second, there are some gaps with respect to the type of information provided, and we believe that the law should be updated in that regard. As the motion states, the government must address this issue to reconcile privacy and victims' needs. For example, the motion speaks about individuals' absences when on conditional release, but they are usually granted for medical reasons. It would be appropriate to inform victims when such absences are granted and to explain the process to them so they are better informed. A victim who is better informed is better able to achieve the desired goals, which is to get their life back on track and to grieve. We want to avoid revictimizing them.
We must consider all these factors, determine whether the law passed in the previous legislature was properly enforced, then think about how we can update it. That would be quite appropriate.
Earlier this week, in another debate on another bill, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona spoke about an important element that I feel is very pertinent to the motion we are debating. He stated that the laws passed by Parliament often include a review period. Laws are reviewed after three or five years. However, this is often not done, or we seem to think that it is not important. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, especially in the case of a law on victims' rights.
I thank the member for Milton. I support her motion and I urge the government to take this opportunity to ensure that we do all we can so that there is also room for victims in this process.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start this evening by thanking Lisa Freeman of Oshawa for the creation of this bill. I have known Lisa now for many years, and her public advocacy, which has led to this bill being introduced today, cannot be overstated.
Before I delve into Lisa's story and her contributions to this bill, I want to make it clear that I will not be mentioning the name of the man who took the life of her father in 1991. It is our job not to give notoriety to people willing to take the innocent life of another.
Lisa's father, Roland Slingerland, was brutally attacked and murdered in 1991. Lisa was but a mere 21-year-old at the time, and she was tasked with identifying her father after the attack. As a result, the murderer was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years, the standard practice for violent crimes such as this one.
However, 20 years into that sentence, the man responsible for tearing Lisa's life apart became eligible for early parole, for reasons that were never made clear to Lisa or her family. She was not told what her father's murderer had done to earn the possibility of early parole. She was not told why the Parole Board was considering releasing the murderer who had taken away the life of an innocent man, her innocent man. She was not told why her government would provide leniency to a criminal more than deserving of his punishment.
The fact is that Lisa Freeman was never even given a single piece of justification for why her country's justice system was willing to turn its back on the people it is designed to protect.
In the Criminal Code's current state, there is no legislation that requires the Parole Board to provide any reasoning to victims and victims' families for why the criminal who committed a crime against them is eligible for early parole. Many pieces of legislation protect the rights of victims. As this House knows, there is quite literally a Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, for the sole purpose of ensuring that the protection of victims' rights remains a top priority for the justice system.
However, the laws that we currently have on the books simply do not provide the right of victims to know: the right to know why those who have harmed them are eligible to be released. When a court of law convicts an individual, the justice system is not just punishing or rehabilitating a person; it is providing justice on behalf of the victim, too. 
However, when a convicted felon not meant to be even eligible for parole for another five years is provided with the opportunity to walk freely in public, it is not fair to the victim's family to be kept in the dark as to why or how.
Another example of victims in Canada not having the right to be informed is the fact that Mr. Slingerland's killer was transferred to a prison in British Columbia that was only 10 kilometres from the home of Lisa's sister. Lisa was not made aware of this transfer until 24 hours after it occurred. 
This is just another example of Lisa being in the same situation that many others find themselves in every day: uninformed. Since then, the killer has been transferred to a minimum-security prison on Vancouver Island. This facility has even been nicknamed “Club Fed” because of its lax restrictions on inmates.
This sheer institutional injustice influenced Lisa to become an outspoken advocate for victims' rights, specifically regarding the rights of victims to know why those who have inflicted pain upon them and the public as a whole are eligible to be released. She has not only been an outspoken advocate in my community on victims' rights, but has even gone so far as penning her own book to speak about her experiences throughout the entire Parole Board process, titled She Won't Be Silenced.
It is people like Lisa Freeman who make Canada the greatest country in the world. In the face of utter shock at the early parole announcement, she took a stand to ensure that other people just like her would never have to face the same treatment, the same neglect and the darkness that she was forced to endure as a result of the Parole Board's sudden and mysterious announcement.
I would like to take the time to read aloud a statement made by Lisa regarding this private member's bill: “Families such as mine are plunged unasked into unfathomable situations, and then further demoralized and re-traumatized by the actions of a government: i.e, the Parole Board of Canada, Correctional Services Canada, institutions that say they are supportive of victims of crime, which is, at best, an illusion.
“After dealing with Corrections since 2011, when I questioned why my father's killer was granted multiple day passes a full four years before his parole eligibility date, I quickly tired of the scripted lip service and virtue signalling of the Correctional Service of Canada, which purportedly assists victims but in reality does the opposite.
“Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime often have to stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which, as most victims of crime find, is nothing more than a mockery of justice and basic common sense. It was a quick realization on my part that any access to rights by the offender was in fact taking away from my rights, which has been proven time and time again. 
“It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that victims of crime are treated with dignity and respect and to provide timely and accurate information in a transparent manner. With this legislation, it will avoid providing a sense of false comfort. Families like mine and indeed families coast to coast who find themselves trying to navigate the system at what is already a very trying time deserve more—and for the very least they deserve accurate information.” 
It is because of Lisa Freeman that I stand here in the House today to speak to this private member's bill that is proposing amendments to the Criminal Code that would ensure that all victims and their families are aware of how parole dates and eligibility are determined, because the current laws on the books fall short in doing so.
While getting tough on crime, in my opinion, is key to creating a safer Canada, victims of crime—especially of violent ones, such as the murder of Lisa's father—must not be forgotten. In every criminal case, the two opposing sides are the Crown and the defence. However, it is right and just that the victims not be forgotten. They are the ones who truly suffer at the hands of criminals. In cases such as Lisa's, victims suffer not only at the hands of criminals but also at the hands of the government when they are kept in the dark.
The Parole Board grants 79% of day parole requests it comes across. For victims of crimes committed by people eligible for early parole, it is only logical and compassionate that they be made aware as to how those who have harmed them have a very high probability of being released into the public before the end of their sentence.
This is truly a non-partisan issue. Providing a reasonable explanation is not only logical but feasible as well. At this time, when the Parole Board determines a convicted criminal's date for parole eligibility, it sends a document to the victim who was harmed by the criminal's crime. All that is required under this bill is that the Parole Board clarify why the specified date for parole eligibility was chosen. The potential financial and procedural considerations are very limited, verging on non-existent.
This legislation would require that information regarding review and eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated in writing to the offender's victims. As such, victims and families would not have to feel uninformed about those who have harmed them. An explanation of how the dates for parole eligibility are determined would also be required in the written documentation. It is a simple matter of transparency. Victims deserve accurate and timely information regarding the parole process.
For every day we do not pass legislation on transparency for parole decisions, another victim and another family have to come to the realization that their government has neglected them.
This bill would avoid providing the sense of false comfort that comes to victims when they are misled about parole eligibility. Its purpose is to make Parole Board procedures more transparent and more accommodating to the rights of victims and their families.
This legislation has been applauded by advocates as giving a stronger voice to victims of crime. They will no longer be drowned out by the focus on the convicted. This legislation offers victims the ability to fully understand how and why the justice system is making decisions on their cases.
It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. To this point, the government has failed to protect the most vulnerable. It is about time this House takes a step forward to fix that situation.
In closing, above all, Canadians who have suffered as a result of an offender's action do not deserve to be re-victimized by the parole system. The current parole system is guilty of failing to be transparent. It is the duty of lawmakers in this House to repair the broken system. That is why I stand today. I call on my colleagues in this House to support this bill.
I would also like to thank my colleague, the member for Milton, for spearheading this initiative to provide transparency for the most vulnerable in our judicial system. It has been an honour to work with her, and this private member's bill is evidence of her hard work for her constituents and all Canadians.
Mr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise today and add my voice to the debate on Motion No. 229. 
Before I do that, this may be my last opportunity to give a speech during this Parliament, so I want to thank my wife, Charlene, and my son and daughter, Ethan and Hannah. Hannah will be turning one next week, and Ethan will be turning three next month. They came after my election and do not know any different, but they make a great deal of sacrifices, like so many other kids of parents who work here on a daily basis. It is important to say thanks to remember them and those whom we leave back in our ridings to do this important work. 
I also want to thank my constituents for this incredible honour of representing the people of St. Catharines here in this place almost four years.
Let me begin by first thanking the hon. member for Milton for bringing this motion forward. If there is one thing in this House that all of us can agree on, it is the importance of supporting victims and survivors of crime.
I would like to take a moment to recognize the dedication and tireless efforts of all those who work so hard to provide that support. We are all fortunate in this country to have a system in place that is there for people in their greatest time of need. That system spans different orders of government across different sectors. It offers programs and services that support victims of crime so that they can play an important role in the criminal justice system. It works to meet their needs and ensure that they do not suffer in silence. It encompasses professionals and volunteers who work with victims and survivors, helping them to get their lives back on track and making sure they are not re-victimized along the way.
I would like to take a moment to recognize the important work of Victim Services Niagara for the incredible work the people there in my home region do on a daily basis, and to recognize also the Kristen French Child Advocacy Centre. So many organizations across the country are working so hard and so passionately for victims of crime.
As part of that system, the federal government has an important role that includes support for victims of federal offenders, meaning those serving a sentence of two years or more. The Correctional Service of Canada, or CSC, strives to ensure that victims of federal offenders have an effective voice in the federal correctional and justice systems. Part of that involves providing them with information. Last year, in fact, victims received 160,000 pieces of information from CSC and the Parole Board of Canada. 
That information is not automatically provided. Victims must register with CSC and the Parole Board in order to obtain that information about the offender who harmed them. However, the government has launched a victims portal to make that process easier. The portal provides a simple and secure way for victims to register and access information. It also allows them to submit information electronically for consideration in case management decisions. That includes victim statements, which can be submitted at any time during the offender's sentence. 
In addition to the portal, victims are able to reach victim services officers by email or by phone. These officers can provide victims with information about CSC and the offender who harmed them. That includes information about correctional planning, decision-making processes and the progress the offender is making toward meeting the objectives of his or her correctional plan.
Victims are entitled to receive more than 50 types of notification. For example, victims can be notified of the start date and length of the sentence that the offender is serving. With respect to the motion before us, I would also point out that victims are already notified of the offender's eligibility and review dates for temporary absences or parole. That said, there could be room for improvement. Debates like this one certainly help us to shed some light on the issue of ways to support victims. 
This debate is also taking place not long after the government took important steps forward in terms of how it communicates and engages with victims of federal offenders. On May 27, in conjunction with the 14th annual Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, the government announced a new victims outreach strategy. 
The strategy has two main goals: The first is to improve public awareness about the information and notifications that the CSC provides to registered victims, and the second is to bring greater clarity to certain aspects of the corrections and conditional release system, including victims' understanding of sentence management and the offender reintegration process.
Specifically, the strategy will see the Correctional Service of Canada promoting the benefits of registration. CSC would also promote the information available to victims through the victims portal and the benefit of submitting a victim statement outlining the impact of the offence on them. CSC is working with federal partners in consultation with victims and survivors to develop new tools to let people know about the resources that are available. These tools include infographics videos and a social media campaign. That is just one recent step that the government has taken to support victims.
It has also proposed a new measure under Bill C-83, which is being considered by Parliament, to increase the participation of victims in the criminal justice system. If that bill passes and receives royal assent, victims who attend a Parole Board of Canada hearing will be allowed to listen to an audio recording of the parole hearing. 
Right now, that opportunity is only available to victims who do not attend the parole hearing. It makes perfect sense to extend audio recordings to all registered victims because it would allow victims who did attend a hearing and found the experience difficult and traumatic to have a clear sense of how things transpired. 
All of these measures are complemented by the government's National Office for Victims. The office provides a central national resource for information and support to victims of federal offenders. It can answer questions about the criminal justice, corrections and conditional release systems, giving victims a more effective voice. Last year, the office distributed more than 6,000 publications to victims of crime, victim service providers and the general public. The office also helped to point victims in the right direction by receiving calls, responding to email queries and referring Canadians for direct services. 
Finally, I would like to note the support the government is providing to victims and survivors of the despicable crime of human trafficking. 
Budget 2018 included federal funding of $14.5 million over five years and $2. 9 million per year after that to establish a national human trafficking hotline. Being from Niagara, I find this initiative to be incredibly important, because ours is a border community where so much of that crime occurs. Because so much trafficking occurs through that border crossing, it is important for my community to have those types of resources to combat this horrible crime. 
I am pleased to report that the hotline was launched on May 29. It offers help and hope to victims and survivors 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and it is confidential. 
Victims and survivors will be able to use it both to seek information and to receive the help they need to find safety and protection. This includes connecting them to local law enforcement, emergency shelters, trauma counsellors, transportation and other services and supports. The hotline will also forward information to law enforcement agencies so they can take action against the perpetrators. 
This is only a sampling of the federal measures that are in place or on track to support victims of crime. There is always more we can do to make things work even better for them. 
I am proud to stand behind a government that takes this issue seriously, that has already taken steps to improve the support system for victims and is committed to working with partners on further improvements to better serve the needs of victims and survivors of crime. 
Again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those involved in victim services. It is an incredibly difficult job to help people through the trauma they experience. We talk a lot about first responders and the important work that they do, but victim support workers provide a significant component of that, the next step that is too often forgotten about. The work is important to help get people on the right track, to help them move forward, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them.
Again, I would like to thank the member for Milton for introducing the motion and spearheading this important debate.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that victims of crimes play a very important and crucial role in the whole process. 
We had a very sad story not that long ago in Winnipeg North. When I say Winnipeg North, I am referring to the inner city, north end of Winnipeg. A very young man was at home with his grandmother. Someone broke into the home and the young man was stabbed and killed. This touched on a lot of emotions in the city of Winnipeg. It had a fairly profound impact with the amount of attention it gathered. People rallied around the family. The deceased young man was supposed to graduate this month from Technical Vocational High School.
A series of public meetings followed. The victim was of Filipino heritage. The community, particularly the Filipino community, really came out to support the mother and father, both of whom I have known for many years.
I have relayed this message to the House, because throughout the process, time after time, we meet with individuals who have followed the story. People really want answers to a series of different questions, everything from why it happened to what the circumstances were. They want to know about the perpetrator who caused the harm. It is really difficult for us to provide answers to everything they are looking for.
I think of the family members. It was difficult for me. I attended the meetings. I think of Imelda in particular, a dear family friend, and the emotions involved in that. It really heightens the importance. Sadly, a lot of crimes take place in our communities. It affects not only the victims of the crime, but family members and friends as well. They need to have some form of understanding of what has taken place and a sense of justice.
I sat on a justice committee for youth for many years. In fact, I was the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years. We talked a great deal about the importance of ensuring there was a consequence for young people breaking the law or for inappropriate behaviour.
One of the things I felt pretty good about was the committee looked at ways to put in place restorative justice. Restorative justice is where victims meet with offenders with the goal of a disposition to provide some sense of justice to the victim. Obviously, there is a huge difference when someone steals something, or a relatively minor offence, compared to an incident where the victim dies.
Through the years, going back to the to the days of the Keewatin justice committee, to the days in which I was the critic for justice in the province of Manitoba, I have always believed there needs to be a consequence for individuals who break our laws. However, at the same time, the victims need to be taken into consideration. 
We reformed our military laws through legislation in the last couple of years. When I spoke on that, I highlighted that the fact that we were incorporating rights for victims within it. I cannot remember all the details offhand, but the principle of recognizing and appreciating the need to have victims as a part of the process is something the government, particularly the minister, have taken very seriously.
There are a couple of points I want to highlight. First, the government launched a communication and outreach strategy to provide victims with greater awareness of the services available and how they could access them, which is of great importance. We are in consultation with victims and the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, recognizing we can and should do better. 
I will cite another piece of legislation we have passed. Imagine a victim of sexual assault decides to listen to the perpetrator's parole hearing for possible release. We can only imagine the state of mind of that victim having to listen to the parole hearing. Therefore, under the legislation we passed in the last year, victims can receive an audio recording of proceedings, which they can listen to on their own time. 
Whether it is the enshrinement of victims rights in legislation, as we did with the military reform, or the example I just cited, the government has moved on these issues. I think we all recognize that there is always room for improvement. We can always do better. I think we all appreciate the importance of ensuring victims are recognized through this process. 
I have had the opportunity to address an issue such as this. I mentioned this the earlier in a question for the member putting forward the motion. The best way to continue to move forward is to also look at ways to prevent people from being victims in the first place. As a government, we have been very successful, through a multitude of grants, budgetary measures and legislative measures, on things that will make a difference. 
For example, Winnipeg North has some of the more challenging areas along Selkirk Avenue. There is a 24-hour, seven days a week, drop-in centre. As individuals become engaged and involved at that drop-in centre or they become involved with the Bear Clan, we have seen less crime.
I look forward to continuing the dialogue with respect to what the government can do to ensure victims are taken into consideration in all legislative and budgetary measures that the government presents to the House. It is important and it really does matter.
I always appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts on the important issues Canadians have to face.
Mr. Vance Badawey (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today to speak on this very important issue. I have my Métis jacket on today in celebration of indigenous month. Aboriginal day is this Friday.
As was very well articulated by the member for Winnipeg North, victims have an important role in the criminal justice system and we need listen to their concerns on a regular basis to ensure they have a further role in the criminal justice system.
This government is committed to ensuring that victims of a crime are supported, informed and respected, especially taking into consideration what they go through. Of course, it does not end there. It sometimes continues. Victims need well-informed support as well as a government that takes into consideration the respect they fully deserve. It is very important.
Correctional Service Canada as well as the Parole Board of Canada and the National Office for Victims work together to provide victims the information to which they are entitled. We have launched communication and outreach strategies to provide victims with greater awareness of the services available to them, how to access them and how important that is.
As a government, we often find ourselves with our constituents, informing them and ensuring they are well advised on the many services available to them under the federal government, a menu of services. This is no different.
We will continue engaging with victims and the federal ombudsman for victims of crime and continuing to strengthen victims services and supports they well deserve and respect.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The hon. member for Niagara Centre will have seven minutes and 58 seconds coming to him should this bill come back.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the Order is dropped to the bottom of the order precedence on the Order Paper.