Skip to main content Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content




Monday, June 2, 2014

Emblem of the House of Commons

House of Commons Debates



Monday, June 2, 2014

Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer

    The House met at 11 a.m.



[Private Members' Business]



Lincoln Alexander Day Act

     moved that Bill S-213, An Act respecting Lincoln Alexander Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
     He said: Mr. Speaker, I was proud to introduce Bill S-213, an act respecting Lincoln Alexander Day, and I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill, which would designate January 21 of each year as Lincoln M. Alexander Day in memory of a great Canadian who inspired millions of his fellow citizens.
    As the member of Parliament for a constituency that includes much of Linc's former constituency when he was a member of this House, I am greatly privileged. As a parliamentarian who had the good fortune to meet Linc, talk about politics with him, and learn from his sage advice, this is indeed a great honour.
    As many in the House will know, January 21 was Lincoln Alexander's birthday. As such, the designation of this day is fitting for all that he contributed to this country.
    To begin, please allow me to highlight just a few of the accomplishments of this great man. He was a very popular lieutenant-governor of Ontario from 1985 to 1991. He was the MP for Hamilton West from 1968 to 1980. He was a trailblazer for visible minorities as the first black MP and cabinet minister. He was a champion of the Order of Canada and Order of Ontario. He was a chancellor at the University of Guelph.
    He passed away in October, 2012, at the age of 90. He was so beloved that thousands visited as he lay in state at the Ontario legislature in Hamilton City Hall. His state funeral in Hamilton was attended by thousands of his fellow citizens, in addition to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Ontario, and a number of former prime ministers and premiers.
    Many schools in Ontario have been named in his honour, as well as the Lincoln Alexander Parkway, which is a major expressway in Hamilton, and which I am on most days when I am back in the constituency.
    Despite all of these accomplishments and many more, above all else Lincoln Alexander was a champion of young people. He was convinced that if a society did not take care of its youth, it would have no future. He also knew that education and awareness were essential in changing society's prejudices and sometimes flawed presuppositions about others. That is why it is so fitting that so many schools are named after him. He himself had been a young person who sought to make his place in his community so that he could contribute to his country.
    As a young boy, Lincoln Alexander faced prejudice daily, but his mother encouraged him to be two or three times as good as everyone else, and indeed he was. Lincoln Alexander followed his mother's advice and worked hard to overcome poverty and prejudice. Through his hard work, he made a name for himself both professionally and politically.
    At an early age, he experienced first-hand how hard work and education make a positive impact on life. After becoming the first in his family to attend university, Lincoln Alexander graduated from McMaster University in 1949. As a university graduate and war veteran, and having worked his summers at the Stelco steel mill in Hamilton, Lincoln hoped to join the company's sales team. However, this was not to be the case for a man of colour. This unjust attitude was, unfortunately, all too common back then.
    Frustrated, Lincoln Alexander realized that self-employment made the most sense for a young black man with ambition. He decided that he would choose a line of work in which he thought that he would not be affected by people's unjust views. Pursuing further education, he enrolled in Osgoode Hall Law School.
    While at Osgoode Hall, he heard the dean make a comparison using a racial slur while giving a lecture to his class. Lincoln Alexander was shocked. He stood up and asked the dean what he meant by using that slur. When the dean answered that it was just a saying that everyone was using, Lincoln Alexander responded by saying, “You’re in a position of authority, sir, a leader in the community. A leader has to lead and not be using such disrespectful comments without even thinking about them”.
    He was public and outspoken in his fight for the rights of others, and in so doing, he became a spokesperson for all.
    Lincoln Alexander's interest in young people came from his time as a young lawyer in Hamilton, when he took the bus to work every day. He loved the social interaction with different people from his community on the bus, and he often spoke to young people, children, high school students, and young adults. They gave him insight on the issues and concerns of young people. Hearing their stories and their enthusiasm for change, Lincoln Alexander became energized, and this laid the groundwork for his interest in social justice and the issues facing the youth of the day.
    After being appointed as Queen's Counsel in 1965, Lincoln Alexander realized that politics was a way to raise awareness on the issues surrounding social injustice. He also knew that educating young people and creating programming for them was a way of eliminating barriers and building bridges in the community.
    Encouraged by Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, Lincoln Alexander ran for a seat in Parliament, and in 1968 he was elected and became the first black member of Parliament in Canada. In his first speech in the House of Commons as a member of Parliament, Lincoln Alexander reminded his colleagues that as a member of Parliament, they should be engaged in the hopes, fears, disappointments, legitimate aspirations, and despair of each and every Canadian, ever mindful that involvement demands commitment in terms of actions and deeds rather than just words.
    Lincoln Alexander served as a member of Parliament for 12 years until 1980. However, it was in 1985, when he became the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, that he was truly able and determined to focus his efforts on advancing the cause of young people and fighting racism.
    He was very open about the need to look both internally and externally to find the answers to the problems of the day. He frequently related the difficulties he had with racism, understanding the need to be vulnerable and open to sharing experiences in order to educate.
    Lincoln Alexander loved to get to know people. These exchanges fed his desire to create a unified society in which all people were equal. He listened intently to individuals who shared their experiences, good and bad, and always with genuine interest in their lives.
    After losing the 2004 election, I remember meeting Linc at an event. He actually grabbed my tie and pulled me down to his face and said, “Sweet, if you want to serve the people and win an election, you have to work hard”.
    As Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, Lincoln Alexander visited over 250 schools. During every visit, he spoke to students and promoted the importance of education. He stressed the need to work with young people and spread the anti-racism message. He wanted to teach young people to be proud of their heritage, reminding them that we are all equal. He instructed them to stand up for themselves and do what is right.
    After his term as Lieutenant Governor, Lincoln Alexander became chancellor of the University of Guelph in 1991. He was the university's longest-serving Chancellor, serving for an unprecedented five terms, until 2007.
    Lincoln Alexander carried on his natural rapport with students and made a point of speaking to each and every graduate. Robert McLaughlin, vice-president of alumni affairs at the University of Guelph, said, “When you meet him and when he looks at you and shakes your hand, you think that he has waited his whole life to meet you. You have his undivided attention”.
    Lincoln Alexander prided himself on promoting education, equality, and fairness. He believed in promoting leadership and in investing in our young people, and as chancellor at the University of Guelph, he had a perfect platform to do just that.
    In honour of his leadership and dedication, in 1993 the Government of Ontario established the Lincoln M. Alexander Award. This award, reflecting Lincoln Alexander's vision, recognizes young people who have demonstrated exemplary leadership in ending racial discrimination.
    Through his determination and his strength in life and leadership, Lincoln Alexander paved roads and opened doors for today's young people. Using his good judgment, tolerance, compassion, and humanity, he worked tirelessly to instill these values in young people and to improve race relations throughout the country. His efforts were aimed at encouraging individuals to never give up, and he offered himself as an example of someone who never backed down.
    That is why this bill is before us today. May Lincoln MacCauley Alexander's persistence and resolve in breaking down social barriers and promoting the importance of educating our young people be remembered by all Canadians through the recognition of January 21 each year as Lincoln Alexander Day.


    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my fellow Hamiltonian, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.
    Of course, we know in Hamilton why this honour should be bestowed upon Linc, as we all know him. Perhaps I could give the hon. member an opportunity—given that there are millions of Canadians who are born, raised, and die, but only a limited number of calendar days—to explain why the pride of Hamilton should be registered as a federally recognized day. Perhaps the member could give a short summary of why he believes this is important not just for us Hamiltonians but for all Canadians.
    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Hamilton Centre, whom I see often in Hamilton. When we ran into Linc, I witnessed many exchanges that he had with Lincoln Alexander as well.
    Linc passed away at 90 years of age. He was still involved in events at that age. The member asked me for further evidence above and beyond what I spoke about, so that might be the best testimony I can give to Lincoln Alexander on top of all of the things he had already done: Linc continued to be a part of the community. We saw him racing around in his red motorized scooter at events. He never stopped being part of the community.
    For him, it was about the people of Canada. It was about breaking down barriers. It was about being real and authentic and being part of the community, and he never stopped, right up until the time his physical body was unfortunately unable to continue. Marni, his widow, supported him all the way through.
    One of the greatest testaments to Linc's popularity was at his funeral. The member for Hamilton Centre joined me at the funeral. Hamilton Place was filled with people. There was so much sentiment from so many people, people whose lives he had touched.
    Linc touched many lives, and not only youth. I emphasized youth, but he touched many adults from all walks of life. As the person from the University of Guelph mentioned, when Linc shook people's hands and looked into their faces, they knew he was there with them. He was not looking past them. He did not have some other agenda. He just wanted to know people and he wanted to encourage them to be the best Canadians they could possibly be.


    Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's last point in terms of being the best Canadian one can be.
    It is fair to say that Lincoln Alexander's impact went far beyond a defined community, whether it was in the prairies, the Atlantic region, or any region of Canada. Individuals would draw inspiration from Linc in the things that he accomplished in the time that he accomplished them.
    I am wondering if the member would expand on that particular point in terms of the number of Canadians who drew inspiration from the attitude and the manner in which Mr. Alexander carried himself.
    Mr. Speaker, Lincoln Alexander's dad was a carpenter by trade, but he was not able to get a carpenter's job. He was a porter on a train. It was the only job available to a man of colour at that time. His mother was a maid. Despite all of that, Lincoln Alexander made a life commitment to be an extraordinary Canadian because of the encouragement of his mom and dad. As my colleague mentioned, Linc's commitment went far beyond Hamilton, far beyond Ontario. It really was nationwide.
    In fact, on the Elections Canada website there is a good story about Lincoln Alexander. A friend came to him after he was elected with a cut-out from a newspaper in the United Kingdom about how big his election was as the first black man in Parliament, so Linc was a spectacular influence not only on the entire country but globally as well, because he had the courage and the tenacity and the work ethic to make sure that he changed the status quo. As the Elections Canada website indicates, he came to Parliament, which was really a white man's domain; he was joined by one other woman at that time, and really changed the complexion of Canadian politics.
    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate. I particularly enjoy the fact that it is one of the few times we get to reach across the floor and be in agreement. For all the headlines of fighting and the various things we get into around here, there are times when we are able to rise above that and do justice to this profession and the people who elected us.
    I want to thank my colleague, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for leading off the debate and sponsoring the bill in the House. He has done great service and justice to all that Lincoln Alexander has meant to Canada and to Hamilton, so I certainly will not repeat any of the milestones, except to maybe add a few pieces to the story.
    First, I love the fact that when I checked the Hamilton Spectator website this morning, in the local section there was a headline that I am sure my colleagues saw. Certainly the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, and our colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain are very supportive of the bill. I am sure it warmed their hearts, as it did mine, to see one of the headlines, on this day that we begin debating the bill, that says “The Linc” is to be extended. The “Linc” speaks to a secondary highway in Hamilton that links the west mountain and the east mountain. That is as far as I am going to go on what all of that means.
    The great irony that everyone loves is that it is a perfect connection. Of course, “Linc” is his name. When I say Linc, it is not disrespectful. The first thing he would do after someone said “Hello Mr. Alexander” was to say, “No, call me Linc”. Everyone knows that, so my references from here on in will likely be to Linc. I am referring to my fellow Hamiltonian in the most respectful way that I can, and showing the camaraderie and relationship that Linc had with the city.
    The great irony of having the link named “The Linc” is that Linc never had a driver's licence in his whole life and he is one of the few people who has a highway named after him. That is one more accomplishment that he did not necessarily set out to do, but managed to do anyway. There, in the Hamilton Spectator today, the spirit of Linc lives on.
    I am hoping that all members will be supportive of this. As a result of the bill being passed in both of these places, Canada as a nation will forever remember Linc.
    Everyone here makes the history books, but most of us are footnotes in the great historical span of Canada. It really is something to have personally known an individual who looms so large in a nation and, with a little hometown pride, it feels good when they are from one's hometown city.
    This is an important day for us in the House who represent Hamiltonians, and our entire community. When Linc was appointed lieutenant governor, in 1985, that happened to be the same year I was elected to city council. After we had the big celebration, what I remember most is that I was finding it hard to believe that a position so important was going to be represented by a Hamiltonian. However, when we thought about it being Linc, it was not such a surprise.
    In 1990, when I was lucky enough to be elected to Queen's Park, again, there was that burst of pride. We were sitting in the House when the throne speech was to be read, and it was Linc who came through the door. He just smiled and winked to those of us from Hamilton as he walked down.
    He pulled off the impossible. He had this way about him that was so real.


    My colleague who just spoke is absolutely right. If we walked up to him, there was this sense of familiarity. He would look at us as if he thought he had a new friend. There was just that sense from him. It was not only that, but he had the royal jelly. When he walked into a room, there was that presence, and that was before he became lieutenant governor.
    I remember one time when we were at Hamilton Place and it was a police appreciation night. This was not long after he had retired, so he was still in robust health. I remember him walking out. He had a number of police uniforms. He was an honorary police chief of a number of police services. It must have been the Hamilton one he was wearing that day. This big, strong, strapping officer in this uniform came walking out on the stage. He walked up to the microphone. I can still remember that. One could hear a pin drop. Linc said, “Do I look good in this uniform, or what?” It was such a solemn occasion, yet there was a “Lincism” there. That is the kind of guy that he was.
    If I can, there are a couple of claims to fame for my riding, our riding, because we fight over how much of our ridings we get to claim from Linc.
    Ellen Fairclough, also a predecessor of ours, was the first woman in cabinet, in 1957. She was made a secretary of state. The following year she became a full minister. This riding has great history. The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale and I are pleased to provide the historical footnotes that made Linc so important in our time.
    However, I will go for a little more claim of him than my colleague, simply because he lived on Proctor Boulevard, which is in the heart of my riding. Not only that, I made it into his book. This is nothing but pure bragging. I make no bones about it. If it is possible to name-drop in this place, I am doing it.
    Linc wrote in his book:
    There is no bigger supporter of our men and women in blue than me. I am an honorary chief of several police services, and the honorary commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, whose headquarters in Orillia is named after me. It was in 1994 that [the member for Hamilton Centre], who was Ontario's solicitor general at the time, visited Hamilton council to announce that the new four-storey OPP headquarters in Orillia would be named after me. OPP Commissioner Thomas O'Grady also spoke at the announcement event, and they presented me with a framed artist's drawing of the headquarters.
    There is a great little side story that goes with that. We were in the mayor's office. Next to the mayor's office was his assistant's office, which also acted as a green room. There was a large coffee table there. I do not think it was real marble, but it was a nice coffee table. With regard to the picture that Linc was talking about having been presented to him, the OPP Commissioner, Linc, the mayor, and I, all put our feet on this thing and held the picture. It was a nice photo op. The only problem was the entire table collapsed and broke into about six pieces. I said to the current sitting OPP commissioner that Tom O'Grady promised that table would be replaced. To the best of my knowledge, that has not yet been replaced in Hamilton City Hall. There is a debt that the Ontario office of the Solicitor General owes to Hamilton City Council.
    I have one minute left, and I want to wrap up. I hope that I have done justice to Linc. I tried to show some humour in the sense of the man, the person we got to know individually, but also recognition of the respect that we have and we need to show. What is important is the statement of passing this bill from our generation now to future generations. Linc stood for the values of Canada. Therefore, when we celebrate and honour Linc, we honour Canada; we honour the values that are Canada.


    I look forward to the moment when we will all rise unanimously, supporting this important bill to mark the life of this important man.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill S-213, an act respecting Lincoln Alexander day, sponsored by Senator Don Meredith. I commend the hon. senator for this excellent initiative on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Liberal caucus in the House of Commons, and the Liberal leader, the MP for Papineau.
    When the hon. Lincoln MacCauley Alexander was appointed as the 24th lieutenant governor of Ontario, he chose as his official heraldic motto the three words that he then felt—along with the huge number of Canadian men, women, and youth, of all creeds, ethnic backgrounds, and political persuasions, who had witnessed or benefited from his initiatives—to be the three pillars of his already accomplished life. Those words were “confidence, determination, and perseverance”.


    With his humble background, it took confidence, determination and perseverance for him to successfully overcome racial barriers that were unjust, absurd and intolerable.
    He was the first black man to become a partner in the first interracial law firm, Duncan and Alexander. He was the first black man to be elected to the House of Commons, the first to be appointed a minister of the crown, the first to chair Ontario's Workmen's Compensation Board, and the first to be appointed as a vice-regal representative. He is an outstanding example of tremendous courage and success.
    Little Linc, as he calls himself in his memoirs, would go a long way from his humble beginnings in Toronto. His mother was from Jamaica and worked as a maid; his father was from St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a carpenter by trade who worked as a railway porter.



    Senator Meredith reminded us that young Linc's mother would say to him, “Go to school; you're a little black boy”. He would follow this advice, his mum's order, to the letter, through kindergarten, elementary school, and high school, where he excelled. He did not stop his quest for knowledge and personal achievement there. He went on to study law at Hamilton's McMaster University and Toronto's Osgoode Hall, graduating in the top 25 percent of his class.
    Whether in his personal life or professional life, including as lieutenant governor of Ontario, education was always a need, a priority, and a passion, for Lincoln Alexander. No wonder so many educational facilities bear his name. The Lincoln Alexander public schools, in Ajax, Hamilton, and Markham; the Lincoln M. Alexander school, in Mississauga; and the University of Guelph's Alexander Hall, all bear testimony to this learned man's ardent lifelong promotion of education. No wonder so many institutions of higher learning have awarded him honorary degrees: the University of Toronto, McMaster University, University of Western Ontario, York University, the Royal Military College, Queen's University, and so on.


    In so doing, those institutions quite rightly celebrated the hallmarks of Lincoln Alexander's life and career: the constant pursuit of knowledge, the quest for excellence and the love of education.
    As a teacher myself, I wish to add my voice to the celebration of Lincoln Alexander's legacy.
    Lincoln Alexander was a man of knowledge, but even more than that, he was a man of courage. He had the courage to stare down any racism, latent or overt, that he encountered over the years, and he always proudly affirmed, with modesty and dignity, his right to be different and equal.
    He did so as the only black student in his kindergarten class and in the faculty of law at McMaster University. He was denied a sales job at a steel plant in Hamilton on the pretext that it would be bad for the company's image if a black man were to hold that position. He had to deal with racist comments from the dean of law, and despite his remarkable academic achievements, a number of well-established law firms refused to hire him.
    Lincoln Alexander also had the courage to put justice, freedom and the common good above his own well-being. Thus, in 1942, at the age of 20, he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force, where he served until 1945, having achieved the rank of sergeant.


    Lincoln Alexander's courage has been amply recognized by the Canadian Armed Forces, which awarded him the War Medal 1939-45, and the Canadian Forces Decoration, also giving his name to a Royal Canadian Air Cadet squadron, the Scarborough-based 876 Lincoln Alexander Squadron.
    The Ontario Provincial Police also recognized his contributions to peace and order, naming the building that houses the OPP's headquarters in Orillia, Ontario after him.



    Lincoln Alexander also used his courage and his pursuit of excellence to serve Canada, the country he loved, when he became the governor of the now-defunct Canadian Unity Council, an non-profit organization whose mission was to promote Canadian unity.
    Before I close, I think it is important to mention the many honours Lincoln Alexander received for the significant contribution he made to youth, the legal profession and Ontario and Canadian society as a whole.


    What an impressive list his distinctions make: member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada; Companion of the Order of Canada; Member of the Order of Ontario; Knight of the Order of St. John; Canadian Volunteer Service Medal; Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal; 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal; Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal; Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, and so on.
    In closing, I leave members with the very words of the Hon. Lincoln Alexander, as quoted by Senator Don Meredith in his January 2014 address to the other place at the second reading of Bill S-213, “It is not your duty to be average. It is your duty to set a higher example for others to follow. I did. You can. You will”.
    It is the duty of the House to set a higher example for all Canadians to follow by giving them the opportunity to strengthen their belief in the benefits of lifelong learning, their commitment to a fair and progressive Canada and their acceptance of diversity.
    Let us follow the example set by Ontario's legislators when, in December 2013, they voted for January 21 to become Lincoln Alexander Day.
    Let us follow the example set in the House by the member for Hamilton Mountain when she introduced Bill C-563, an act respecting a Lincoln Alexander day.
    Let us vote unanimously to make January 21, the birth date of the Hon. Lincoln MacCauley Alexander, our national Lincoln Alexander day.
    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak after the members for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Hamilton Centre and Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale. They have a done a fairly good job of addressing all the points that should be made about Mr. Alexander, the first being his history in terms of his input into this process of politics, the second his input into being a Canadian citizen and being proud of, and living that type of life, and, third, his commitment to public service.
    I will not try to reiterate each and every one of the points that were made, but it should be noted that the government is in support of Bill S-213. It is my hope, as the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville mentioned, that the bill is passed unanimously, and I hope that is the case.
    I would also note the comments by the member for Hamilton Centre about the opportunities we have every once in a while to work together and speak in unanimity on a specific topic.
     Sometimes when folks back home ask me about the conflict or the apparent disagreements that take place in the House of Commons from a government and opposition perspective, I hearken back to the time of minority governments, from 2006 to 2008 and then 2008 to 2011, when, despite all of our differences, time and time again not only was there a requirement for at least one other party to support government legislation, but there was a need for us to work together for the betterment of our country.
    I reflect on that a bit when I think about Mr. Alexander and his number of firsts, such as being the 24th lieutenant governor of Ontario from 1985 to 1991, the first black person to hold that position. He was the first person in his family to attend university, where he obtained a law degree. He was the first black member of Parliament and, under prime minister Joe Clark, Mr. Alexander became the first black cabinet minister. He also served an unprecedented five terms as chancellor of the University of Guelph, a first as well. As was mentioned, whenever it came to Lincoln Alexander, being first in a number of these categories certainly befits who he was.
    I had a chance to look at his history. This was a man who achieved so many honorary degrees from universities: the University of Toronto in 1986, McMaster University in 1987, the University of Western Ontario in 1988. He skipped a year and did not receive one in 1989, but received one in 1990 from York University, in 1991 from the Royal Military College in Kingston, and in 1992 from Queen's University. Those are not honorary degrees that are bestowed upon just anyone. The fact that one would achieve those from so many different top-notch and respected universities in our country is quite something.
    He was also an advocate when it came to education, and equality was one of the most highly regarded beliefs that he had. All members have spoken about his book, which is entitled Go to School, You're a Little Black Boy, and he used that inspiration to pursue higher learning and strove to influence youth to do exactly the same.
    When he was lieutenant governor, he had three specific goals at the centre of his mandate: addressing youth-related issues in education; fighting racism; and advocating on behalf of seniors and veterans. He set out to meet these goals by delivering inspiring speeches throughout the country and continually challenged educators to not simply give lip service to anti-racism, but to accept that responsibility and lead.
    Having served as a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Mr. Alexander was an active advocate on veterans' issues. He was serving as chancellor of the University of Guelph when the devastating events of 9/11 took place. Later that year, while marking Remembrance Day at the university, he took the opportunity to salute the armed forces and delivered a message of hope. He said, “Together, we will battle against narrow perspectives, ignorance, and racism”.


     It was that objective that he never lost. Whether in grade school, high school, university or in the House of Commons, whether as a lieutenant-governor in the province of Ontario, as a chancellor or as simply a member of the community in Hamilton, he never lost the vigour and fight against ignorance and racism. He noted the toll of suffering and sacrifice that veterans had endured, and urged the crowd not to forget. He also said, “Their blood and tears were the awful price for the peace, comfort, and democracy we enjoy...We should never forget”.
    Yesterday in the Niagara and St. Catharines community we had one event celebrating Declaration Day, commemorating those who went before us. I do not think Lincoln Alexander actually needed June 6, June 7 or November 11 to remember those who sacrificed themselves for our country and our democracy. He used every day of the year to do that.
    It was early in his law career, during a visit to Africa, when he was confronted by the boundless issues of racism, colonialism, political turmoil and poverty, that he discovered his political calling. The trip, he said, instilled in him a sense of pride and shaped his desire to promote leadership within the black community. He credited that trip to inspiring him to become the first black member of Parliament in Canada and eventually the first black cabinet minister of our country.
     These achievements served as an example for both the black community and for Canada. Linc was never shy to describe his life as a cabinet minister, and never determined that it was not for him to tell people about that experience. It was that experience that he believed should be transferred to all others in our country, whether they be minority or they be black, that the opportunity to serve in the House of Commons was not something that was for just a few; it was for those who were prepared to serve.
    Mr. Alexander was a symbol for democracy and he spoke for anyone who suffered from prejudice or injustice. He believed in unity and he focused on the similarities that bound and drew our country together. He once stated, “One is not be a spokesperson to any particular segment of the constituency”. It showed that his sense of justice surpassed creed, colour and any type of social standing.
    Canada prides itself on its diversity. Our diversity strengthens our nation by building an inclusive society that values differences and fosters a sense of belonging. We do not have to look too far over the last number of years to see, each and every year, an average 250,000 new Canadians making that statement and understanding that the principle of belonging is a value that is instituted within them because of the institutions of our great country. Lincoln Alexander was the embodiment of those Canadian values. He stood for justice and equality and most of all he believed in service to others.
    Declaring Lincoln Alexander day in Canada would formally recognize, as Canadians, a lifelong commitment to public service and multicultural understanding. It would also serve to underline Lincoln Alexander's leadership in promoting human rights, justice and the importance of education. However, at the end of the day, when we look at the naming of Lincoln Alexander day, it is not something just to commemorate and honour him. What he would have said was to use that day to justify why we needed to keep fighting in our country, whether at the political level, the personal level or within our own communities, the aspects and values of what we are as Canadians in terms of multiculturalism, acceptance and understanding that people who come here, regardless of where the country of origin was or what position they held or what their last name happened to be, that there is an opportunity for them here to become not only permanent residents or Canadian citizens, but to add value to what it is to be Canadian.
    I have a feeling the bill will pass unanimously. Every time we celebrate Lincoln Alexander day it is not just to remember Linc, but also to remember who we are as a country, the values we hold as individuals, the values we bring forward, and show the rest of the world what it really is to be Canadian, what it is to lead and to understand what that leadership is.
     Every once in awhile, we can look back on the work that we do as parliamentarians and say that we did something right and that we did something good. Today is a step forward in honouring Lincoln Alexander and what he stood for. I certainly look forward to seeing all of us stand in unanimity when the bill is passed.


    Mr. Speaker, as the member for Hamilton Centre said earlier, it is not that often that all of the members from Hamilton are in agreement because we have a good number of NDP members, but we have other parties there. In this case, I am very pleased to stand in support of the motion of the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.
    For the record, New Democrats recognize that January 21 should be a day to mark the life of Lincoln Alexander. He was a man whose appeal crossed party lines. His life was a great example of service, perseverance, humility, and number one, humanity.
    In fact, the member for Hamilton Mountain put forward a similar motion last December because our thoughts are very similar on the respect that we had for Lincoln Alexander.
    He was born in 1922, and as members have heard, he passed away in his 90th year. I would say of Linc that he lived a life very worthy of the respect that we see him receiving here today. He was first elected in 1968. Those of us who lived at that time should give thought to the fact that in 1968, the civil rights movement in the United States was fighting just to have black children go to university. At that time, Linc was elected Canada's first black MP. It says so much about Linc and it says a lot about our country at the time too.
    He held respect. He was re-elected in 1972, 1979 and 1980 and served in the House of Commons until 1985. He went on under the Clark government to be the first black labour minister.
    He received the Companion of the Order of Canada and the Order of Ontario. After leaving office, he was a five-term chancellor of the University of Guelph. Most importantly is the book he wrote, the Go to School, You're a Little Black Boy. I do not think I have heard it referenced, but that is what his mother used to say to him every day to instill in him the need for education.
     I had the good fortune to have conversations with Linc from time to time and one of the things both of us shared the view on was that with knowledge comes responsibility. I would suggest that the knowledge he gained over the years he put to good use. He lived up to what he saw his responsibilities were.
    He was born in Toronto and he served in the Royal Canadian Air Force in the Second World War for three years. In Hamilton, I have to say, we quickly forgave Linc for having been born in Toronto, for he moved to Hamilton to court his future wife, Yvonne. He received a Bachelor of Arts at McMaster University back in 1949.
    I would like to share a couple of stories because I have a few minutes left. The member for Hamilton Centre will relate to this one. Linc did not have a driver's licence, but in his later years he had a red scooter. He was notorious for going through our malls at speeds at which he might have been pulled over otherwise, but this wonderful man was received every place he went, most importantly as a friend. No matter what strata one was living in, from the top person in Hamilton to the average worker in the streets, they all loved Linc.
    Shortly after 9/11, in Hamilton there was a firebombing of a Hindu samaj. In all of his life, Linc had stood up against racism. Mayor Wade in Hamilton started a group called the Strengthening Hamilton Community Initiative. That is where I first came to know Linc, who was named the honorary chairman of that group. From what we hear today about Lincoln Alexander, he may be honorary, but he was there working side-by-side with us. It was very important to have that kind of guidance.


    Again, as the member for Hamilton Centre indicated, when Linc came into the room, he was a physically imposing man of about 6'2”. He also was a dynamic individual; there was a natural gravitation to him.
    We had people in that room who represented the diverse community of Hamilton and business leaders as well. A man of his integrity drew people together. There were Muslims and Jewish people in the room. That organization actually wound up putting out press releases on the Middle East that were signed off by our Muslim and Jewish communities in Hamilton. That is the kind of leadership this man was capable of providing.
    Another side to Linc was his personal humour. One of the things that he did to me and with me is this. When I was first elected in 2006, there was the dinner downtown at a restored CN station that had been converted by LIUNA into one of the best places to come for a meal and a social gathering. I was dressed in a brand new suit. Going in through the door, I heard a booming voice behind me say, “Wayne, get me a chair.” I grabbed Linc a chair. He said, “Put it here beside the door.” I put it there. He sat down in the chair and introduced me to every single individual coming through that door.
    Linc was Progressive Conservative and I was not. However, that did not matter to Linc. That is what endeared him to everybody in our community. He was a human being, first and foremost, who loved everybody. He had kind of a gruff sound to him. He would come through that door and we knew he was there and if he was unhappy, we knew it too. However, he was always gracious, always respectful, and always ensured everybody in that room had a say in what was happening.
    He was raised a black boy, in the forties, when times were so different than they are today in this country. We have not gotten over racism totally, but back in the forties, it was far more a part of Canadian life than we would like to say. He rose above that. He stood head and shoulders above it. If we look at his life history, every single thing he did, he did well. He lived up to the request of his mother and his father to put his everything into every aspect of his life.
    If I am standing here with pride, I know it is shared by the other members from Hamilton. I know it is shared by this House. This was a life well lived, a life that was full of service to not only his community and his country, but to the world community. At that time, seeing the symbol of a black man, in 1968, rising in the House of Commons and shortly thereafter becoming the minister of labour in this place, in so many corners of the world they could turn to Canada and say, “This is how it should be”. Lincoln Alexander was the person who was able to turn to us and say, “Yes, we're working together”. It was never Lincoln Alexander above us; it was always Lincoln Alexander with us.
     I speak for the guys and gals from Hamilton. That is how he would have said it because Linc was part of our community. As we close our portion of the debate, he was what was good in Hamilton and, in many ways, when we look at this place and the service he gave here, he represented what was good with the dignity and deportment he brought here.
    As my time is coming to an end, I am standing here with the feeling I want to talk about this much more. However, I am sure after the House adjourns today, we will have a chance to gather and chat about the life of our friend, Lincoln Alexander.


    Resuming debate.
     The hon. member for Nickel Belt.
    I would advise the member that he will have six and a half to seven minutes in his speech before the time for the consideration of private members' business expires.
    Mr. Speaker, it certainly is an honour for me to be rising here today to speak on this private member's bill.
    Going back in history, there has always been a great rivalry between Hamilton and northern Ontario. We do not very often agree on anything and we quite often kid ourselves, especially the MPs from Hamilton. All three of them would dearly love to be from northern Ontario. I can swear to that. However, we can really agree on this bill.
    Lincoln Alexander was a great Canadian. I can remember running into him, or, I should say, he almost ran me down when, one day, we were both visiting Queen's Park. He stopped. We had a little chat and we shook hands. One knows when one is shaking a real person's hand. It was pretty easy to tell that he was really a warm, kind-hearted person. It certainly was an honour for me to meet with the great man from Hamilton, who should have been from northern Ontario.


    The NDP believes that January 21 should be designated Lincoln Alexander Day in tribute to the Hon. Lincoln Alexander, a man whose political work transcended party lines and whose life was an example of dedication, perseverance, humility and humanity.
    Mr. Alexander was born on January 21, 1922, and died on October 19, 2012. He was the first black MP and he was elected in 1968 at the height of the civil rights movement in the United States. It was not easy to be a man of colour at that time.
    He represented the riding of Hamilton West and was re-elected in 1972, 1979 and 1980, serving in the House of Commons until 1985. He became the first black cabinet minister in Canada when he was appointed as labour minister by Joe Clark in 1979.
    In 1985, he was appointed as the lieutenant governor of Ontario by Brian Mulroney, and he held that position until 1991. In 1992, he was appointed a Companion of the Order of Canada and received the Order of Ontario. After leaving his position as lieutenant governor, Mr. Alexander became chancellor at the University of Guelph, where he served for an unprecedented five terms.
    In 2006, he published a book entitled Go to School, You're a Little Black Boy. He wanted to emphasize that education is essential to breaking down racial barriers.
    Born in Toronto in 1922 to West Indian parents, Mr. Alexander served with the Royal Canadian Air Force from 1942 to 1945 during the Second World War. He completed an undergraduate arts degree at McMaster University in 1949 and graduated from the prestigious Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto in 1953. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1965.
    With the first anniversary of Lincoln Alexander's death rapidly approaching, his wife contacted Hamilton region MPs with a proposal to create a national day in Linc's honour. She talked to Conservative and NDP MPs, and the NDP members were the only ones who responded quickly. We hope for unanimous consent because Linc was a Conservative member and the Liberals were on board.
    The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stated that the Conservatives would support the initiative, but that the unanimous consent vote would have to take place while he was not in the House because he has always maintained that MPs should not use motions adopted unanimously to get around the legislative process.
    I can assure the people of Hamilton—who, like my colleagues, wish they could live in northern Ontario—that we will unanimously support this bill.


    Order. The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.


[Government Orders]

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act


Speaker's Ruling 

    There are 53 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-20.
    Motions Nos. 1 to 53 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.


Motions in amendment  

Motion No. 1
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 3
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 4
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 5
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 6
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 7
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 8
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 9
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 10
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 11
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 12
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 13
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 14
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 15
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 16
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 17
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 18
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 19
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 20
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 21
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 22
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 22.
Motion No. 23
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
Motion No. 24
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 25
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 26
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 27
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 28
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 29
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Motion No. 30
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 31
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 32
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 33
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 34
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Motion No. 35
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 36
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Motion No. 37
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Motion No. 38
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Motion No. 39
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Motion No. 40
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 41
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion No. 42
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Motion No. 43
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 44
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 45
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 46
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 47
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 47.
Motion No. 48
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Motion No. 49
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Motion No. 50
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion No. 51
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 51.
Motion No. 52
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion No. 53
    That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 53.



    He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the amendments we are proposing.
    Bill C-20 does not reflect the approach we will take when we form the government in 2015. Our approach to international trade is different from the other parties' because we accord it more importance.
    Before becoming an MP, I managed a business that was starting to sell specialty goods on its website in order to reach a broader market in Canada. When the company started getting orders from Europe and the United States, it started exporting.
    Exporting companies in Canada do not get very much support at all. The data speak for themselves, especially when we compare Canada to European Union countries, the United States, and Australia.
    Canada spends $12 million to $13 million a year to support its exporting companies. Australia, which has a much smaller economy than Canada's, strongly supports its exporting companies by investing $500 million in them. That is a considerable difference. For every dollar the Canadian government spends on supporting exporting companies, the Australians spend $50 on supporting theirs.
    The same goes for the United States and the European Union. The countries that are enjoying real success when it comes to international trade are investing in their exporting companies.



    That is not what happens here in Canada. The Conservatives would argue that they bring forward trade agreements and that it is all they need to do. However, when we look at the figures, we can see that the idea that just bringing forward trade agreements is somehow a guarantee of prosperity is very clearly denied by the facts.
    First off, we know, and you know, Mr. Speaker, coming from an area of this country that has been devastated by some of the policies of the current government, that we have lost 500,000 full-time, family-sustaining jobs in manufacturing since the Conservative government came to power. That is appalling. The Conservatives would say that they have created some part-time jobs. As we know, at the end of December 2013, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce produced a very accurate and effective report that talked about job creation under the current government. It said that in 2013, 95% of the jobs that were created were part time.
    We have lost half a million full-time, family-sustaining manufacturing jobs. The government has tried to replace them with part-time jobs and temporary foreign workers, but the reality is that in the end, the communities are much further behind. Since the Conservative government has come to power, there have been 300,000 more Canadians looking for work, about 1.3 million in total, than there were when the government assumed office. We are seeing increasing unemployment and a colossal loss of manufacturing capacity and jobs, and at the same time, we are seeing that the government has put in place strategies that create only part-time jobs.
    The government would then defend itself by saying that it has signed some trade agreements, and that is a guarantee of future prosperity. I have the figures here of some of the countries with whom we have signed trade agreements and what has actually happened in terms of our balance of payments. When we look at Canada's balance of international payments, we are in record deficit under the current government. What that means is that we are importing far more from other countries than we are actually exporting. Our exports are stalled in part because of the devastation in manufacturing capacity. We have a record level of deficit in our balance of international payments.
    When we look at merchandise trade with these countries we have signed free trade agreements with, we see in each case that Canada is actually in a deficit with each one. In Mexico, we are in deficit, and that deficit is growing. In Israel, we are in deficit, and that deficit is growing. With Chile, we are in deficit, and the deficit is growing. In Costa Rica, we are in deficit, and, again, the deficit is growing. Even with Switzerland, we are in trade deficit, and the deficit is growing. If we look at the countries of the European Free Trade Association, we see again a deficit. We see a deficit between Canada and Peru, and the deficit is growing.
    The reality is that the government has signed agreements that have been very poorly negotiated, in many cases, and with regimes that do not reflect Canadian values, notably Colombia, where human rights violations have actually increased since the signing of the trade agreement. The fact is that the Conservatives cannot point to successes. We see in virtually every single case that we are in trade deficit, which explains the record deficit around international payments. We can see that the Conservative approach is just not working.
    That is why we are offering a whole series of amendments today. What we are saying is that the government really needs to take a new approach when we have lost half a million manufacturing jobs and when its sole achievement is to say that 95% of the jobs it creates are part-time. People cannot pay their mortgages with a part-time job. They cannot put food on the table every day with a part-time job.
    Conservatives would suggest they could take two, three, four, or five part-time jobs and maybe cobble together a full-time income. That is really not what Canadians expect. What Canadians expect is a government that actually cares about their economic prosperity and instead of signing poorly negotiated agreements, actually puts in place a trade strategy that includes—and this is extremely important—addressing the fact that Canada does almost nothing to support major exporting enterprises and businesses in our country. When we see Australia spending $500 million and Canada spending $12 million to $13 million—we have never been able to get the exact figure from the government—that shows a crucial lack of support for the export sector.
    I come from Burnaby—New Westminster, which is the most diverse riding in the entire country, even though my colleague from Newton—North Delta will probably try to disagree with me on that. We have over a hundred languages spoken and diasporas from around the world. These are people who have come to Canada to build their lives here. We have important components of populations coming from Asia, Africa, South America, and Europe. The business trade organizations that many of these new Canadians set up to try to stimulate trade with their countries of origin are getting no support from the government at all.
    There again we see another reason we are in deficit everywhere and bleeding red ink everywhere. The government really thinks that a ribbon-cutting ceremony or signing a trade agreement, no matter how poorly negotiated, is sufficient. It does not do any follow-up.
    Mr. Speaker, I know you will be appalled by this situation. I can see it on your face. The fact that the government does not even do studies, prior to and afterwards, on the impact of the agreements shows how improvised it is. The approach of the Conservatives is improvised, and that is why it has been a failure.



    In closing, I would like to say one last thing about Bill C-20. I will quote Carmen Cheung, a researcher at the International Human Rights Program:
    These past five years have seen a dramatic erosion in protections for expressive life in Honduras. Journalists are threatened, they're harassed, attacked, and murdered with near impunity, and sometimes in circumstances that strongly suggest the involvement of state agents.
    In my opinion, these are systematic violations, and my colleagues who will be speaking shortly will also quote experts who raised these points in committee.
    It is clear that Canadians will not support this agreement.


    Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate when people speak extemporaneously in this House, as my friend, the hon. member, just did. The trouble is that when he is pulling facts out of thin air, and actually fictitious facts, it is better to read from a text where he may have some substance.
    He was very cavalier with his facts in that diatribe. The statement that “95% of jobs created in Canada are part-time” is false. That is incorrect. I would like some support for that.
    Second, he said there was $12 million to $13 million provided by our government to support exporters. That is absolutely false. I guess 85% of the automobiles manufactured in Ontario are exported, and our government has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to the auto innovation fund. Does that not count?
    This is a cavalier and reckless use of the facts. I should expect it from this member, because in 2010 he made a statement that free trade has cost Canadians dearly, and his remarks today echo that once again. Once again, there is absolutely zero support for such statements.
    I have just offered two or three facts from his speech , and I would like the hon. member to stand in this House and provide some factual basis for what he is telling the members of this House.
    Mr. Speaker, we will start with point three. The hon. member should have completed the quote. It was that the Conservative approach on free trade was costing Canada dearly.
    The member for Durham cannot deny half a million lost manufacturing jobs. That is half a million families who have lost their breadwinner because of the policies of the government. He may deny the facts, but the facts exist nonetheless.
    The other thing that was fascinating was that he was attacking the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce did its annual review of 2013 and published the report, which indicated that 95% of the jobs created in 2013 in Canada, those net jobs that the Conservatives love to talk about, were actually part-time in nature.
    He can attack the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and he can go at it in the same way that the Conservatives attacked the Chief Justice, attacked Sheila Fraser, and attacked the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but the facts are the facts. Even though the Conservatives do not like to look at facts, the facts are staring them right in the face.
    My final point is on this idea of the promotion and publicity budget. We have been asking the Conservatives for many years to release those numbers. They have refused to do so. We estimate $12 million to $13 million for publicity and promotion of exports, and they have refused to confirm or deny the figure. However, we do know, because the Australian government is a lot more open, that Australia has spent $500 million in promotion for their exports around the world.
    We have the facts, and the Conservatives do not.


    Sticking with theme of the facts, Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize, or Canadians to realize, that the New Democratic Party, in the history of the House, has never, ever voted in favour of a free trade agreement. When I say “voted in favour”, I mean standing in their place when there is an actual recorded vote and voting in favour of a free trade agreement.
    Here we are talking about Honduras. I understand that again the New Democrats will be voting against the free trade agreement. We in the Liberal Party see value in freer trade among countries throughout the world. We have concerns in regard to the whole trade file, and I will get the opportunity to talk to that when I speak to the bill, but the question I have for the member is this: does he, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, believe that there is any merit whatsoever to free trade agreements? If so, why is it that New Democrats have never, ever voted in favour of a free trade agreement?
    Mr. Speaker, that member is obsessed with the NDP. If you are obsessed with the NDP, at least get your facts right.
    We were the—
    The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been here a long time. He knows he has to direct his comments to the Chair, not to other members in the House.
    Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. You are absolutely right.
    We defended the Auto Pact. We voted for the Canada-Jordan agreement in the presence of the member, so it is not as if he is ignorant; he is just trying manifestly to forget. We have supported the FIPA agreements. Of course we have supported trade. We actually put forward a fair trade approach, which is quite different from the approach of the Liberal Party.
    I do want to say one thing about the Liberal Party. It supported the Canada-Colombia deal. This is a regime that has the highest rate of killing of unionized people, labour activists, and human rights activists on the planet. The Liberals said that if Canada signed the agreement, somehow, magically, the human rights violations would go away. Instead, they have increased.
    It is deplorable. The Liberals should stop standing with the Conservatives—
    Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
    Mr. Speaker, maybe I can start off by rebutting the facts.
    One of the things that the member just stated is that he voted in favour of the Jordan agreement. I would again tell the member to look at the record. The New Democrats have never voted in their place in favour of a free trade agreement. This one is yet another piece of legislation on which we know the New Democrats will be voting against free trade.
    I say that because there is a fundamental difference. We within the Liberal Party have been progressive in our attitudes toward recognizing the value of free trade and looking at ways in which we can allow for additional flow of goods and services because we believe that at the end of the day, thousands of jobs are created. The more Canada gets involved in global trade, the more the quality of lifestyle for all Canadians is improved. The numbers will clearly show that.
    Indeed, we are a trading nation. We need and are dependent on world trade. That is what enables us to have the lifestyle we have today. It is what enables us to say that Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in and, I would argue, as I am a bit biased, perhaps the best. Not to recognize the importance of trade is wrong. Although I should perhaps not give advice to my New Democratic colleagues, I think they are missing the boat on this.
    When we look at the overall picture of trade and whether the government has done well or done poorly, what we find is that the government has not done all that well on the trade file, although it often talks about free trade agreements and says that it has done more trade agreements than the Liberal Party and so forth.
    I like to keep things relatively simple, so let us look at overall trade. When the Conservatives took the reins of power a few years back, we had a huge multi-billion-dollar trade surplus. How does that compare with today, in the time since the Conservatives have been in government? It did not take long—only a matter of months, maybe a year—for them to turn that multi-billion-dollar annual trade surplus situation that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin created into a massive trade deficit. We have been running deficits of billions of dollars on the trade file with the current government. I do not have the actual facts, but I would suggest that we probably have a larger trade deficit with the current government than with any other government in the history of Canada. I cannot say that for a fact, but I would not be surprised if that was the case.
    What does that mean for the average middle-class family in Canada today? It means the loss of potentially tens of thousands of jobs that could be assisting in driving our economy forward. That is what it means in terms of the impact on our great country. This is where the government could have and should have given more attention.
    We recognize that there is value to agreements of this nature. If we look back to the history of this particular trade agreement, we see that it dates back to 2001. There was Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. Those were four countries back in 2001 for which there was recognition that we needed to advance and recognition that there was a potential to get into some trade agreements. It has taken the government a number of years to continue that process through and to ultimately achieve an agreement.


    It should be no surprise that the Liberal Party is voting in favour of this agreement. No one should be surprised by that. There are changes we would have liked to have seen.
    Our concern is the bigger picture. I will draw a comparison. During the 1990s, when I was an MLA, we had a huge trade mission. Team Canada went to Asia. Through the prime minister and that team approach, provinces, business leaders, and labour organization representatives were invited to participate in the team Canada approach to trade. The mission went to China, among other countries. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars of extra economic activity was created.
    It took our Prime Minister quite a while to actually go to China, but when he did, the biggest announcement he had when he came back was that he was able to get a couple of panda bears to come to Canada. News flash to the Prime Minister: Manitoba had a couple of panda bears come to our province in the 1990s.
     For the Liberals, it is not just the signature on a piece of paper saying that we are going to have a trade agreement. We recognize the value, and we want to see that take place, but it is overall trade. This is something we believe the government has failed in.
    To what degree has the government been successful working south of our border, in the United States, where a good portion of our trade goes, and in many other countries around the world?
    I feel very passionate about the Philippines, a country we in Canada are more dependent on in terms of immigration numbers than ever. Why do we not look at the possibility of entering into some sort of a trade agreement with a country like the Philippines, where we are growing in terms of the size of the population? There would be many benefits for both countries from expanding economic trade, tourism, and products and services. These are the types of things we should be hearing more about. I was glad that we had something in regard to Korea.
    With respect to the Honduras trade agreement, we had a press release from the pork producers. Manitoba has a wonderful pork industry. I have had the opportunity to tour the farms on a Hutterite colony, where piglets are born and raised to a certain age and then brought to Brandon, where they are processed and packaged at Maple Leaf.
    There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in Manitoba alone. I believe that the plant in Brandon employs over 1,000 people. There are huge job numbers created in the pork industry in the province of Manitoba. They are good, quality jobs that are putting bread and butter on the table and providing a good quality of living for a lot of Manitobans.
    With this particular agreement in place, it is expected that we will be able to do that much more in terms of the pork industry in Honduras. That is good for our province.
    Let us not be fearful of free trade agreements, but let us make sure that we do our homework and deliver the best agreements we can. We should also go beyond trade agreements and start taking that team Canada-type approach of former Prime Minister Chrétien to bring Canadians to other countries to develop economic ties. By doing that, we will be creating thousands of jobs here in Canada.


    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg North for his speech and for the Liberal Party's support of the Honduran trade deal. His remarks showcasing the NDP's decades of opposition to trade were absolutely on the money.
    The member also made reference to the historic Team Canada missions that the last Liberal government, under former Prime Minister Chrétien, held. He mentioned the China mission in particular, which had 600 people on a plane. There were many mayors and premiers and that sort of thing. He said that after those missions, “literally hundreds of millions of dollars of...economic activity was created”.
    I would invite the member to look at the testimony before our trade committee from just two weeks ago from Professor Keith Head of the University of British Columbia, who actually did an empirical analysis of the Team Canada missions and showed that the member's statement is actually incorrect. From those missions, which Professor Head characterized as more photo-op driven than meaningfully driven, there was actually no positive impact on trade. They were photo-op driven. In fact, Professor Head talked about serving beaver tails in China. We are actually making commitments to trade commissioners to expand trade for small and medium-sized enterprises.
    I would like the member to tell this House where he is getting his figures of hundreds of millions of dollars driven by the team Canada missions.


    Mr. Speaker, without any hesitation, I would love to draw a comparison to the current Prime Minister's China deal, when he brought over panda bears, and contrast with the team Canada approach of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
    When he talks about the number of dollars, I could not give a specific actual dollar amount. However, as the member has pointed out, with the number and quality of individuals who were able to build relationships, sign deals, and so forth, I believe that we were going into the hundreds of millions of dollars. That might not have all transpired within 14 days of their departing from China. I suspect that through time we will see that there have been many economic benefits because of the individuals who were involved.
    The point is that for many stakeholders, including premiers, mayors, business leaders, and others, the prime minister felt that it was good to take them to build those economic and social relationships to enhance the relationship between the two countries.
    Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North. I would like to ask the member if there are any countries in the world whose specific records on the environment, labour rights, or human rights would prevent the Liberal Party from voting in favour of a trade deal.
    Mr. Speaker, one could easily reverse that question. We could look at countries for which free trade agreements have been signed, and the New Democratic Party has never voted for one of them. The New Democrats have never stood in their place inside the House of Commons and said that they think it is a worthwhile venture and that they are going to vote in favour of free trade.
    What I believe is that the Liberals, unlike the New Democrats, have our head above the sand. We look on the horizon, and we realize how important trade is to our country and that the best way for us to continue to develop in the future is to ensure that there are nations that are prepared to trade. Where we can enhance that trade, I believe that as a nation we should be doing that. All we need for proof is to look at our history.
     Again, I would emphasize that it is not just signing an agreement that is important. What is important is that we take a multi-faceted look at the ways we can improve and enhance the types of materials, resources, services, and products being exported out of Canada. If we do it right, we will be able to accomplish what former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were able to do, and that is have massive trade surpluses.


    Mr. Speaker, as the NDP's deputy international trade critic, I am pleased to rise at report stage of Bill C-20, which has to do with the trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.
    I found my Liberal colleague's speech very interesting. My colleague from Victoria raised a particularly relevant question about whether human rights, environmental standards or health and safety standards would prevent the Liberal Party from voting in favour of a trade deal. He can say what he wants, but I attended two sittings of the Standing Committee on International Trade. The question came up regularly, and at no point did the Liberal member even mention this topic, except when the NDP invited witnesses who spoke about human rights.
    As for the agreement between Canada and Colombia, which my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster mentioned, I was not a member of the House at that time. I did, however, follow closely what was going on in the House, since I was very interested in its work. Once again, I can say that the Liberals were probably among the biggest supporters of the agreement and among the fiercest critics of those who opposed the agreement because of Colombia's human rights violations.
    My speech will focus on explaining the NDP's approach to international trade to our Conservative colleagues in government and our Liberal colleagues. The stories we keep hearing are 10, 15, 20 or 30 years old. Things have changed and we have also changed. As an economist, I have many times told committees, both in the House and outside, that I am not opposed to trade agreements. On the contrary, I support them. They play a very important role in Canada's economy. We cannot support and sign every trade agreement without considering some factors: what is the content of these agreements and what is the human rights and environmental situation? All of those questions should be taken into account.
    At this time I can tell my friends in the House of Commons that the NDP's approach is to examine trade agreements under three different lenses. The first is human rights, which is essential, followed by environmental rights and workers' rights.
    In the case of the Colombia agreement, for example, we were told that this type of agreement is vital in order to give the Colombian government an incentive to improve its human rights record. Nothing has changed since the agreement was signed. Furthermore, the Conservatives and the Liberals are collaborating in order to block a proper consideration of the reports on trade agreements that would indicate the progress made. We regularly receive reports, as that is a requirement that was introduced, but we do not even study them.
    With respect to Honduras, the situation is problematic. We have said this many times in the House. It will be even more problematic in the future. Honduras is one of the most difficult countries to live in. We have often spoken about the number of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. It is one of the highest rates, if not the highest, in the world. I am convinced that we will be discussing this topic again. There are also other elements.
     At one of the meetings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I cited the case of a journalist, Carlos Mejía. He was a member of the reflection, investigation and communication team for Radio Progreso, which is affiliated with the Jesuits. He really cannot be considered a radical, and he was working on the ground. Carlos Mejía was stabbed to death in his home. This crime has not yet been solved. He was the 34th journalist to be murdered since the 2009 coup. Some of them have been murdered since the supposedly democratic elections in 2012.
    On a number of occasions, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked for protection for him and that the government take a special interest in his safety because he was in danger. The government did nothing.
    I believe that 15 of these 34 cases were specifically tied to the work these journalists were doing on the ground, for example for the opposition or on the issue of corruption, in a supposedly democratic country.


    The Honduran government has problems with governance and protecting human rights, yet we are being asked to support a trade deal with the country without adequately addressing that issue.
    On this side of the House, unlike the Conservatives and Liberals, we feel that human rights is an important issue. I am not surprised by the Conservative stance because it is in line with their overall approach: they sign just about anything because these are side issues that are not overly important. I understand that. At least they are consistent.
    However, their arguments are not coherent. We are being told that a free market will help the country strengthen its democracy, as though there is a connection between the two. History has shown that there is no direct link between a democratic political regime and the free market. In case there is any doubt, I have two specific examples.
    The first example is that of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, a country that served as a testing ground for neo-liberal policies in the late 1970s after Salvador Allende was overthrown. It was such a popular experiment that the University of Chicago and its infamous school of economics sent researchers there to establish a free-market economy. The first delegation was led by Milton Friedman. Those who went were known as the “Chicago Boys”.
    Was Augusto Pinochet democratic? Definitely not. He was the head of a totalitarian regime. Did Chile's free-market approach result in democracy? No one can seriously claim that. Augusto Pinochet remained in power a long time, until well after those policies were implemented. In the case of Chile, it is clear that totalitarianism and the free market went hand in hand.
    We can go as far back as Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, which was a good friend to businesses. Once again, it was an undemocratic, totalitarian regime that fully embraced the free market at the time.
    The government is telling us that free trade is absolutely essential to the progress of democracy and democratic governance, but that is nonsense. On several occasions, I asked the companies that testified before the Standing Committee on International Trade and our Conservative and Liberal friends to show us some kind of evidence that countries that have problems in the areas of democratic governance and respect for human rights have made any progress in that regard as a result of a free trade agreement, but no one was able to. Our friends seem to feel that it is enough that they believe it is true, but there is no evidence to support it.
    I will not dwell any longer on the issue of human rights because I know many speakers want to address that issue, but it is of the utmost importance to us. That is why we responded favourably to the trade deal with Europe. That is why we are open to a trade deal with South Korea. It is because these two examples do not pose a problem in terms of human rights.
    The second lens under which we examine free trade agreements helps us determine whether the potential partner is a strategic one. Of course, Europe and South Korea are strategic trade partners for Canada. However, of all the countries in the world, Honduras is currently Canada's 104th largest trading partner, so from a strategic perspective, I do not think that the government can argue that it is so urgent that we sign a trade agreement with Honduras that doing so should take precedence over the extremely important matter of human rights.
    The third lens, which does not apply in this case, allows us to examine the content of trade agreements. The reason we are withholding judgment with regard to the agreements with Europe and South Korea is that we do not know the terms of these agreements. Nevertheless, we are going to use this approach with all trade agreements, rather than just blindly supporting them based on the unfounded principle that trade agreements are essential to the progress of democracy and democratic governance.



    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his participation in some of our trade committee hearings in the last few months.
    There are two points that I will make.
    The member mentioned Honduras and other trade deals that we have negotiated. However, Honduras is in our hemisphere and Canada is the sixth largest donor to Honduras. We firmly believe that with development and diplomacy, comes trade and betters the quality of life for Hondurans.
    The member also referenced Colombia and mischaracterized its record in the last few years immensely. It has doubled the size of its middle class in recent years and doubled its GDP. Part of that is attributable to the free trade agreements that Colombia has signed with countries like Canada. In fact, its crime is down, governance and human rights are improving in that country and the people are benefiting on the ground.
    As an economist, does the member not promote an expanded middle class and opportunity for Colombians and Hondurans by engaging with countries like Canada in our own hemisphere?



    Mr. Speaker, I support trade agreements that benefit both signatory countries. That is not the case here.
    I am pleased that Colombia's economic situation has improved somewhat, but has the human rights situation in Colombia improved? My colleague from Durham did not say anything about that. The answer is simple: no.
    If he really wants to say that Colombia's human rights situation has improved dramatically because of the trade agreement, then he should let the committee look at the reports on the subject. We do not even have access to those.
    Is he saying that the trade agreement with Colombia has improved human rights? His question was not even about that; it was about economic progress. We know that union people are still being killed in Colombia. We also know that the government is still having problems with democratic governance.
    Canada should use its bargaining power because Colombia would benefit economically and so would we. We would probably benefit to a lesser degree because our economy is more advanced.
    However, we should use our bargaining power to ask—no, to insist—that our trading partners enhance their environmental and labour standards, and especially their human rights standards. The Conservatives, like the Liberals, have refused to do so.


    Mr. Speaker, with this trade deal, Canada is the second largest foreign investor in Honduras. This is the elephant in the room with most of the trade deals with these developing countries.
     Canada wants protection for its multinationals who are taking their profits from resource extraction in Canada and investing it in other countries where labour and environmental conditions are lower, but they want very strict control over their ability to invest and make their money back. Is this not really what these free trade deals are with these countries?
     We have seen the evidence presented that it has not increased trade, but it has opened the door for Canadian companies to take advantage of these developing markets and natural resources in those areas. Is that not what is really at stake here?


    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Western Arctic for that very relevant question.
    In fact, that brings me back to my main argument. When it comes to international aid, for Honduras or any other country that needs Canada's assistance, certain conditions have to be met by governments before that international aid can be used. We do not hand out money without knowing how it will be spent or whether it will be used for its intended purpose.
    In the case of agreements that help two countries trade freely, there are no such conditions. None of these agreements have binding obligations with regard to environmental standards, labour standards or human rights standards.
    Why is Canada missing all these opportunities to negotiate with these countries and require these standards to be included in the trade agreement? It is beyond me. That is why we are going to study the issue of human rights for all agreements, this one and subsequent ones, because this issue is key to the support of the New Democratic Party as a social democratic party.
    This is the second time I have risen in the House to speak to this bill. As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I also attended committee meetings during the study of the bill.
    I am opposed to this bill for a number of reasons that I will get to in my speech and for the reasons that my colleagues have already mentioned.
    First I will talk again about the NDP's approach to trade and our relations with other jurisdictions and economies.
    The NDP is not necessarily opposed to free trade. New Democrats read the texts of free trade agreements before opposing or supporting them. That is the case with the Canada-EU free trade agreement. Naturally, it is an agreement that could benefit many Canadian sectors, but we have to study the details. We have to really see whether some sectors are more affected than others. We also have to have a more coordinated strategy to ensure that free trade agreements really do benefit Canadians and really do create jobs in Canada. We believe that there must be a coordinated approach and strategy for free trade between Canada and other countries.
    I will therefore discuss the five main elements of our strategy.
    First, we believe that there must be an impact analysis to determine whether or not trade agreements negotiated by Canada are good for Quebeckers and Canadians. We must determine whether trade agreements will result in job losses or gains and in which sectors and industries.
    Second, I believe that it is important for our trade agreements to strengthen Canada's sovereignty. I have to emphasize this point. The free trade agreements that we sign must also strengthen our freedom to establish our own policies. These agreements must help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage. These agreements must support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.
    Third, especially in the case of Bill C-20 on the Honduras free trade agreement, all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights and prohibit the import, export or sale in Canada of any products manufactured in sweatshops by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.
    As I will explain later, it is impossible to meet these conditions with Bill C-20 and with our free trade agreement with Honduras.
    Fourth, all trade agreements must respect the notion of sustainable development, as well as the integrity of all ecosystems.
    Fifth, and finally, I believe that every time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to pass the enabling legislation must be submitted to a mandatory vote on whether or not the terms of the agreement are acceptable.
    I must point out that the NDP's position on free trade agreements is the polar opposite of the Conservative Party's position.
    At the committee meetings I attended, I noticed that the Conservatives were presenting a false dichotomy with respect to free trade. The Conservatives claim that we either have to commit to their free trade agreement or choose total isolation, both diplomatically and economically.


    The reality is completely different and much more complex.
    I would like to illustrate my point by sharing a quote from a meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. During this meeting we heard from a very important and well-informed witness, Bertha Oliva, the founder of the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras. Her husband, Tomás Nativí, disappeared in 1981. During the meeting, the parliamentary secretary said:
    Canada has a choice. In our own hemisphere we can either trade and engage nations—not just trading but helping build capacity—or we can choose isolation.
    This is an example of the Conservatives' false dichotomy.
    However, Bertha Oliva's response was particularly interesting. She said the following in response to the member for Durham:
     We are not proposing isolation for Honduras. We don't want that. We don't want Honduras to be isolated from Canada or from the world. What we are saying is that we want the governments of the world and the Government of Canada to monitor the situation more regularly—and not only monitor the situation but also engage, have debate, and go to people in the communities where there are companies that have violated their rights, for which we have proof. We have proof that they have committed human rights violations.
    Where those human rights violations have taken place and when Canadian companies are involved, we want there to be an attempt to repair the damage. There can be no claim that poverty and problems are being fought when, essentially, we have people who are ill, when there is no right to health care.
    Bertha Oliva opposed the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras, of course. She also told the committee:
    Those who want to invest in Honduras must know that the situation does not make it possible to guarantee your investments.
    Honduras does not have a stable legal system, and its governance system is unstable and undemocratic.
    Ms. Oliva also pointed out that the conditions are not in place to strengthen the people either—far from it, in fact. Communities therefore do what they can to intensify pressure since they are not consulted, which then leads to human rights violations.
    It is important to point out that, in her testimony, Bertha Oliva indicated that Hondurans cannot participate in democracy in a meaningful way and that they often do not have a say in decisions made by the government. She mentioned that there is a reigning state of terror in Honduras. Since the election, there have been murders among the political dissident community.
    As my colleagues have often mentioned in the House, Honduras is an unstable country, where over 600 women and over 30 journalists were murdered for political reasons. The consolidation of state power has given rise to an alarming phenomenon, and that is that most people are being persecuted through legal means. As Bertha Oliva said, it is impossible for people to exercise their right to disagree with what is going on in Honduras.
    Ms. Oliva's testimony is rather worrisome in and of itself, but many other witnesses also spoke out against this free trade agreement, including Pablo Heidrich, an economist at the North-South Institute. He said something that really struck me, which is that the economy of Honduras is smaller than that of the Ottawa-Gatineau region. One therefore has to wonder whether a free trade agreement with Honduras will really help the Canadian economy.
    We are also talking about a very limited market since there is a very marked income inequality in Honduras. Knowing that Honduras has a smaller economy than Ottawa-Gatineau, one cannot help but wonder why the Conservatives are in such a hurry to sign this free trade agreement.
    I look forward to my colleagues' questions.



    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her presentation. It is very important to highlight some of the problems with this agreement.
    One of the things that struck me earlier in the day, when the member for Winnipeg North was talking about Liberals and free trade, is that Honduras has the highest murder rate per capita on the face of the earth. It has vibrant drug trafficking centres. Again, it is probably one of the most reprehensible governments on the face of the earth.
    To my mind, as the critic for human rights for the official opposition, I cannot see justification for a free trade agreement with this nation. However, if we are going to construct a free trade agreement with any nation, part of the language within the terms of the free trade agreement should include labour rights and human rights.
    When I hear the member for Winnipeg North talking about the Liberal position, I have to ask, is he abandoning the long-held Pearsonism and Trudeauism, and all the values they proclaim to have had around international human rights? Because the last 75 years would have gone for naught.



    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's position in support of Bill C-20 and the free trade agreement with Honduras is similar to that of the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party and Liberal Party have very similar positions on free trade.
    The NDP is opposed to this bill because we think that we need to negotiate agreements with countries that respect human rights. We know that, in countries like Honduras, drug trafficking operates with near impunity, human rights are regularly abused and democracy is under threat. We need to negotiate free trade agreements with democratic countries where we can be sure that environmental and human rights standards will be upheld.
    Mr. Speaker, during this debate, it has become clear that we need to know about the benefits of a free trade agreement, not just for Canada, but also for the other country. In this case, there is some doubt about whether we are moving in the right direction. This is a country that does not respect human rights at all.
    The NDP wants to make sure that Canadians who know trade is important to our economy realize that we know it too. We are in favour of supporting Canadian exporters by opening up new markets.
    Can my colleague explain why our criteria are so important? They are essential to ensuring that we are signing a trade agreement that will be beneficial and successful not only for Canada but also for the other countries, particularly in terms of people and workers.
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
    The NDP has three important criteria that it assesses trade agreements against. First, the proposed partner must respect democracy, human rights and acceptable labour and environmental protection standards. I mentioned that in my speech. Honduras does not meet this criterion.
    Second, the proposed partner's economy must be of significant and strategic value to Canada. That is not the case here, because Honduras's economy is very small.
    Third, we have to look at whether the terms of the proposed agreement are acceptable. Once again, that is not the case with our free trade agreement with Honduras.


    Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. As a number of my colleagues have pointed out, New Democrats are opposed to this agreement, for a number of very good reasons.
    Others have mentioned it, but I want to reiterate the three pillars that we think are fundamentally important for Canadians when negotiating free trade agreements and the assessment of those agreements. First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in this regard, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? On this last point, the Canada-Honduras agreement is another example of an agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors, so Canadians did not have access to the full details of the agreement during that process.
    I am going to focus most of my speech on human rights. I have been in the House for almost 10 years and have had the opportunity to debate other free trade agreements, including, notably, the Colombia free trade agreement, where there were many human rights violations.
    One of my colleagues noted that one of the ways Canada could position itself is to make sure there are binding terms within a free trade agreement that talk about human rights and the consequences if human rights violations continue.
    We have attempted, a number of times in the House, to have a bill passed with regard to corporate social responsibility. The bill would hold Canadian companies to standards that we hold here in Canada, instead of finding extractive companies in particular doing business in other countries, where they violate all kinds of environmental, social, and human rights standards. That bill has never managed to get through the House.
     I want to note one particular person who provided testimony before committee because I am going to focus on the human rights aspect. Ms. Sheila Katz, a representative from the Americas Policy Group at the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said at the Standing Committee on International Trade, on April 22, 2013:
    The Americas Policy Group has recommended that Canada refrain from concluding free trade agreements with countries that have poor democratic governance and human rights records. [...]

...Canada's eager recognition of a president who came to power in a military coup in Honduras in 2009. This is another example of Canada prioritizing the trade pillar of its Americas strategy above the rest. Since the coup, hundreds of regime opponents have been intimidated, arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, tortured, and killed. The Americas Policy Group is concerned that Canada has validated this regime by adopting a business-as-usual approach and signing a free trade agreement with Honduras in spite of its human rights record.
    I am going to refer to a number of different articles with regard to the Honduran human rights record.
    In an article by IWGIA, in The Indigenous World 2010, there was a bit of background, and then it talked about some specifics with regard to human rights abuses in Honduras. It is important to note the number of indigenous people in Honduras and the land mass that we are talking about:
    Given the lack of an official census, it is estimated that the nine indigenous and Afro-descendant people living in Honduras number 1.27 million inhabitants.... The territory claimed by the indigenous peoples accounts for approximately 2 million hectares out of a total national land mass of 11.2 million. Only 10% have a guaranteed property title. Each of the peoples retains a degree of individuality, in line with their habits and customs, and this is reflected in their day-to-day practices in terms of, for example, their community councils. Honduras ratified ILO Convention 169 in September 1994. In 2007, it voted in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Apart from Convention 169, there is no case law to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.
    I think that is a very important point. The Honduran government is voting in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and yet in the negotiations on this free trade agreement, I wonder whether indigenous peoples in Honduras gave, as noted in Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “their free, prior and informed consent”.
    I am going to cite a number of cases where there are ongoing human rights abuses with regard to land.


    In Honduras, the indigenous peoples do not appear to have the same legal rights in terms of taking it to courts and being protected that way. In Canada, we know that the FIPA has been taken to court by a first nation from British Columbia and that is an example where even in Canada first nations say that Article 19 free, prior and informed consent, is not being respected by the Canadian government when negotiating trade agreements. In the same article it goes on to say:
    The indigenous peoples form one of the poorest sectors of society and their marginalisation means that they play no part in the formal economy. Their main source of income lies in maize, beans, coffee, fishing and in the sale of handicrafts.
    It went on to say, “When they provide labour to other productive sectors, they are paid around USD 5 for a 10-hour day”. That is pretty stark.
    In an article called “Human Rights Violations in Honduras: Land Seizures, Peasants' Repression and the Struggle for Democracy on the Ground” by Jeanette Bonifaz, a research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, she details a number of very serious concerns with regard to human rights. She says:
    In Honduras, arguably the most unequal country in Latin America, peasants are the victims of a glaring disparate land ownership structure. In 2009, when then-President Manuel Zelaya attempted to pass legislation that promised comprehensive land reform, he was ousted from power by a coup....
    It is the land reform that seems to be at the heart at much of the oppression of the indigenous people.
    She went on to say that:
    Since the coup, peasants have suffered from increased repression, with death squads threatening and assassinating hundreds of campesinos while palm oil and hydroelectric companies accumulate land by dispossession.... Tragically, there seems to be no end in sight for the repression of land and human rights in the Central American country.
    I do not have time in my brief 10 minutes to go through the numerous examples of persecution over land and agrarian reform that have taken place in Honduras and do not appear to be measurably better in this day and age. She goes through a period from the 1960s all the way up until present day. I want to cite something that happened in 2010.
    When Porfirio Lobo Sosa, a landowner, became the president of Honduras in 2010, the peasants began to protest and peacefully occupy lands, which only brought more state-sponsored repression against them. As a report from the Canadian Council for International Cooperation points out, “…the coup has provided the context for rolling back important gains in the peaceful and legal resolution of conflicts between peasant groups and powerful landed business interests over access to land titles.”
    In her concluding remarks, she said:
    Without comprehensive land reform that protects the rights of Indigenous peoples and abides by the ILO Convention 169, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, as well as other crucial national and international agreements and laws, forced displacements and violence will continue to occur in Honduras. In addition, the judicial system needs to be revised, and proper investigations in the case of human rights violations need to take place. As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights asserts, “the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat impunity, since it fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives.”
    She does cite a specific example of a hydro-electric dam that fuels violence. There has been a long-standing community protest. In fact, I come back to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People on free, prior, and informed consent. The community spoke overwhelmingly against this hydro-electric dam. Instead what happened is the government awarded 47 hydro-electric dam concessions to companies without prior consultation. Once the community spoke up and started to protest, we saw the repression start.
    Why is it that our Canadian government, which supposedly supports human rights, would engage in a free trade agreement where the human rights violations are so egregious? I have to ask why.


    Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree more with my hon. colleague on the fact that this is a government that is not concerned about the well-being of those in other countries.
    Let us look at the types of free trade agreements the government is trying to put in place with a country that has one of the world's worst records when it comes to human rights, corruption, and transparency. It is not only with respect to a select few, it is even with respect to some of the politicians, some of the police, some of the business people.
    Why is it that we are actually debating an issue that should be so clear to all of us. We should not be doing free trade agreements with countries such as this one.
    Could the member explain her concern with respect to our export performance under the Conservative government's rule?


    Mr. Speaker, in my very brief time, I am going to come back to the human rights piece before I deal with export. I want to quote Francisco Sanchez.
    He is talking about:
    Rio Blanco is the site of a five-month blockade seeking to prevent construction of the World Bank-funded Agua Zarca Hydroelectric Project....would bury many sacred Lenca ceremonial sites and thousands of acres of fertile agricultural land. Local people also claim that the government is concealing a shadow project to construct a gold mine at the same time, which would use the water from the dam and electricity generated by the dam....
    This is if it should it be built.
    Francisco says:
    If this project goes forward, it will ruin our river, poison the fish, and drown our forests. And what for? If we give up our lands, we’ll still have to pay for electricity like everyone else.
    In terms of the opening comments of member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing around the human rights piece, again I wonder why the government would engage with a government that has such a track record. I really hope there will be an opportunity for it to revisit the human rights record before this agreement is passed.
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to pound themselves on their chests and say that they are the religious right in this country and they are the party of law enforcement, and yet they want to sign this deal with a corrupt government that has absolutely no passion for human rights, that deliberately goes out and gets people murdered, that jails people, that does everything it can to suppress anybody who opposes it.
    Could the hon. member tell us what the Conservatives are thinking about when they want to sign this trade deal with this corrupt government?
    Mr. Speaker, I am not going to even begin to try to speak on behalf of Conservatives. I do wonder how they could possibly enter into a trade agreement. The member of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing talked about exports. Of course Honduras is 104th in terms of priority for Canada.
    Back to the human rights abuses, what we have here is killing, arbitrary detention of thousands of people, severe restrictions on public demonstration, protests and freedom of expression, and interference in the independence of the judiciary. These are all well established by non-government organizations. Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and any number of organizations are documenting the human rights abuses in Honduras on an ongoing basis. They are well documented. The fact that there is not an independent judiciary, that people cannot get a fair trial, is well documented.
    Why does the Conservative government want to support that kind of regime? It is giving tacit approval to the regime by negotiating these kinds of trade agreements.
    I am hopeful, ever optimistic in this House, that perhaps people will take a step back and assess whether or not this is good for Canada on the international stage in terms of our reputation with regard to human rights.
    Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is so crucially important here is an understanding of the why, for a trade agreement of this nature. Last summer, as critic for international human rights for the official opposition, I received five delegations of indigenous people from Honduras, Colombia, the Philippines, and Mexico. All of them had generally the same story. That story went along the lines of the following: Canadian mining exploration companies came to their country and shortly thereafter their government started crowding them off their land. No one is suggesting that the Canadian companies have asked them to do this. However, I have told this story in the House before. It is the story of King Henry II and Thomas Becket, when in a drunken rage King Henry said, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome monk?” and two of his knights went out and murdered Thomas Becket. It is somewhat like that. There is an interest that wants to explore for materials and set up extractive companies in these countries. It is facilitated. The government uses its army, or in some countries goes so far as to use its death squads, to remove people. The indigenous people who stand up for their lands are often murdered or disappear.
    I have a quote that kind of speaks to this. It says, “...the best way to improve things is by engagement not by isolation”. That was from James Bannantine from Aurora Minerals, I presume an extractive company. That was from testimony received at committee.
    Sometimes people will say the trickle-down effect of trade is to improve human rights. There is a false dichotomy out there, presented by the Conservatives at times like this. It is either have free trade or complete isolation with that country. There is a very different reality that allows for people to go to these countries. Witnesses who came to committee on the free trade agreement spoke to having Canada engage with Honduras, but they want that engagement to focus on building institutional, judicial, and democratic capacity. Honduras is a country that has had a government overthrown by coup. It is very clear the military in charge is functioning with almost complete impunity. Normally that occurs when the judicial and other systems are not in place to offer protection to people. Thus it is not held accountable in any form.
    From the standpoint of the New Democratic Party, and the members on the other side like to tout the fact we have opposed many of the free trade agreements before the House, there is criteria we look to. Is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values?
    We had a corporate social responsibility bill put before the House, I believe prior to the 2008 election. Sadly, that bill, which would have required Canadian extractive companies functioning in other countries to function in terms of Canada's laws in that country, even if the other country is a failed state that does not have the laws and regulations that Canada does. That bill failed in the House by 12 votes. It just so happens that was one of the many times the Liberal Party chose to leave 15 members out of the House. I have no problem with people standing up in this place and saying what they believe, but I am very disappointed that they chose to abdicate their responsibilities at that time.
    Another consideration that we have is whether the proposed partner's economy is of significance or strategic value to Canada. We have heard from other speakers that in this particular instance, in trading terms, our relationship is 104th. That does not sound like it is critical to us. Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? We believe this particular agreement fails that test. It fails it in many ways.


    Over and over we hear the same stories. Honduras is a corrupt country with undemocratic practices, weak institutions and low standards. In terms of strategic value to us, it is not there. We add to that the record of human rights abuses, the murders, the torture and the disappearances.
    We understand that trade is necessary to our economy. We favour expanded trade opportunities for our country and we want to support our exporters as well, but we do not want to sacrifice, or be seen to sacrifice, the values of our country in order to reach those agreements.
    If we asked average Canadians what they thought of Canada, one of the first things they would talk about would be how they value our view of international human rights. In truth, I suspect many of them have little idea that at this point, Canada's reputation for the last 75 years has been pretty well lost in the world we have today. I am fumbling a little for words, because it is that serious.
    I was shocked earlier today when I heard members of the Liberal Party say that they would support the free trade agreement with this corrupt regime. As a young person, I listened very closely to Mr. Pearson when he talked about rights. I also listened to Mr. Trudeau, when he was prime minister of our country, talked about rights. When I hear today that the Liberals favour trade with China, which has a terrible human rights record, and favour this trade agreement and will vote for it, they have abandoned those principles with which many of us, at one point in time, thought they were on the right track as a political party. I did not say I had reached the point of voting for that political party, I want to make that straight, but there were aspects of the structure of the Liberal Party of Canada at that time which I respected.
    Honduras is a really poor country. It has that history of repression and undemocratic practices. When the regime was toppled in 2009, the following government actions were well criticized by international observers during the election. They said that it failed to meet the standards of the international community when it came to elections. There was a coup staged by the Honduran army under the pretext of a constitutional crisis. Where have we heard that kind of thing before? From failed nations around the world, whenever the government chooses to take over. If we look at Egypt today, whether people like or dislike the elected president of Egypt, he was deposed. He was elected democratically and deposed by a military coup. Where do we go when we start sanctioning those kinds of things?
    I will put aside my notes for a few minutes, because it is so important to look at this, not in terms of trade but in terms of human rights and the fact that governments in many parts of the world are military in nature, dictatorships, where they function with impunity, an impunity that allows them to murder, pillage and to force people off their lands and to do it in the name of dollars.
    We need to understand that the only way to change this is to realize that we have to fortify the institutions in that country, help lead them on the path to judicial reform and to democracy. Until we take care of the democracy, the trade we have with that country, to some extent, would be practically shameful. Thus, I am pretty clear that I cannot even begin to think of supporting this agreement.


    Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very heady comment during his remarks, and that was that Canada had lost its world reputation. We are one of the only countries that stands for unequivocal equality and rights for people around the world, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. We stand for rights for democracy, and we have taken strong stances on Ukraine and Israel. We have one of the best track records in terms of helping other countries, such as the maternal and child health initiative that was put forward last week, with over $3 billion for aid in this incredibly important area.
    Yes, we are a trade-focused nation because we know that when we help empower the economy of a country, the people who live there can have the same level of prosperity and freedom that we experience in our country, because their futures are in their hands. Trade helps countries, and we help countries. I think about the $1.2 billion we have committed to helping climate change adaptation.
    How can my colleague stand here in good conscience and defame our country when all that the House has done is stand for the rights and long-term prosperity of our country on the world stage?


    Mr. Speaker, in no case, at no time would I ever defame Canada, but Canada's reputation in the world has been sullied by the current government that has put into place free trade agreements with countries with shameful human rights records, where they murder, pillage and force people off their land.
    Yes, the government has done some good things in the world, there is no doubt about that, but it is signing agreements with Honduras and Colombia, drug and murder capitals of the world. If we start lining up what the positives have been and what the negatives are, the reality is that people in other nations see that as shameful, and they have told us that.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the proud Trudeau legacy, which we appreciate on this side of the House. He has said that Liberals today are betraying that legacy, but, if I recall, it was the Trudeau government that first recognized China diplomatically, and, in fact, the United States followed suit afterward.
    Does the hon. member think it was a mistake to diplomatically recognize China or, according to his logic, should we have kept the doors shut to a relationship with that country?
    Mr. Speaker, yes, opening the doors diplomatically is different than signing free trade agreements with countries. When we open a door diplomatically, part of our responsibility is to identify to that nation its shortcomings and offer assistance in capacity building around its judicial system and democracy.
     However, from my perspective, when I hear the Liberal Party is prepared to support a free trade agreement with one the most horrendous human rights violators on the face of the earth, I am struck and troubled by it.
    Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has been the spokesperson for human rights for our party for a very long time and I congratulate him on that because he is doing an excellent job.
    I was astounded by the comments of the parliamentary secretary toward the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Members of the Conservative Party like to call themselves Christians. They have prayer meetings and invite members to prayer breakfasts all the time, and yet they want to sign a trade agreement with a country that regularly kills people for speaking out or jails them. People disappear all the time in Honduras. Now the Liberals are supporting that.
    Would the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek comment on both the Conservatives and the Liberals?
    Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to comment on the religious values of any other person or party. That is private to them.
    However, both of those parties are setting themselves up with the Honduran government. After having heard a number of comments today in this place about the failure of that country's human rights record, I find it very disappointing.
    I have heard a lot today about Conservative economics and the kind of growth that we have experienced. However, despite the rhetoric from across the aisle, I want to point out that the Conservatives did inherit an account surplus of $18 billion. However, in the eight years that they have been in government, the current account deficit sits at $62 billion, a negative swing of $80 billion and an average decline of $10 billion a year.
     In the last two years, we have experienced 23 months of merchandise trade deficits. Under the current government, so-called a good economic manager but not, we have seen an increase in the percentage of raw or barely processed exports, reducing the importance of value-added exports. There seems to be a rush to give away our valuable natural resources, without growing the decent paying jobs in Canada.
     The Conservatives seem to be in a hurry to sign a free trade agreement with Honduras. Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to free trade agreements, but we need to look at some criteria or some filters that we, as Canadians, should use when we look at free trade.
     One of those filters is looking at the people with whom we going to sign these agreements, ones who respect democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards and Canadian values. If there are challenges in those areas, are the Conservatives just ignoring those issues or are they actually working on moving them in the right direction? We do not have evidence of that from Honduras.
    Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? This shocked me as well, 1%.
    Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? We would say not.
    There are numerous reasons, and one that we really do have to look at is the kind of state, the kind of things we know about Honduras.
    In my other life as a teacher involved in international projects through the teachers' organization and CoDevelopment Canada, I had the privilege of visiting many of the countries in Central and South America, and participated in conferences and workshops. One thing about Honduras is that it is not a safe country in which to be a teacher, a journalist or to speak out against the current regime. In 2013 alone, there was an average of 10 massacres per month. We are not talking about a massacre each year. We are talking about 10 massacres each month. InSight Crime defined “massacre” as being when three or more people were murdered at one time. Just looking at the number of massacres alone, since 2010, there are been 200 politically motivated killings.
     Honduras is regarded widely, not just by those who are speaking against this, as one of the most dangerous places for journalists. According to the 2014 report by PEN International, at least 34 journalists have been killed since the coup, and there is almost complete impunity for perpetrators.


    When we look at the kind of instability that exists in Honduras and the commentary by the international community, I am surprised that my colleagues across the way are in such a hurry to sign this agreement. It almost seems that they feel that as soon as they sign an agreement, they have addressed trade and improved it.
    We have to look at the reality of what we have seen. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster painted a picture earlier of how the past three trade agreements in the countries he highlighted neither led to improvements in human rights nor added anything to our trade in a significant way.
    Here is a quote from Stacey Gomez, coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation's Americas Policy Group:
    We have long maintained that under the right conditions, trade can generate growth and support the realization of human rights. These conditions simply do not exist in Honduras.... [U]ntil there is a verifiable improvement in the country’s democratic governance and human rights situation...the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good.
    Every colleague in the House, those sitting across the way and those sitting at the far end on this side, needs to pay attention to that one line: “the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good”.
    I can go on to a quote from the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras. In my other life, I had the opportunity to sit in a circle with some of the families of the disappeared. I can tell members that it is very moving. It is very emotional. It brings home to us the kinds of horrors people live with in Honduras.
    Here is a quote from them:
    One of the main concerns in Honduras is the consistent trend of killings, physical attacks and threats against human rights defenders—including: Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant and peasant leaders, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) activists, lawyers and journalists. All these attacks are carried out with almost total impunity.
    We do not have any evidence either from the United Nations or any of the other agencies that the government in Honduras is even trying to address many of these issues, never mind making any significant improvement.
     It behooves us as Canadians, when we jump into bed, so to speak, and start signing agreements and putting Canada's name on a document, to do some research and be careful of what it is we could endanger.
    What is it that we want? This is only my first term as a sitting member of Parliament, and I can remember voting for a free trade agreement. It is rather disingenuous of my colleagues across the way and at the far end to keep saying over and over again that the NDP will never, ever vote for a free trade agreement. We support free trade, but bring us an agreement that meets the very basic criteria I articulated earlier, and they will see a rush of us trying to vote.
    New Democrats want to reassure all Canadians, including my colleagues across the way, that we recognize the importance of trade. We recognize that in a global market today, trading has to take place, and it should benefit Canadians. However, we cannot just wear a blindfold, keep signing agreements, and ignore the situation of the working people and the journalists and the human rights violations that are taking place in those countries.
    Sometimes I think the government is almost too scared to debate some of the free trade agreements it is negotiating in secret. It never wants to bring those kinds of details in. It then throws in a free trade agreement that does not even sound real.


    We are looking at Honduras, a country where drug trafficking operates with near impunity, where human rights are regularly abused, where democracy is under threat, and where low standards would hurt Canadian businesses. I do not see how this free trade agreement would benefit either Canadians or people living in Honduras. What it will do if we sign it is give legitimacy to the very activities we should be condemning that are taking place in Honduras at this time.
    Mr. Speaker, the member seemed to give the impression that the NDP supports free trade, yet as I pointed out earlier, the NDP have never stood inside the House of Commons and voted in favour of a free trade agreement.
    Can the member indicate what free trade agreement every member of her caucus stood and voted in favour of? I cannot recall the NDP voting in favour of free trade. Like previous free trade agreements, I can appreciate that they do not support this one. My challenge to her and others who might decide to stand in their place today is to clearly indicate to Canadians what free trade agreement they voted in favour of, not when they said they would support the agreement but when they actually stood in their place and voted for it.


    Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague in the third party at the far end of this House would sometimes do some analysis and say, “Let us take a look at what we're actually voting on”, instead of always supporting things my colleagues across the aisle are moving.
     What we are voting on today is a free trade agreement with a country that has the highest murder rate, with 10 massacres a month, very high drug trafficking, and human rights violations.
     It is with great pride that I stand up here and say that we supported the free trade agreement with Jordan, and I stood in this House and voted for it.
    Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. member's comments on this free trade agreement. I have had the opportunity to travel to Honduras in the past. There is a great charity that works out of Peterborough called Friends of Honduran Children. It started over a decade ago, making investments in schools, providing medications to young mothers and families, and assisting with nutrition. It is generating genuinely good results in Honduras. They are not perfect results.
     When I listen to the hon. member, I hear her talking about throwing out something that is good in search of something that is perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect deal. What I would ask this member is this: why would she prefer to throw out the good in search of the perfect? We may not get there, but we can certainly help Honduras.
    Mr. Speaker, having done some work in Central America myself, including Honduras, I would remind my colleague that it is his government that has changed the criteria for international development. It is his government that has made cuts to CoDevelopment Canada, another project that was helping with sustainable development and helping Hondurans tackle some of their major issues. This kind of trade agreement is not going to help the Honduran people or take care of the gross human rights violations and the killings that occur there.
    Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that my colleague understands this file. What we want for ourselves we want for others. What we want in that country is to have workers who have good working relationships and who are not afraid to go to work and wonder if they will come home to their families because they might be murdered. That is exactly what is happening in that country. Even the journalists are not making it home, because they are not able to have free speech and the government does not want anyone to know what is really going on. However, we know.
    Perhaps my colleague could reiterate the importance of not signing this trade deal and why it is wrong to have the current government and the Liberals supporting a trade deal that allows people to be murdered.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is not a good deal for Canadians. Whether one talks to teachers, journalists, people from minority groups, or anyone who has an opinion different from the current regime, they will tell us that they live in fear and that this kind of treaty is not going to help them.
     Let us get into international development that would actually support and build a grassroots movement that would give people confidence to speak out against human rights violations.


[Statements by Members]



52nd Mississauga Scouts

    Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to acknowledge the young people from the 52nd Mississauga Scouts in my riding.
    On May 10, as in previous years, I joined this wonderful group of young people at Silver Creek Public School for their ninth annual food drive. We went through the Mississauga valley neighbourhood collecting food donations to help the Mississauga Food Bank for the summer season, when donations are lowest.
    I am very proud to announce that about 4,200 pounds of food donations were collected for the Mississauga Food Bank that day.
    I would like to thank the residents of Mississauga East—Cooksville who provided the donations, and congratulate Mr. David Chant, the cub pack leader, and his team, for organizing the food drive. Congratulations to the wonderful young people of the 52nd Mississauga Scouts for their enthusiasm, dedication, and hard work to help those in need. They are truly a shining example of the Scouts' principle of “duty to others”.

Dragon Boat Festivals

    Mr. Speaker, dragon boat races date back more than 2,000 years, around the same time that the Greeks began competing in games called the Olympics.
    From the beautifully designed and decorated boats to the pounding of the drum keeping everyone in time, dragon boat racing and the ceremonies around it are steeped in tradition and cultural significance, while also seizing the imagination and excitement of many Canadians from diverse backgrounds.
    This summer, we will see dragon boat festivals taking place across the country, in Victoria, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Welland, Windsor, Edmonton, Peterborough, and many more, with the largest festival in North America happening in Vancouver.
    I was lucky enough to race with the Toronto Chinese Business Association's youth team for two years in a row, in the Toronto International Dragon Boat Festival. From the humble beginning of only 27 teams participating in the first festival back in 1989, the Toronto festival has evolved to a much bigger operation over the past two decades. I know that the Toronto festival will continue to be one of the most exciting summer events in Toronto, for the twenty-sixth year in a row.
    On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to wish the tens of thousands of participants, and the thousands more who will come to cheer on the racers, a happy dragon boat festival season across the country.

Art Exhibit

    Mr. Speaker, people of good conscience everywhere are outraged. Currently on display at the Ottawa City Hall is an exhibit glorifying individuals who have murdered innocent Jews.
    This exhibit, masquerading as artwork, is called “Target”, comprising projects of what the artist calls “assassinated Palestinian figures”.
    Let us look at these assassinated Palestinian figures. The first is Abu Iyad, the founder of the Black September terrorist organization. This group was responsible for the cold-blooded murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. The second is Dalal Mughrabi, who, in 1978, participated in the hijacking of a bus in Israel, murdering 38 people, many of whom were children. There are also five other individuals portrayed in this exhibit associated with terrorism.
    Despite pleas from the Jewish Federation of Ottawa to remove this heinous display, the City of Ottawa refuses, citing that it might violate the artist's charter rights. What about the rights of the families of the murdered? Do they not have rights?
    I demand that the City of Ottawa take immediate action to remove this display of hate now.

Mehdi Ali Qamar

    Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my deepest sorrow at the death of Canadian doctor Mehdi Ali Qamar, who was killed in Pakistan on May 26. We believe that his murder was the result of being a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Canada community. Ahmadis have long been persecuted and discriminated against by extremist groups in Pakistan.
    We truly hope that the Pakistani government takes swift action to stop this senseless violence.
    People have the right to freely practise the religion of their choice, and these actions are a clear violation of that right. It is horrific to think that someone can be gunned down in front of their family simply because of their religious beliefs. We cannot tolerate actions such as these.
    Canadians call upon the Pakistani government to ensure freedom of worship.
    I would like to extend my condolences on behalf of all of us to the family members of Dr. Mehdi at their time of mourning.


Lyme Disease

    Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to second Bill C-422 in this House, introduced by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. With potential amendments, it is receiving wide support from both sides of this House.
    The bill would expand the Public Health Agency of Canada's role against Lyme disease through greater surveillance, prevention, control, research, education, and awareness.
    Lyme disease is an emerging and debilitating disease in Canada. It is transmitted by ticks, and is now a risk in my riding of Oakville, and the GTA.
    Canadians should be alerted that many victims go untreated owing to misdiagnosis, as the symptoms are similar to multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, colitis, Crohn's disease, Alzheimer's, and chronic fatigue syndrome.
    Anyone hiking in tall grass or brush in parts of Canada could be bitten by a tick and end up with a severe ongoing disability.
    However, with early diagnosis, Lyme disease can be successfully treated with antibiotics. Canadian patients should know that the most reliable test for Lyme disease, the western blot test, is not available in Ontario and other parts of Canada, but some naturopathic doctors will provide it through laboratories in the U.S.


Support for Small Businesses

    Mr. Speaker, last night Josée Lemelin, a proud supporter of the Chicago Blackhawks, sadly watched her favourite team get eliminated by the Los Angeles Kings.
    Her company, Passion Sport Logo, which has been located in the heart of Limoilou for 24 years, proudly produces a very high-quality logo for hockey players in the windy city, as I saw on May 22.
    However, she is facing stiff, unfair competition that has forced her to reduce her staff from approximately 20 full-time employees to two or three part-timers, a sad reality that we are seeing all too often in Canada. Ms. Lemelin will continue with her small business, trying to make an honest living and get a fair price for her product.
    That is why I, as an NDP MP, am reaffirming my commitment to build a fair society where starting a business, having a job or retiring will no longer have the potential to lead people down a path of poverty and uncertainty.
    Our small businesses deserve better. I wish Josée Lemelin and her business all the best.


Trinity Western University

    Mr. Speaker, in 1981, Canada enacted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees religious freedoms in strong terms. It means we cannot deny a job to a qualified applicant because we do not agree with their religious beliefs, as the Ontario law society recently did to graduates of Trinity Western University.
    If lawyers pass the bar exam and have had a thorough legal education, it is beyond belief that they would be excluded from legal practice because of the religious beliefs of their school about marriage.
    If anti-religious ideologues have led the Ontario law society to adopt such an extreme discriminatory measure, it is time for progressive-minded rights advocates to speak out loudly.
    Such tyranny never stops with a single victim. This is not just a Trinity Western University issue, not just a law society issue; it is not even just a Christian minority issue. It is an issue for anyone who advocates for freedom from tyranny.

Father's Day

    Mr. Speaker, as Father's Day approaches, I would like to speak about my dad, Ernie Zimmer.
    He was born to two immigrant parents who homesteaded in Roblin, Manitoba. He worked hard on the farm before moving to Dawson Creek, B.C., where he became a carpenter and met my mom and they were married.
    My dad taught us, through his words and actions, that being a Christian meant living those values with integrity, humility, and sincerity. He taught my brother and me that God was number one, to work hard, be humble, be honest, and speak up for what is right.
    I still remember that once I did not want to attend a meeting, as I knew I would have to stand up for what I believed. He said in his calm principled way, “Evil triumphs when good men stay silent”, so I went to the meeting.
    I can still find my dear old dad at the local Tim Hortons having a coffee between working on cabinet projects. He is known as a reserved but friendly gentleman who is always willing to share a table and a conversation.
    I admire my dad, more than he knows, for all that he has done for us and for being my example of what an earthly father should be.
    I love you, Dad. Happy Father's Day.

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, Canada could be leading the fight against climate change, but instead we have become an international embarrassment. Beyond just muzzling our scientists, last week it was revealed that the government was even muzzling weather forecasters at Environment Canada by not allowing them to discuss climate change in public.
    The Conservatives have systematically undermined scientific freedoms, defunded basic research capacity, dismantled the National Research Council, and gutted environmental assessment.
    The Conservatives think that if we do not talk about climate change and measure its effects, maybe it will go away. Canadians know better. They, know that climate change is happening and that the Conservatives climate change denial will not help Canada transition to renewable energies.
    That is why New Democrats are working to legislate science-based emission standards. We have a plan to transition to a lower-carbon economy that includes smart investment in Canada's clean energy sector and developing our natural resources more sustainably.
    It is time to take action on climate change.


Canadian Forces

    Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn about the shameful comments made by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin regarding the men and women who serve our country.
    Our Canadian men and women go to war in the defence of freedom, taking the fight against terrorism overseas to Afghanistan and many other countries.
    That NDP MP thinks not. Here is what the member said:
    One day we will have to face that fact. Just because the Americans go to war does not mean we have to be idiots and join them...”
    I call on that senior NDP MP to immediately retract and apologize for this reprehensible comment. If not, I ask how long it will be until the leader of the NDP takes action and denounces this inexcusable behaviour.

Class of 2014

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud teacher and parliamentarian.
    One of the biggest highlights for me as a member of Parliament is visiting schools throughout the year and meeting so many bright, innovative, and capable kids.
     This time of year is my favourite. The grass is green, the sun is warm, and school is almost out for the summer. With the end of the school year come graduation ceremonies.
    Over the last few weeks, I have had the privilege of watching graduating students at Princess Margaret Secondary School and Panorama Ridge Secondary School collect their high school diplomas. On Friday, I attended commencement at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and next week I will do the same at SFU.
    What accomplished young men and women we have in Newton—North Delta. I am delighted by their potential.
    To all students graduating this year, to the teachers who inspire them, and to the family members who support them every step of the way, I say a heartfelt congratulations and best of luck.

Canadian Environment Week

    Mr. Speaker, this week is Canadian Environment Week.
    While the international media seem focused on President Obama's global warming address, Canadians should take stock and be proud of our environmental record. Canada represents just 2% of global emissions, while the U.S. produces almost 20%.
    We introduced strict regulations on the electricity sector two years ago that are expected to reduce emissions in this sector by close to 46% by 2030. The U.S. proposed rules that are expected to achieve a 30% reduction. Canada's per capita greenhouse emissions are now at their lowest level since tracking began in 1990. Our country is known as a clean energy superpower, and we have one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world.
    We are pleased that the U.S. is following Canada's footsteps, and we will continue to build on our record and work with the U.S. to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions internationally.

Canadian Armed Forces Day

    Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Canadian Forces, it is with pride that I recognize Canadian Armed Forces Day.
    I would like to take this opportunity to recognize our men and women who make up our Canadian Armed Forces. The dedication to our country and the many sacrifices made by our past and current members have contributed to shaping our country into what it is today.
    When we think about freedom, democracy, and the many other glorifying words that best describe our country, we cannot help but thank those who have made it all possible.
    In recent times we think of our efforts in Afghanistan and our emergency relief efforts last year in the Philippines. Canada's contributions to past conflicts have been immeasurable, and we are a grateful nation that respects our forces and the role they have played in our history.
    At times of peace, conflict, or local emergencies, our men and women with their respective families are there for us and serve with pride.
    On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I would like to acknowledge the past and present members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families, and to say thank you.


International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP continues to display its true colours when it comes to free trade.
    Canadians know that the NDP is anti-trade. Its members have never stood in the House and voted for any FTA. Now the NDP is trying to delay our ambitious trade agenda by attempting to delete every single clause in the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.
    It comes as no surprise that the NDP House leader would try these delay tactics. He said in the House that free trade has cost Canadians, clearly.

    On this side of the House, we will not let the NDP stand in the way of economic growth. Conservatives know that by pursuing free and open trade, we create the economic opportunities that Canadian companies need to grow and succeed. This, in turn, creates jobs for Canadians here at home.



    Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives promised to create jobs, they meant to say that soon the courts would not have enough staff to deal with all the Conservative crooks that get caught red-handed. According to our sources, the Minister of Employment is even considering creating a temporary foreign workers program especially for their lawyers.
    Michael Sona was nothing more than a pawn in the Conservatives' grand robocall electoral fraud. Bruce Carson was hired to advise the Prime Minister despite Mr. Carson's notorious past. The case of Patrick Brazeau speaks for itself, and I have not even gotten into the ongoing investigations into senators like Mike Duffy, who spent like crazy.
    Those close to power and friends of the party who have yet to be targeted by the RCMP are glad to be enjoying their semi-retirement in the Senate. Former Conservative MPs publicly admit that they prefer their new lifestyle as senators. Now that they are working only three days a week, they have all kinds of free time.
    The Conservatives can divide their time between the schemes and the boondoggles. The NDP is going to get ready to form an honest and hard-working government in 2015.


Memorial to Victims of Communism

    Mr. Speaker, in the 2010 Speech from the Throne, our government signalled clear support for a memorial to those who have suffered under Communism. Canada is and will always be a home for those fleeing Communist governments for a better life. This was best said Friday, when the Prime Minister made resonating remarks in Toronto. He stated:
...instead of Communism’s oppression, they found Canadian safety.

Instead of Communism’s restrictions, they found Canadian freedom.

Instead of Communism’s grim determinism, they found Canadian opportunity.

Instead of Communism’s fear, they found Canadian hope.
    The struggle of people from around the world—from Poland, from Ukraine, from Cuba, from Venezuela, and from other countries—has produced new Canadians who truly appreciate our freedom. This memorial will remind generations of Canadians that the freedom, peace, and democracy we have and work for hard at home is still a hard-fought battle around the world.


[Oral Questions]



    Mr. Speaker, just six months ago a Canadian woman from Toronto named Ellen Richardson was denied entry into the United States because she had been treated for clinical depression. It was the Prime Minister's candidate for privacy commissioner who negotiated Canada's agreement for sharing this kind of highly personal data with the U.S. government.
    Does the Prime Minister understand why Canadians find it more than a little bit creepy that the Prime Minister wants to name this guy to protect their privacy?
    Mr. Speaker, the individual in question is a non-partisan public servant of some 30 years' experience and an expert in his field. He comes highly recommended. We are convinced he will do a good job, but obviously we will let Parliament examine this.


    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister nominated a new privacy commissioner who helped design extremely objectionable government programs to monitor and collect data on Canadians and their personal lives.
    As a result, our privacy commissioner would be a watchdog over programs that he himself helped create and that allow the government to spy on Canadians without a warrant.
    Can the Prime Minister understand that this is an obvious conflict of interest?
    Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP leader thinks that everything is a plot, but the candidate for this position is a public servant with 30 years of experience and an expert in his field. He comes highly recommended.
    Mr. Speaker, apparently the only people who do not see that this is an obvious conflict of interest are the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Party.
    The code of ethics of the Barreau du Québec indicates that to avoid conflicts of interest, lawyers must “take such reasonable measures as are required to ensure that confidential information or documents pertaining to the file are not revealed”.
    However, the Prime Minister's candidate was the government's lawyer in this case. He is party to confidential information on his government's major spying programs.
    How can the privacy commissioner do his work if he is involved in all of these files? It is a conflict of interest.


    Mr. Speaker, the individual in question has worked on many files for the federal government for 30 years. He is recognized as an expert and he is quite capable of testifying about his expertise before the committee.


    Mr. Speaker, Colonel Sanders is a nice guy too, but one would not put him in charge of the henhouse.
    It is the Privacy Commissioner's job to ask the government for details of its surveillance and data-gathering programs and determine whether those programs violate the private lives of Canadians. However, this commissioner would have the legal obligation under his code of ethics to conceal information even from his own staff about spying programs he helped create, because he was acting as the attorney for the government at the time.
    Are the Prime Minister and his pal, the Liberal Party leader, really the only two people in Canada who do not understand this obvious conflict of interest?
    Mr. Speaker, once again, we know well, and see a demonstration again today, of the highly ideological, conspiracy-based theories of the NDP leader.
    As I said, the individual in question is an expert in this field. He has spent 30 years as a distinguished public servant. He is fully able to understand both his role in the past as a public servant and his future role as privacy commissioner and would execute his responsibilities accordingly, and he will be able to explain that before committee.


    Mr. Speaker, the highly personal medical data of people like Ellen Richardson were shared with the American government through the program this man put in place.
    Ms. Richardson was at the airport and was headed on a cruise. A second later, an American border guard denied her access after reading her medical record, which was provided by the Government of Canada.
    Does the Prime Minister realize that this is a serious violation of Canadians' privacy? Does he understand that Canadians are worried about this individual's appointment?
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP believes that someone who worked for the federal government is incapable of being privacy commissioner. That ideological position is ridiculous. Mr. Therrien is an expert. He is quite capable of explaining his expertise to the committee.



    Mr. Speaker, last week the employment minister expressed “limited interest” when Alberta's labour minister proposed that his province monitor the temporary foreign worker program to make sure that such workers were not being abused.
    Since the government is doing nothing at the federal level, with zero employers blacklisted for employee abuse, why does the Prime Minister not gleefully accept such offers from Alberta and other provinces in their own areas of jurisdiction? Does he not care about worker abuse?
    Mr. Speaker, of course there are responsibilities in this regard for both levels of government, but once again, the position of the Liberal Party on this matter is completely bizarre. When the government brought in reforms precisely to ensure compliance and create employer blacklists, the Liberal Party opposed those measures.
    We know the Liberal Party has a very different philosophy. It sought the long-term expansion of this program. Under the reforms that we brought in, the numbers have been coming down and will continue to come down in the future.
    Mr. Speaker, as usual, that is a total manufacturing of history on the Liberal Party.
    The Prime Minister can talk all he wants about new powers and jail time under the temporary foreign worker program, but none of this matters if he does not use any of these powers. Since not one employer is on his blacklist for employer abuse, I repeat, not one, no one is risking a penny in fines or a day in jail.
    Will he finally do something serious and accept last week's Liberal motion on true enforcement of this program?


    Mr. Speaker, in a number of well-known cases, the government has taken the force of an action and, as we know, has imposed a moratorium on a portion of the program pending further action.
    However, once again, on one day the Liberal Party is demanding that fewer numbers be admitted under the program and on the next day Liberal members of Parliament are going to the minister of employment demanding that he overturn decisions and admit more temporary foreign workers.
    Our position is clear. We are committed to making sure that if Canadians are available, Canadians always get the available jobs.



    Mr. Speaker, over 40,000 families and individuals are on the waiting list for affordable housing in Quebec. Subsidies available through federal agreements on social housing are coming to an end, and the future of one-third of these units is uncertain.
    The Liberal Party of Canada is committed to ensuring that our communities receive predictable, stable long-term funding. Can the government say the same?
    Will the government commit to coming up with a long-term housing plan together with the municipalities and the Government of Quebec?


    Mr. Speaker, in typical Liberal fashion, the member has forgotten what his party did. Liberals actually ended the agreements on social housing back in the 1990s.
    What we have done in response is renew our investment in affordable housing right across the country. We also have done something to address the issue of homelessness. The Liberals do not like the idea of Housing First, which is an evidence-based proven model. That member has spoken out against evidence-based initiatives to help those who are homeless and those who are struggling with affordable housing.
    We will not follow the Liberal example when it comes to helping individuals with housing.

International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, there are reports from Brussels today that the Canada-Europe trade talks have stalled yet again. One official said, “It was announce a deal. There is a sense of embarrassment in many quarters”.
    An embarrassment. Is the Prime Minister the least bit embarrassed that he has botched a trade deal with the world's largest economy?
    Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question from a party that does not even know whether it supports the trade deal. The Canada-European Union trade deal we have announced is obviously the biggest trade deal in Canadian history. Technical negotiations will be completed very soon, and I look forward to seeing if there is any trade deal on the face of the earth that the ideologues over there can possibly support.
    Mr. Speaker, we would never announce a trade deal that is yet to be negotiated. Unlike the Liberal leader, we would never stand and applaud a trade deal we have never read.


    We all remember when the Prime Minister flew off to Europe right in the middle of the Senate scandal, hoping to use the new agreement to draw attention away from corruption within his party. We all suspected the announcement was rushed for political reasons, and now we know.
    Why did the Prime Minister sign the agreement before it was even close to being finalized?
    Mr. Speaker, another question, another conspiracy.


    The NDP says that it has not had an opportunity to read the trade deal. As we know, every major organization in the country has endorsed the deal. I would be happy, after question period, if the leader of the NDP has not seen any of the documents, to send them over to him so he can finally read them.

The Environment

    What deal, Mr. Speaker?


    The Obama administration is introducing new regulations—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!


    Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition now has the floor and I would like to hear him.
     The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


    Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration is introducing new regulations to reduce the main source of pollution responsible for climate change: coal-fired power plants.
    In Canada, the Conservatives have postponed imposing new regulations on the oil and gas industry time and again.
    Three months ago, the Conservatives promised a climate change plan for the oil and gas sector by mid-year. It is now June.
    Will the Conservatives follow the American lead, yes or no?


    Mr. Speaker, we welcomed the announcement by the Obama administration about greenhouse gas reductions for power plants.


    However, the fact is, once again to correct the leader of the NDP, that we actually announced the regulation of this sector two years ago. Not only have we already been acting but, under the regulations this government has already brought forward, we will have 150% larger reductions than those in the United States.
    We are acting sooner, we are acting bigger, and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to look at the facts rather than his conspiracy theories.
    Mr. Speaker, economist Andrew Leach says that failure by the Conservatives to take action as the U.S. moves ahead is in fact threatening Canada's economy, and “...this will make it harder to sell oil sands products. Profitability and tax revenues will take a hit one way or the other”.
    When even the oil and gas industry is calling for clear rules, what will it take for the Prime Minister to finally act?
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP praises the action today of the Obama administration, acting two years after this government acted and taking actions that do not go nearly as far as this government went.
    The Leader of the Opposition today has shown he is unaware of the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, unaware of the government's GHG emissions reduction for the electricity sector, and thinks somehow that 30-year serving public servants are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. That is why the NDP is going nowhere.
    Mr. Speaker, we need to take action on our largest emitter, and the only thing growing faster than our emissions is the number of climate change deniers around the cabinet table.
    The Conservatives have said for years that we need to wait for the U.S. to take leadership. Here is the leadership. Obama is taking action, and yet still we wait for the Conservatives to introduce their long-delayed oil and gas regulations.
    Last week at committee, the Minister of the Environment said she that did not know when they would be coming out. Could someone over there, anyone, tell us when these regulations will be tabled?
    Mr. Speaker, we welcome the move on the part of the United States. We took action on this two years ago, which means our regulations will come into effect earlier than in the United States. We also estimate we will achieve a 46% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in this sector by 2030, compared to 30% in the United States.
     We should also note that we have the cleanest electricity system in the world, with 77% of our electricity supply emitting no greenhouse gas, compared to in the United States which is at 33%.


    Mr. Speaker, it is not just the climate change file that Conservatives have been mishandling.
    The number of temporary foreign workers approved for P.E.I. has skyrocketed under the current government. It approved more than 1,300 foreign workers. Meanwhile, nearly 12,000 islanders are unemployed. Only Kijiji economics could consider 11% unemployment to be a labour shortage.
    Why is the government importing cheap, precarious workers instead of helping Canadians find jobs?
    Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very legitimate question, which is precisely why our government brought in sensible changes to the employment insurance program last year. It makes no sense that people would be collecting employment insurance benefits right next to employers for which they are applying to work.
     We want to encourage unemployed people to be connected to employers that are offering jobs and to encourage those employers to offer the jobs to the local population first. That is what those EI reforms are designed to do. That is what the NDP opposed, and it makes no sense at all.



    Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a shortage of skilled labour. The unemployment rate in Prince Edward Island is 11%, and the Conservatives are approving temporary foreign worker permits for McDonald's, Burger King, Domino's Pizza, and Cora.
    That is not how an economy should be managed. It is resulting in higher unemployment and the abuse of temporary foreign workers.
    Will the minister finally commit to launching an independent investigation to get to the bottom of this?
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right to raise this issue. I find it odd that employers are having a hard time filling available jobs in a market where there is high employment and a lot of people are receiving employment insurance benefits.
    That is why we carried out the EI reform last year—which I think was perfectly reasonable—in order to encourage the unemployed and employment insurance recipients to actively look for work.
    We will be making additional changes to the temporary foreign worker program to more strongly encourage employers to hire local employees.

Veterans Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, last week, Jenifer Migneault, from Brome—Missisquoi, tried to meet with the Minister of Veterans Affairs to talk to him about the loved ones who support soldiers dealing with PTSD.
    Instead of facing up to his responsibilities, the minister ran away. He clearly has no class or empathy.
    Will the minister finally agree to listen to Ms. Migneault?


    Mr. Speaker, in some cases veterans who have a serious injury related to their service receive over $10,000 a month in financial benefits from the Government of Canada. This is in addition to world-class rehabilitation and retraining on top of exceptional medical care.
    I have, and will continue, to work with veterans and their family members, and I hope that member stops playing politics with our veterans.
    Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister to put his talking points down and listen to the question. The question is very clear.
    Jenifer Migneault is in a desperate situation trying to help her husband, who is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after serving in Afghanistan. This minister should meet with her in order for her to discuss her concerns so she can in turn help her husband.
    The minister's actions the other day were nothing to brag about. Therefore, I give the minister a chance to redeem himself. Will the minister now announce to the House that he will meet with Jenifer at a time that is convenient for both of them so she can have a proper airing of her grievances against the DVA?
    Mr. Speaker, I am not about to politicize an individual veteran's case on the floor of the House of Commons and neither should the member be doing so.
    I care deeply about the well-being of Canadian veterans and their family members. I always have and I always will. That is why I asked the parliamentary review of the new veterans charter to look at this very issue. With veterans affairs spending $700 million more each year than in 2005, we are moving in the right direction.


    Mr. Speaker, like all communities in Canada, Fort McMurray needs infrastructure. What does the Prime Minister do? He cuts infrastructure dollars that are to be spent this year by 80%.
    Why is the Prime Minister putting his own personal re-election agenda of 2015 ahead of the important infrastructure dollars that are necessary for our communities this year? Why is he doing that?



    Our government is set to balance the budget by 2015, while making historic investments in infrastructure. This is completely opposite to the Liberals who want to hike taxes by $11 billion a year to fund infrastructure spending alone.
    The people who manage their own money know their budget does not balance by itself.


    Mr. Speaker, climate change is battering our already fragile infrastructure. In Toronto this past year, we suffered the devastating effects of the ice storm and the unprecedented flash flooding. The Conservative response was to slash infrastructure spending by close to 90%, starving municipalities of the urgently needed federal support.
     When will the government provide municipalities with sufficient, sustainable, and predictable funding to deal with the 21st century infrastructure needs?
    Mr. Speaker, the FCM has been involved all along in the process to build the new Building Canada. It assisted in 12 round tables with us. It has been supportive of all the plans.
    Now the Liberals are trying to do politics with the ones they are seeing. We have delivered the longest and biggest plan ever for the country. Never, before our government, has infrastructure been supported so much. That is because of our Prime Minister.


The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's inaction on climate change is translating into delays for approving key projects such as Keystone XL.
    The Prime Minister says that he is waiting for the United States to act, but President Obama has acted. In the meantime, the Conservatives still seem to be stunned.
    Why is the Prime Minister incapable of protecting our interests? Where is the action plan for climate change? On Obama's desk?


    Mr. Speaker, I think many people forget that Canada represents less than 2% of the global emissions, while the United States produces almost 20%. The coal-fired energy generators in the United States produce twice the greenhouse gas emissions as all of the emissions produced in Canada.
     We are pleased the United States is following Canada's footsteps, and we will continue to build on our record and work with the United States to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions internationally.



    Mr. Speaker, the job market has not bounced back since the 2008 crisis.
    In fact, we are still 300,000 jobs shy of pre-crisis employment levels, and the Conservatives still do not have a plan for stimulating the economy. What is more, they decided to get rid of the hiring credit for small business. Small businesses create good jobs. Everybody knows that.
    Why do the Conservatives not want to understand that and act accordingly?


    Mr. Speaker, that is a bit rich coming from the New Democratic Party. It voted against the hiring tax credit in the first place. It was always meant to be a temporary measure to help small businesses during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
    Unlike the New Democratic Party, we recognize the vital role small business plays in this economy and in the job creation they provide.

Financial Institutions

    Mr. Speaker, temporary measures to try to help small businesses are all the government has to actually help the real economic drivers in this country. Shameful.
    We have taken the time to listen to small businesses, and they are telling us that they are still getting gouged. They are still getting gouged by unfair credit card fees, fees that are some of the highest in the industrialized world, reducing new job growth and investment.
    Even the Competition Tribunal agrees that only Ottawa has the power to fix the uncompetitive practices by credit card companies, but the minister has done nothing. Will the minister agree to better support small businesses by finally taking action to lower merchant fees before—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order, please. The hon. Minister of State for Finance.
    Mr. Speaker, again, Canadian consumers deserve access to credit on fair and transparent terms. We have taken measures to provide for and protect Canadians who use credit cards by banning unsolicited credit card checks, requiring clear and simple information, providing timely advance notice of rates and fee changes, limiting anti-consumer business practices, and ensuring that prepaid cards never expire.
    We have done other things, like freezing EI premiums for three years that have helped, again, small businesses, and putting $660 million back into the pockets of job creators. The NDP voted against them.



    Mr. Speaker, here is the Conservative ad campaign to Canadian consumers and small businesses: “The Conservative Party of Canada. We're not happy until you're not happy”. The Conservatives have to do better than this. They should at least promise not to do any more harm.
    The Conservatives cut the hiring credit for small businesses. This one program alone helped half a million Canadian businesses hire new employees. Why not reintroduce this practical, common sense measure into the budget so that we can put Canadians back to work?
    Mr. Speaker, again, this government, time after time, has taken the proper measures through budgets and other implementation measures to help provide job creators with the measures that they need to build this economy and create jobs.
    We have frozen EI premiums for three years, putting $660 million back into the pockets of those small businesses and job creators, but the NDP votes against these measures. It wants to propose a $21-billion carbon tax on every small business in this country and on every Canadian.
    Canadians are not buying it.
    Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The Conservatives introduced one small, good measure into a budget that the NDP voted against and, rather than reintroduce the good measure, they bring in a bad budget without the good program that Canadians actually need. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, but the Conservatives are only listening to their well-connected lobbyist friends.
    Maybe as the Prime Minister heads off to Europe, he will address the real challenges in the Canadian economy. There are 1.3 million Canadians out of work. Youth unemployment is twice the national average. Household debt is at an all-time record high.
    When are the Conservatives going to bring in the practical solutions that will help this economy and get Canadians back to work?
    Mr. Speaker, again, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth.
    Even though the global economy remains fragile, our economic policies have helped protect Canada. Over one million net new jobs have been created since the deepest part of the recession, 85% of them are full-time jobs, with 80% in the private sector.
    This is the strongest job growth of the G7. The opposition proposals will destroy jobs. Both the IMF and the OECD forecast Canada to be one of the strongest growing G7 countries in the years ahead.

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is showing economic leadership. My constituents want a balanced budget, and we are firmly on track to have just that.
    In an uncertain world, it is this Conservative government that is leading the charge on economic responsibility. Canada's fiscal position is earning praise the world over and is considered a model for others.
    Could the Minister of State for Finance please explain why countries around the world are looking to Canada for financial guidance?
    Mr. Speaker, other countries know that budgets do not balance themselves. That is why observers from around the world, including Europe, Asia, and Africa, are studying our sound approach to eliminating the deficit. They admire that our Conservative government is not raising taxes or cutting support to important social programs to balance the budget. Instead, we have focused on reducing waste and ineffective government spending.
    That is leadership, and it is why countries around the world are looking to our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance for guidance.


Public Safety

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government decided to go ahead and make cuts to nursing services in federal penitentiaries. Once again, the correctional officers and nursing staff will have to bear the brunt of the Conservatives' ill-advised decisions. Prison guards are not health care professionals.
    Does the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness think it is right that prison guards, who are already overworked, are being asked to administer medication to inmates?
    Mr. Speaker, correctional officers are there to make sure that criminals stay behind bars. It is not up to them to play pharmacist's apprentice. That said, I can reassure my colleague that inmates are getting all the medical and nursing care that they are entitled to and that we are legally bound to offer them. I can also assure her that victims are our priority.



    Mr. Speaker, the minister can continue to spin the government's line that cuts in prisons have no impact on public safety, but front-line correctional officers know better. Prisons across the country have seen their health service hours slashed. Many have gone from 24-hour care to just 12 hours, and non-medical staff now end up being responsible for administering medication.
    Why is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness continuing to compromise the safety of corrections institutions and staff, or does he really think that guards and nurses have interchangeable roles?
    Mr. Speaker, let me repeat in English that correctional officers do not, cannot, and should not administer drugs to inmates. That is why we will be providing our inmates with the services that they need legally.
    When will these members stand up for victims and make sure that we keep criminals behind bars?

Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the news over the weekend that Sister Gilberte has been released and thank those Canadian officials who helped with that. She was, of course, abducted by suspected Boko Haram gunmen in Cameroon. Tens of thousands of other civilians, though, are being affected by this.
    I just wanted to ask the government what specific measures it is taking in the region, Nigeria, Cameroon, et cetera, to deal with security problems in the area. We know that the government has committed some resources. We need to know what other things it is doing, not just to help with Canadian hostages. What about those girls who were abducted, as well as the security of other people in the area?
    Mr. Speaker, we are very happy that the nun has been freed and we want to thank everyone involved in getting her released.
    As for other areas, as we have said on numerous occasions, we have a program helping the Nigerian government. We are assisting the Nigerian government with our allies in working toward the security situation of the region. Canada is very much concerned about those areas and will continue helping the Nigerian government with our allies in whatever capacity we can.


    Mr. Speaker, the release of Sister Gilberte is wonderful news, but we must not forget that Boko Haram continues to violate human rights, and particularly the rights of young women and girls.
    This terrorist group represents a threat not only to Nigeria, but also to the entire West Africa region. The fight against this threat requires a concerted international approach.
    What specific measures is Canada taking with its allies to address the problems of instability in West Africa?


    Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this requires a concentrated international approach, and that is exactly what Canada is doing. We are working with our allies in helping the Nigerian government attain the capacity to fight this war.
    We are concerned as much as you are about the situation in Nigeria with Boko Haram, which Canada has listed as a terrorist organization. We will continue working with our allies to assist all African governments fight terrorism, which is a scourge on the continent.

Veterans Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, the minister confirmed Thursday that Veterans Affairs Canada has a hard time communicating with veterans. It is spending millions of dollars during the playoffs on self-serving ads instead. The phone number at the end of this multimillion dollar ad is the same one they gave veterans after closing nine regional offices, the one veterans have a hard time getting through to anyone on.
    Can the minister tell us, if he is so keen on spending millions on ads to communicate with veterans, why he is using a number no one ever answers?
    Mr. Speaker, we call that number ourselves and people do in fact answer it.
    The services and programs available to Canadian veterans are wide-ranging and among the best in the world. Veterans have access to a network of 4,800 mental health professionals nationwide, top-of-the-line medical treatment, and generous financial assistance. It is important that we communicate with Canadian veterans to ensure that they are aware of the services and programs available to them and that Canadians want to know about.
    Mr. Speaker, the minister had every opportunity to communicate with veterans and their families but instead ignored Mrs. Migneault after committee on Thursday. Not noticing her would be more believable if the parliamentary secretary had not also pushed his way past her.
    Ignoring veterans is not communications. Spending millions to advertise a number that does not work is not communications.
    Will the minister at least apologize to Mrs. Migneault for his unacceptable behaviour on Thursday and to veterans across Canada for pretending that millions spent on ads actually help them get the services that they deserve?


    Mr. Speaker, each year Veterans Affairs invests $3.5 billion, of which 90% goes directly to veterans' services. Less than 1% of that total annual budget is spent on advertising and communications to veterans and Canadians. This means that for every dollar spent on advertising, Veterans Affairs spends more than $800 on programs and benefits for veterans themselves. This is the cost of doing business because we care for our veterans and their families.



    Mr. Speaker, ParticipACTION is Canada's leading voice of physical activity. However, although it is more important than ever to promote physical activity, especially among young people, and to combat obesity, the government just cut 55% of this organization's funding.
    This is further proof that the Conservatives do not have a long-term vision. They refuse to invest money so that young Canadians can be in good health, which will put additional pressure on health care systems when these kids get older. How can the government justify such draconian cuts to such a worthwhile program?


    Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member is wrong. In 2007, our government was proud to relaunch Participaction to promote sports and physical activity among Canadians of all ages and abilities. There was a one-time funding. Other than that, Participaction receives regular funding from Sport Canada.
     We are very proud to support Participaction and all other sporting bodies on behalf of the government.
    Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the government had been investing $4.5 million a year for a number of years in Participaction, which is a very necessary and important program, but now, without any warning, the Conservatives have slashed over half of the Participaction budget.
    Slashing funding at a time when only 5% of children meet the physical activity guidelines just does not make sense.
    I would like to ask the Minister of Health how she can explain to Canadians that the government is slashing funding for a program that saves health care dollars and keeps people healthier. How can she explain that?
    Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the member is wrong. It was our government in 2007 that relaunched Participaction to promote sports and physical activity among Canadians of all ages. During this period, Participaction was given special funding and it was expected to leverage this financial contribution for many years while evaluating and attracting new money from the private sector. Federal funding will continue and we are pleased to see it has developed partnerships in the private sector and non-profit partners to share the load with the taxpayers.


    Mr. Speaker, some 13% of licensed drivers in Canada are between 16 and 24 years old. This group accounts for about 22% of fatalities and serious injuries of drivers in Canada. No parent would feel comfortable with these statistics. We all just want our kids to be safe.
    Can the Minister of Transport please update this House on what is being done to address this serious issue?
    Mr. Speaker, our government has taken concrete action in bringing in regulations to make vehicles safer and ensuring that safety tests are improved for our kids specifically.
    Just as important, we develop and we work with other organizations on awareness programs. One of them is one that I attended this morning at Nepean High School for Parachute Canada about distracted driving. I can say that we heard from Kathryn Field, whose son Josh died as a result of one second of looking at his cellphone. I encourage all members to be proud. This government will continue to work with leading organizations like Parachute on texting and driving and making sure that our kids are safe.

Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, Syria's civil war has killed 150,000 people and left over nine million people in Syria in need of help.
    The UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution in February that demanded unhindered aid access in Syria, but the resolution has failed to make a difference. Now the UN Security Council is considering a draft resolution to allow cross-border aid deliveries into Syria without government consent.
    What efforts is the government taking to support the passing of this resolution?



    Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Syria is a real tragedy. For that reason our government has been very active. More than $630 million has been budgeted to provide assistance to the Syrian people.
    The government is doing everything it can to ensure that these humanitarian corridors are as open and accessible as possible in order to help people truly in need.


    Mr. Speaker, after denying for months that repeated drug shortages were a problem, and after turning down the NDP's request for a mandatory disclosure of the shortages, the government has just launched a website on which comments can be left.
    This seems to be an improvised measure that benefits the industry, which prefers voluntary disclosure.
    How will the Minister of Health ensure that health professionals and seniors are consulted?


    Mr. Speaker, the member knows that drug shortages are not just a local, regional, or national problem but are a global issue, and we take them very seriously. That is why we have worked for quite some time with the provinces and territories and drug manufacturers on a pan-Canadian strategy to address this issue. It is working well, but we are concerned about making sure that it is the best it can be.
    We have launched consultations to see if we do need to move from a voluntary approach to a mandatory approach. The member is welcome to provide input on that process.
    Mr. Speaker, medical isotopes are used by health professionals to diagnose and treat a wide variety of illnesses, such as Parkinson's disease and cancer. Our government has identified the development of a secure supply of medical isotopes for Canadians as a key priority.
    With respect to the recent announcement of funding for TRIUMF, could the Minister of State please update the House on how our government is addressing this need?
    Mr. Speaker, on Friday I announced funding that will be used to purchase equipment for the TRIUMF facility in Vancouver. This leverages significant industry support and will create a new institute for accelerator-based medical isotope production.
    Our investment will produce medical isotopes with cyclotrons, through the use of electricity and magnets, which does not produce nuclear waste. We will also train highly qualified personnel and help commercialize new therapeutics.
    I look forward to seeing the results of this investment, which addresses an important need and shows the world that the west means business.


    Mr. Speaker, Canadian Parks and Wilderness' new report released today shows that out of the 10 longest coastlines in the world, Canada comes last in terms of protection. The United States protects 30% of its coastal areas, while Australia sets aside 33%. Even China protects a greater percentage. Canada is dead last, protecting only 1%.
    Why have the Conservatives allowed Canada to fall so far behind?
    Mr. Speaker, this report also acknowledges that our government has made significant progress in the area of marine protection. We have designated three new marine protected areas and have created three national wildlife areas, including the world sanctuary for bowhead whales. This commitment was reiterated in our latest economic action plan. As a result, the Prime Minister recently announced our new national conservation plan, which includes $37 million to strengthen marine and coastal conservation.
    We are getting the job done.



    Mr. Speaker, on Friday, in response to my questions about Athletics Canada's unexplained and incomprehensible decision to hastily back out of the Coupe-Québec des nations 2014, the Minister of Heritage displayed her complete ignorance.
    The only thing we learned from the feeble platitudes she delivered is that the Minister of State for Sport is very involved in this matter. That is exactly what we are worried about.
    I would like to ask my question again, this time to the Minister of State for Sport. Did his involvement include strong-arming Athletics Canada into dropping the Coupe-Québec des nations 2014 and depriving Quebec athletes of the opportunity to compete as equals with athletes from another nation?



    Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is the single largest contributor to sport in our country. We support national and international events all across the country. Every request has to come from the national sports organizations.
    This member should get his facts straight. If he needs help, we can talk to him and explain how the system works. It has to come from the national sports organizations. It has to be a sanctioned event. Then we will fund it.

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, so far in question period we have been treated to a climate change shell game. It has not gotten to the truth of the matter.
    President Obama has taken meaningful action, with a comprehensive plan that will allow the United States to meet its Copenhagen targets by 2020. Our nation, with the same target, chosen by the Prime Minister, is going to completely, 100%, miss the Copenhagen target. Even using Hudak-style new math, the 150% answer we just heard from the Prime Minister does not wash.
    When will we see a comprehensive, economy-wide plan that actually reaches the Copenhagen target?
    Mr. Speaker, once again, I go back to the facts. We obviously welcome President Obama's announcement today. He announced specific measures to reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector and to reduce those by 30% by 2030.
    This government, two years ago, began implementing its regulations that will reduce our emissions in that sector by 46% by 2030. We already, even before beginning, had an electricity sector that was cleaner than that in the United States.
    If the member is so impressed with the actions of the Obama administration, I am sure she is also impressed by the actions of this government.


    Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is an exciting day in the “Electric City”. After undergoing significant renovations and upgrades, with support from the Building Canada program, the Peterborough Airport officially welcomes the Seneca flight school with the official opening of the Peterborough Campus hangar. The Seneca commercial aviation program is in every way a world-leading program, and Peterborough is proud to be its new home.
    Given his efforts to personally attend the ceremonies unveiling the Peterborough Airport expansion, would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to congratulate Seneca College and the City of Peterborough on their exciting new partnership?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question and also for the interest I know he takes in developments in his area. This project is a very exciting one, as he says, for the region of Peterborough, one of many exciting Building Canada projects in the area. I do want to congratulate both Seneca College and also the Peterborough Airport for this and to congratulate them on what is indeed an exciting new partnership.

Presence in Gallery

    That concludes question period for today.
    Canadian Forces Day is an opportunity for Canadians across the country to recognize the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make on our behalf.


    I am very pleased to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of 11 members of the Canadian Forces who are participating in Canadian Forces Day today:


    Sergeant J. Ouellet, Corporal L. MacDonald, Captain C. Stenner, Leading Seaman T. A. Taylor, Chief Petty Officer 2nd Class D. R. Peppar, Corporal F. Lauzier, Sergeant M. C. Jenkins, Master Corporal D. W. Ellery, Captain A. J. M. Lacasses, Corporal E. Encil, and Captain H. Ristau.
    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!


Points of Order

Oral Questions  

[Points of Order]
    Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will seek unanimous consent to table a document.
    During members' statements, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville called on the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin to apologize. I want to point out that the member already apologized, which was appropriate.


    I would mention, and I think it is ironic, that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has never apologized for deliberately misleading the House on Bill C-23.


    I seek unanimous consent to table this document, the response from the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He did the right thing.


    When is the member for Mississauga—Streetsville going to do the right thing and apologize for his comments in the House of Commons?


    Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the documents?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    Some hon. members: No.
    The Speaker: There does not seem to be consent.


[Routine Proceedings]


Committees of the House

Environment and Sustainable Development  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to the main estimates 2014-15.
    I also have the privilege and honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “Study on Great Lakes Water Quality”.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.


    Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party wants to thank all of the witnesses for the briefs they provided to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development during its study on Great Lakes water quality.
    One of the flaws of the report is that it does not make any recommendations regarding the effects of climate change, which we have heard a lot about today, on the ecosystem of the Great Lakes or on the water levels or water temperature in those lakes. These three things did not appear to be important.
    As a result, the New Democrats believe that Canada should immediately implement energy policies to prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change and to help Canadians and provincial and municipal governments adapt.
    By trivializing the effects of climate change, the government is showing a lack of respect for science, scientists, environmental groups, aboriginal groups, and communities. It must involve all of these stakeholders in developing a national plan to fight climate change and improve Great Lakes water quality.


Assisted Human Reproduction Act

     He said: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have the support of the member for Mississauga South.
    This bill is very important. As I started researching this, I had personal experience with the issue. Very good friends of mine went through challenges as a result of not being able to conceive children, and today they have a wonderful family.
     Thousands of Canadian families struggle in this regard today, and sections 61, 62, and 63 of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act prohibit payment to a surrogate mother or payment for services related to surrogacy. At the same time, there is real hypocrisy, as we recognize these contracts when Canadians venture across the border to the United States or elsewhere around the world.
    This is a pro-family bill. It would help families to have children of their own, to have their own families. I hope the bill finds support in all quarters of this House. It is time we moved to put these changes in place.

     (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)


Falun Gong  

    Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition from residents of Canada who are concerned that the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres, and prisons where torture and abuse are routine, and thousands have died as a result.
    The petitioners ask Parliament to pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, to amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting, and publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Mining Industry  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions.
    One petition condemns the actions of the government with respect to Ajax Mine. These petitioners are from the Kamloops area of British Columbia, and they are opposed to the open-pit mine as it is proposed to be built within less than a kilometre of a school.


The Environment  

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition was sent to me by a woman named Shirley Samples, from Surrey, British Columbia, with over 2,288 signatures against the Enbridge northern gateway project. The project is being pushed by the Conservative Party to build a pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C.
    Ms. Samples and other volunteers stood on the streets in Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, and White Rock collecting these signatures. Their expectation was to gather 500 signatures, and now, at almost 2,300 signatures, the petitioners are blown away by the response of British Columbians as we stand united against this bad proposal for British Columbia and Canada.

Democratic Reform  

    Mr. Speaker, there is a growing movement of Canadians who are not pleased with our first-past-the-post voting system and how it does not reflect the number of voters who cast ballots for a party.
    I rise to present the signatures of these Canadians and a great many of my constituents, who call on the House of Commons to immediately undertake pan-Canadian consultations that would amend the Canada Elections Act and introduce a suitable form of proportional representation, one that ensures that votes cast are an equal and effective means to ensure fair representation in a Parliament where the share of seats held by each party reflects the popular vote.
    They eagerly await the government's response.

Impaired Driving  

    Mr. Speaker, I have four different petitions that I am presenting today on behalf of citizens of Canada. They are pointing out that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient and they are asking Parliament to enact tougher laws and implement new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Railway Transportation  

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House again to table petitions with respect the Algoma Central Railway passenger service. Most of these petitioners are from the riding of Sault Ste. Marie. They want to have their voices heard here. They are from Richards Landing, Sault Ste. Marie, Goulais River, Desbarats, Prince Township, Echo Bay, as well as from Kapuskasing, Burlington, Barrie, Ottawa, and Winchester.
    The petitioners are concerned with the fact that the government removed the subsidy to this rail line. Although it has recently reinstated the subsidy for one year, the petitioners remain concerned that the government is making decisions without stakeholder consultations. They are concerned about their businesses and the economy, and they want the government to act on this issue.


    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to file today from a number of people in Regina and across Saskatchewan who are concerned about Bill C-18, which is presently before Parliament.
    The petitioners are concerned that it would restrict farmers' rights and add to farmers' costs. They specifically call on Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.

Sex Selection  

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions.
    The first petition highlights the fact that girls are being discriminated against in the way of sex selection. There are over 200 million missing girls in the world at this point, and the petitioners are asking for Parliament to condemn this practice.

Impaired Driving  

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is regarding Kassandra Kaulius. She was a 22-year-old girl who was killed by a drunk driver.
    Families for Justice is calling on Parliament to enact tougher legislation with tougher sentencing for those who are convicted of drunk driving causing death.


Canada Post  

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise today in the House to present a petition signed by thousands of people from Quebec, more specifically from Laval, in the neighbourhoods of Vimont, Auteuil, Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, Duvernay and Saint-François.
    These petitioners are calling on the government to save Canada Post. They are urging the government to abandon its plan to cut services at Canada Post and to explore other avenues to modernize the crown corporation's business plan.


Mining Industry  

    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from a number of constituents who have been working very hard for a long time to try to convince the government to create an ombudsman for the extractive sector.
    As members may know, I have spoken to this issue a number of times in the House and I hope that this petition will encourage the government to go ahead and create that position.


Canada Post  

    Mr. Speaker, people in Trois-Rivières have been angry ever since Canada Post executives decided, with the government's support, to take an axe to services.
    Once again, I am adding my voice to theirs and presenting this petition, which is calling for the government to review the situation at Canada Post and consider other options for growth instead of simply managing the drop in letter mail.


Genetically Modified Alfalfa  

    Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.
    The first petition is calling upon Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically-modified alfalfa in order to allow a proper review of the impact on farmers.


Food and Drugs Act  

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is calling upon the House of Commons to amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide for mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods.


    Mr. Speaker, the third petition is calling upon Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18 that would further restrict farmers' rights or add to farmers' costs.
     Clearly, the petitioners call upon Parliament to enshrine into legislation the inalienable right of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.


Mining Industry  

    Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today.
    The first is in relation to the need for a legal ombudsman mechanism for Canada's mining industry. The ombudsman would have the power to receive and investigate complaints, make public its findings, recommend remedial actions, and recommend that the Government of Canada impose penalties.
    This petition has been signed by dozens of people from every part of Gatineau, as well as people from Ottawa.

Criminal Code  

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about potential amendments to the Criminal Code.


    The petitioners request that we introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to include torture committed by non-state actors, private individuals, and organizations as a specific and distinct criminal offence.

Citizenship and Immigration  

    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Londoners who are very concerned about a tragedy that happened in London last November. It had to do with the deaths of three family members who ended their lives because they felt that they would not be able to become Canadian citizens.
    The petitioners are very concerned about the fact that there have been cuts to public service jobs, reducing staff who would have been able to process the applications.
    They call upon the Government of Canada to ensure that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is properly staffed and resourced in order to reach decisions for applicants in a fair and timely manner as well as to allow immigration officials to consider all factors with respect to an individual's application for status, including humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Experimental Lakes Area  

    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people from across Ontario, from Guelph and Toronto and all the way to Dryden and Kenora. They ask that the government, even though the ownership of the property has been transferred, continue to fund the important scientific work at the Experimental Lakes Area near Dryden and Kenora so that the important work on commercial, recreational, and other kinds of fisheries can continue unabated.


Human Trafficking  

    Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to present a petition that seeks to fight human trafficking and sexual exploitation.
    GIven that human trafficking is the third-largest criminal trade after drugs and weapons trafficking, the petition is calling on the government to take action.

Canada Post  

    Mr. Speaker, on May 10, I knocked on doors throughout the city of Farnham in Brome—Missisquoi.
    The majority of people told me that they are not happy with the cuts to Canada Post's services. The 140 people who signed this petition are calling on the government to reject the plan to reduce services at Canada Post and to explore new options for modernizing the crown corporation.


Questions on the Order Paper

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
    The Speaker: Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]


Veterans Hiring Act

Bill C-27—Time Allocation Motion  

    That, in relation to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


    Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
    I recognize the hon. opposition House leader.


    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are aware that, sadly, this is the 67th time that closure and time allocation have been used during this Parliament, during this government. We all remember that the Conservatives always said they would not be like the corrupt Liberals. It seems they are just as corrupt as their predecessors. There is no doubt that they too want to suppress debate.
    This bill has been debated for two hours. It is a new version of a bill that was botched, Bill C-11. That bill was introduced last year and had a number of problems. Now they have introduced another bill. They do not want any debate because they know that we will raise concerns about this bill, just as we did with Bill C-11. Even if we support Bill C-27, we still have to debate it in the House. That is the problem.


    The other problem is the fact that even under time allocation, government members are not showing up for their speaking shifts. Twenty-six times last week, the speaking shifts were basically jumped. They did not show up. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals showed up for evening debate, even under time allocation. We are talking about strict limits on the amount of time, but they missed 26 shifts.
    When factory workers miss their shifts, they get their pay docked. Nurses and doctors show up for their shifts. Single mothers, single parents, show up for their shifts. Why do Conservatives not start showing up for their speaking shifts? Why do they not do the work Canadians are paying them to do, and why do they not allow some debate in this House of Commons?
    Mr. Speaker, I think we are mixing two issues here. We are talking about a bill that is absolutely critical to helping our veterans and their families progress into meaningful quality-of-life endeavours in the public service. They are those who were injured in the line of duty, if you will.
    I do not know what the member is speaking about, because I, for one, was here till midnight and change last week, and I am sure that my colleagues have been equally diligent.
    However, there is more to this than just the objections raised by the hon. member. I believe that he is probably alluding to the fact that John MacLennan, president of the Union of National Defence Employees, stated, “It is not right”, meaning this particular bill, “topping up opportunities for veterans at the expense of public servants. It is disrespectful to public servants”. He went on to say that giving priority status to injured veterans should not be done at the expense of civilian unionized employees.
    That speaks volumes about what the member opposite is alluding to.
    Mr. Speaker, the motion before us right now is not about the content of any given piece of legislation; it is about the way in which we deal with legislation inside the House of Commons.
    Whether it is New Democratic provincial governments or Liberal governments in the past, we have always used some form of closure at times to get legislation through.
    What makes this government unique is that ever since it has achieved its majority, it has been using closure through time allocation as part of a normal process, to the degree that when legislation is brought in, the government House leader walks in and introduces closure. It is as if it is something that is completely acceptable and is part of the new norm.
    It is important that we recognize that it is only this majority Conservative government that has abusively used closure in order to advance its legislative agenda, and that is the reality.
    My question is not for the minister responsible for the bill that it is applying to right now, but more to the government House leader. Can the government House leader explain to this House why it is that the Conservatives persist in using closure as a part of the normal process of passing their legislation? It is highly undemocratic, and the manner in which this motion is being dealt with today in the House of Commons is unethical.


    Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that the House leader has deputized me to proceed with answering these questions.
    It is important that we move this debate from the House of Commons to committee after three days of debate on this important subject. I believe that I am correct in saying that all parties have put their positions forward. The Liberals are keen to study this at committee, while the New Democrats want nothing more than to stall and delay this legislation because their big public service union bosses have basically told them, or should I say, ordered them, to do so.
    Our job as legislators is to propose new ideas that will move the yardsticks forward in an expedient way, keeping in mind that we are responsible for the well-being, care, and support of our veterans and their families. It is time to get on with this particular item.


    Mr. Speaker, some things are obvious here in the House of Commons. After three years, one thing that is pretty obvious to, I think, all Quebeckers and Canadians, is that the Conservatives are repeat offenders when it comes to shutting down debate. This is yet another example of that: the 66th in just over three years.
    An hon. member: Sixty-seven.
    Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, my mistake, it is the 67th gag order. Sixty-seven, who will up the ante? Next week, it could be 68.
    An hon. member: The Conservatives.
    Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have managed to beat the Liberals' record, if you can believe it. We never thought they would sink even lower than the Liberals. They are making no sense at all. On top of it all, they are making MPs work until midnight. If we have to do it, we will, no problem, but at the same time as they are extending sitting hours, they are bringing in gag orders to limit time for debate. I am having a hard time seeing how they can justify that to the people.
    As our House leader of the official opposition says, they extend the hours of debate and then they do not even show up. Last week they missed 26 shifts. They should have been here debating since they were the ones who asked that the House work longer hours.
    How do they explain that they are asking members to do the work, but they barely show up?


    Mr. Speaker, we are going around in circles. I sincerely believe that items such as this, and this particular bill, have had ample and sufficient time for discussion.
    Two hours.
    Mr. Speaker, the reality is, whether it is two hours or two hours and a half, to sustain and support our veterans, especially those who are injured in the line of duty and service to country, and their families, is the right thing to do and for all the right reasons. I suggest very strongly to get on with this and let the committee hear from experts about how moving qualified service-injured veterans to the front of the line for public service jobs is the right thing to do. If they have any objections to that, I would certainly like to hear them.
    Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister speak. Our House leader said earlier that the bill had another form in another Parliament. I need to remind the House that it is the government that controls the legislative agenda. If this was such a priority for the government, it already had a previous bill. It has now been in power, unfortunately, for three years, and it has had three years to bring the bill forward.
    If the Conservatives are that concerned with veterans and their families, my question for the minister is this. Why did he wait until recently to bring the bill forward and then shut down debate in Parliament? That does not make any sense. If they are that incompetent and this was a priority, why could they not bring it forward in a more timely manner, and why are they shutting down debate now?
    Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2014 has paved the way for more veterans to move to the front of the line for federal public service jobs. However, the unions and the NDP want veterans to move to the back of the line. Of course, all of these complaints about the expediency with which we need to move this item forward are really framed in the context of stalling because they truly do not support our veterans. Eight budgets in a row have shown that they are voting against benefits, services, and support for our veterans. That speaks for itself.


    Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the hon. minister for his hard work on the veterans file and everything he does on a day-to-day basis to help Canada's veterans, and for his commitment and dedication. I have had the opportunity to work with him and I have witnessed this first-hand.
    I also want to thank the minister for a number of initiatives he has brought forward since he has taken over the file, including initiatives in economic action plan 2014 and bringing this piece of legislation forward.
    I wonder if the minister could highlight some of the positive impacts that this piece of legislation might have on Canada's veterans in transition to civilian life. Also, I wonder if he could tell us whether the unions support this legislation.
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and his support on the veterans file.
    It is plain that our efforts in this area are motivated by wanting to do the right thing for the right reasons on behalf of our veterans, especially those who have sustained an injury or a disability in service to our country.
    Veterans Affairs has done a great deal of work over the last year to support the hiring of veterans in the private sector. In addition, corporate Canada has participated and become involved. It is very supportive of our efforts in the government to transition veterans coming out of the military, who are in need of a job, into a profession in the private sector. The government needs to move in sync with that, which is what this bill is all about.
    Medically released veterans currently have fewer opportunities to access federal public service jobs. I sincerely believe that any opportunities to access federal public service jobs, and any opportunities that come up for employment, are often filled by those people in a higher priority category, before those listed in the regulatory priority would get consideration.
    All we are trying to do is to move things along so that we can be more efficient, more effective, and more helpful in lending a hand to those in greater need, our veterans who are injured in the line of duty.


    Mr. Speaker, this is the 67th time allocation motion. It seems that the government is always under the gun. I am not sure whether the Conservatives know how to plan, but being under the gun all the time—this is important and that is important—means not knowing how to organize one's work.
    Given that we are in a British-style Parliament and that the debates are used above all to flesh out the bills and enhance the work that has already been done, I wonder why the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is always in such a rush. Can the minister answer my question? Why are we always in such a hurry? Why does the government introduce bills without leaving us enough time to pass them?


    Mr. Speaker, we are working hard over here. We are making great progress. We are delivering for Canadians, on many different fronts.
    I hear an hon. member across the way laughing. He can laugh all he wants, but the joke is on him. He is over there and we are over here.
    In any event, the NDP is taking its cue from the big union bosses. Unions and some Canadians may express concerns, but I am confident, through the dialogue we have had with veterans themselves and communities widely, that this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for those in need, people transitioning out of the military who have been injured.
    I do not know what the opposition's problem is with respect to moving this bill along. As I stated, it is the right thing to do for our veterans and their families, and we should move on with it.


    Mr. Speaker, as the last speaker indicated, this is the 67th closure motion limiting debate, which has become a common practice for the Conservative government.
    One of the reasons we are so opposed to closure is because of the very last comment that the minister made. He said that we are over here and they are over there. We all take shots in the House, but the fact is that we all represent Canadians. We all have a point of view.
    I would suggest to the minister that there are some good things in this bill. However, it would be better to debate the bill in its full context without the limited timeframes. That way, the minister can get out the good points he wants to raise, and opposition members, who want to, can raise a point that maybe needs to be added to the bill or support the minister in some of these things.
    We all represent veterans and Canadians in the House. Regardless of whether we are in government or the opposition, this is the Parliament of Canada. This is a game that is undermining this place of debate by shutting down and limiting debate that would give us the best bill possible. That is what is wrong with this debate at the moment. I am not talking about the bill; I am talking about the tactic of the government to limit debate in the House of Commons and ram things through like a bulldozer, as it always does.
    It is not the right way to do things in a democracy.
    Mr. Speaker, we are trying to move the bill along so it can go to committee. There is no reason in the world why this cannot proceed. It will be debated further. There will be more discussion and more opportunities for the parties opposite to engage. That is the process.
    As I stated earlier, it is time to move on with some of the more critical aspects of what we need to do to help our veterans, to help their families, to help those in greater need, and particularly those who have been injured in the line of duty. I know the unions do not like it, but this is the right thing to do. We encourage the members opposite to move it along.
    If I may, my earlier comment about them over there and we being over here was only because the member opposite was mocking my comments.


    Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the minister feels in his government when we are over here and they are over there. That is what Parliament and democracy are all about. That same minister came from a service that represents justice. He was a police officer in Toronto. He represented justice and the laws of the land.
    In a democracy, the laws are made in a parliament that leaves room for debate. I find it insulting when he says “the union boss” every time he stands up.
    We know that this government likes chambers of commerce. The Minister of Finance and the other ministers go around the country and meet with chamber of commerce representatives. Does the government not have the right to meet with our country's organizations? Is the government anti-union?
    Every time the hon. member stands up he seems to be attacking the unions. Is he really attacking the representatives of workers who are recognized under Canadian law?
    Workers have the right to be unionized. Every time he rises, he insults Canadian workers. I have trouble accepting that. In fact, I would like him to apologize because it is not right.
    In our country, workers have the right to have representatives, just as employers have the right to have chambers of commerce. The government does not attack chambers of commerce. What is this all about? Is he unable to rise and be respectful of all Canadians and their representatives? I would like to hear what he has to say about that because it is an insult when it comes from the House of Commons.


    Mr. Speaker, I do not know if quoting someone verbatim should be an insult. I am in fact transmitting the very words spoken by John MacLennan, president of the Union of National Defence Employees, who said, “It's not right. It's disrespectful to public servants, topping up opportunities for veterans at the expense of public servants...”. Priority status to injured veterans should not be done at the expense of civilian unionized employees.
    There is nothing offensive about that, other than the theme that there is a particular protectionist regard for a certain level of employees, and disregard for veterans and their families, who are those who have sacrificed and served this country and who, in the line of duty, are injured as a result.



    Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to an incident that occurred last Thursday. It was rather ironic that, on that evening, I had the pleasure of giving a speech at 11:57 p.m. Unfortunately, I was unable to finish it, because it was supposed to be a 10-minute speech. However, it was a courtesy on the part of the Conservative government. I thank the government for allowing me to speak at such a late hour.
    That same day, something very instructive occurred. In any event, what I saw on television about this incident was fairly instructive with respect to the Minister of Veterans Affairs' attitude towards Jenifer Migneault. One could see the despair on this woman's face in the face of the minister's inability or unwillingness to solve her difficult problem or to even respond to her, speak to her, smile or acknowledge her.
    This is my question for the minister: does he not think that he is rubbing salt in the wound with this time allocation motion on a bill that deals with resources we want to give Canada's veterans?
     Not even a week has passed and he is at it again. My question is this: was it really necessary to add insult to injury when dealing with our veterans?


    Mr. Speaker, that is a bogus conspiracy theory if I ever heard one. However, I am not about to politicize an individual veteran's case on the floor of the House, as I indicated earlier, and neither should the member or his party. It is totally inappropriate. I, on behalf of our government, care deeply about the well-being of Canadian veterans and their family members. We always have and we always will, and that is why the bill is going forward. As well, we are doing a comprehensive review of the new veterans charter.
     I also would like to suggest that if members are so concerned about the welfare and well-being of veterans and their families, it really would be a novel experience for once to have them vote for those kinds of things that we propose year after year in our budget to help veterans and their families, which members opposite do not support.


    Mr. Speaker, the government has moved another time allocation motion. This is the 67th time. I do not think it is out of concern that the government has imposed 67 time allocation motions in two or three years. I would like to talk about this some more, rather than just about the bill.
    Veterans want guidance that will help them during their reintegration, while they are looking for a place to work and trying to become part of society again. Guidance is what they want. Opening the door to the public service is fine, but if the necessary guidance is not there, absolutely nothing is going to be accomplished. There is nothing in the bill about that, so I will stop there.
    Sixty-seven time allocation motions. That goes to show that the government is incapable of working with Canadians. When a government is elected with 39% of the vote, that means that 61% of Canadians voted against it. They want to be able to talk to the government. Every time Canadians talk to their government, or try to, the Conservatives take off in the other direction. It is completely ridiculous. It is unacceptable that the government has imposed sixty-seven time allocation motions.


    Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the hon. member opposite, he obviously does not know the full suite of support and assistance that is already in place for veterans and their families. One of the items that he maybe needs to be informed about is that in the new veterans charter, a veteran who are injured in the line of duty can avail himself or herself of up to $75,000 for retraining and other assistance that he or she may require in order to transition to a good-paying, rewarding job in the private corporate sector.


    Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he cares about veterans. I would like him to take the opportunity now in the House to rise and apologize to Jenifer Migneault and to say that he will agree to meet with her, as the NDP asked him to do during question period today. Could he do that, apologize to Mme Migneault and her family and also agree to meet with her?
    Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I addressed this issue in question period. I have addressed it in this session of debate. I am focused on assisting our veterans and have been doing that, and will be continuing to do that. I care deeply about our veterans, but I certainly will not debate their issues on the floor of the House of Commons, and the member opposite knows that.


    Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the minister is staying here with us. That is not usually the case. He usually turns on his heels when people talk to him.
    I am pleased to be able to ask him how it is possible that we are dedicating so little time to such an important bill. What is even more ridiculous is that we are spending 30 minutes debating procedure instead of talking about the bill. That is not my choice, that is the choice of the government in power. Time allocation motion after time allocation motion, the government forces us to debate procedure, which is a clear sign of the government's disregard for democracy. Could we not spend the precious minutes we have left until the end of the session debating bills, not procedure?


    Mr. Speaker, I find it quite humorous that the member opposite would be accusing me of running from anything. I spent 40 years on the front lines in policing and have dealt with sufficient and enough people. While we are at it, it would be helpful if the NDP were to fess up to the inappropriate squandering of hard-earned taxpayer money and speak to that issue as well.
    That said, as we have been discussing, the debate has been going on for three days on this important subject. All parties have already put their position forward. I do not know what more there is that the members opposite are concerned about. I understand their concern about issues that are not particular to this bill. I would encourage them, for once, to put their political biases aside and help our veterans and their families get an uplifting help from this government, from all of us in Parliament, so they can get on with the aspects of their life that they are entitled to receive from us as politicians.


    Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is here to point out that he was not in Quebec City last Wednesday.
    Something tremendous happened in Quebec City last Wednesday: the opening at the Citadelle of the second-largest museum, the museum concerned with Canadian heritage and francophone military heritage. That jewel is also the residence of the Governor General.
    The minister was not at that very important event, which was attended by hundreds of guests. Instead he sent a message by fax. He did not even send a federal government representative to such an important event organized to acknowledge our veterans. I was the only federal government representative there. I will always be there for our veterans.
    When they need our help, we must make calls, go and see them and listen to them. The first thing they ask of us is that we listen to them. Then we see whether we can help them.
    I invite the minister to take a step in that direction.



    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for attending. We are grateful for that. She has my absolute word that I will be going. I made that commitment already. I apologize for not being able to be there. I know it was a great event. I want to congratulate everyone who participated in it and supported that very fine museum. I feel badly about missing it, but I am on the ticket to be there, and I look forward to it.
    Order, please. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
    The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    Some hon. members: No.
    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
     Some hon. members: Yea.
    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.
    Some hon. members: Nay.
    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the yeas have it.
    And five or more members having risen:
    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Call in the members.


    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 159)



Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
MacKay (Central Nova)
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
O'Neill Gordon
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)

Total: -- 145



Allen (Welland)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)

Total: -- 114



    I declare the motion carried.
    It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, Public Safety.

Points of Order

Time Allocation for Vanessa's Law  

[Points of Order]
    Mr. Speaker, I am rising in relation to the point of order raised by the hon. House leader of the official opposition made on Friday afternoon.
    I was quite prepared to see the House advance Bill C-17. I was prepared to leave it at that and take the victory for what it was and move on. However, since the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster confirmed at that time that he wished to continue with his point of order, I do want to supplement my hon. friend's intervention on it.
    First, I did want to make the point that the NDP House leader told the House that the hon. member for Oakville made comments in the House “with the government leader's full endorsement and encouragement”. I appreciate my counterpart's sense that my powers are all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. However, I can assure the House that in this case my hon. friend from Oakville proceeded entirely on his own initiative in the comments on Bill C-17 that he made, as every MP has the right to do.
    That being said, I do wish to congratulate the hon. member for Oakville for his very successful efforts. I am proud of him as a colleague for having taken the initiative, even if I cannot share in any credit or blame for his having done so. His persistence last week in seeing the bill through to committee clearly paid off, given that the NDP did change its tune late on Friday afternoon on this matter.
    Turning to the substance of his point of order, the opposition House leader claims that the time allocation notice, which I gave on Thursday evening in relation to Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, should be rescinded because he alleges there were no consultations on the bill.
    As the deputy government whip said on Friday, our party does not reveal the content of the discussions of the House leaders' meetings.
    It is common knowledge around here that the recognized parties' House leaders and whips and their deputies and staff gather every Tuesday afternoon to discuss upcoming parliamentary business, along with the Clerk or her representative in attendance. Some weeks, such as last week, the House leaders will even gather for a second meeting. That is on top of the innumerable exchanges that take place by email, informal meetings, and phone conversations among these various actors.
    Last week's House leaders' meeting would have been held on the heels of the NDP's Tuesday filibuster of Bill C-17, when it has been the expectation and hope of all other parties that the second reading debate would wind up that morning.
    Astute observers of the business of the House would conclude that it was not in isolation that I gave time allocation notices on Thursday evening for Bills C-17 and C-27. Indeed, I only gave those notices once it had become obvious that no agreement for a time allocation motion under Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2), let alone any other firm agreement, could be reached among the required parties with respect to those two bills.
    I can absolutely assure the Speaker and the entire House that both myself and my staff did put proposals on Bill C-17 to the NDP House leader and his staff, both verbally and in writing, last week. I have no difficulty whatsoever in assuring the Speaker that the requirement for consultations contemplated in the standing orders was fulfilled.
    As to what that requirement is, I would refer the House leader of the official opposition to a ruling of the Deputy Speaker on March 6, 2014, at page 3598 of the Debates, in response to a point of order raised by the previous NDP House leader, where he opened by making reference to page 667 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition:
    This is what is required when one of these notices is brought forward:

    The notice in question is to state that the agreement could not be reached under the other provisions of the rule and that the government therefore intends to propose a motion...

    The hon. government House leader, when he rose in the House yesterday, preceded his presentation of the motion with the following words:
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2)...

    That is all that is required by the Standing Orders. The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it. Therefore, I am rejecting the request for the point of order.
    In this case, while I might welcome such an investigations and Canadians, I can assure the House, would be most interested in its findings and I would be most satisfied for them to receive those, I do also understand the policy rationale for not conducting them. That is a policy rationale of encouraging full-ranging negotiations without a concern for potential investigations like that.
    Finally, I would like to note the significance of the point of order raised by the opposition House leader. He has, however, inadvertently, given Canadians an insight into how the NDP approaches the business of managing the progress of legislation in the House of Commons.


    The NDP members make a great deal of fuss every time the government makes use of time allocation to ensure MPs can get to vote on a bill. The NDP members keep track of how often it happens and make a big deal about that statistic. I have been heard to remark myself that often they seem to enjoy compelling us to run up that statistic.
    Why does that happen? The NDP has now finally told Canadians why it happens. In raising this point of order it has asked that a notice of time allocation be rescinded or withdrawn on the basis that it is not necessary. The NDP is prepared to allow the bill to advance. This is the very first time the NDP has done that, the very first time it has told the House that it is prepared to advance a bill and thus that a time allocation motion need not be moved. Never before, since this Parliament began, some three years ago, has it taken this step. Never on any of those many occasions when New Democrats stood up to denounce the use of the scheduling device of time allocation have they pre-empted that step with a statement that they are willing to advance a bill. This, however unintended by the NDP, has given Canadians a valuable insight into the approach of the NDP and why, as a result, the government makes use of the standing orders provisions to bring some certainty to the scheduling of debates and votes.
    I hope, however, that this marks the beginning of a new approach by the NDP and not merely an unusual exception to the rule, brought on by the very effective comments of the hon. member for Oakville on the matter of Bill C-17.
    I hope that we will see many more occasions where the NDP makes it clear that it is prepared to see a bill advance and, as such, resorting to Standing Order 73 is not required. There are several such notices on the order paper. I invite the NDP to advise the House which of those bills it is prepared to see advanced. Such a gesture would be welcome, and I am prepared to assure the House leader of the opposition it will be received in a non-partisan and co-operative manner.
    Either way, I wish to thank the opposition House leader for having done a service in revealing to Canadians how it is that the NDP approaches debate in the House. This revelation will, I am sure, help to inform the views of all those who follow the work we do.


    I appreciate the government House leader's intervention. Of course, we will come back to the House in due course.

Veterans Hiring Act

[Government Orders]
    The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
    Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.
    I support this bill at second reading. This bill, just as a bit of historical reference, is a reworking of Bill C-11, which previously died on the order paper. I certainly welcomed this new bill, thinking that it would go a bit further than Bill C-11. Unfortunately, while I am supporting it at second reading, there are some issues with this bill. It still does not go far enough in addressing the shortcomings of the previous bill, Bill C-11.
    Bill C-11, the previous bill, and this bill, Bill C-27, are based on many criticisms levelled by veterans groups and the Veterans Ombudsman regarding the government's career-transition services. Unfortunately, this bill overlooks an entire group of veterans who have trouble transitioning to a new career. The vast majority of veterans do not have the necessary degrees to obtain a position in the public service, and of course, many are simply not interested in a career in the public service.
    The bill would amend a number of sections and would offer priority status to members of the Canadian Forces released for medical reasons, placing them in the highest priority category ahead of both surplus employees and persons on leave. It also would increase the length of the priority entitlement period from two years to five years. It is important to note, and many people may not realize it, that Veterans Affairs also includes RCMP veterans. RCMP veterans would not be eligible for this new priority.
    The bill would give Second World War and Korean War veterans priority over other Canadian citizens. By expanding the definition of “veteran” to include military personnel having served at least three years, we would see a resurgence in the appointment of veterans to public service positions, and this priority would last for a period of five years. However, surviving spouses of former members of the Canadian Forces who served for three years would not get priority. This is in contrast to widows of World War II and Korean War veterans. We do not agree with these provisions as we believe that surviving spouses of all veterans who sacrificed their lives for our country should be given this preferential treatment. In designating several categories of veterans, it appears in this bill that we have abandoned the idea that a veteran is a veteran is a veteran, which is, if I can say, a cherished principle of the NDP.
    One aspect that is overlooked regarding the length of the priority entitlement period is that it would begin on the day a member left the Canadian Forces. This means that if members wished to contest the reason for their discharge or the length of time between their service and injury, their priority period would be decreasing by the day. As members may be aware, these procedures can take years to resolve. Members who pursued these courses of action would be at a disadvantage compared to other members of the Canadian Forces who did not have to appear before an administrative tribunal.
    We believe that the bill does not go far enough and that it focuses on only a very small number of veterans in transition who have the training and experience necessary to pursue a job in the public service.
    The government must implement the career transition recommendations made by the Veterans Ombudsman and the Auditor General. The government is balancing its budget clearly on the backs of our veterans and is proposing half measures that would not have a significant impact on the standard of living of veterans as a whole.
    Rather than implementing the recommendations of the Veterans Ombudsman and the Auditor General, or even waiting for the revision of the new veterans charter, which will be tabled tomorrow in this House, so the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs could make recommendations about transition as a whole, the Conservatives chose to introduce a bill that applies only to a very small part of the transition program.
    The priority entitlement period would end five years after a member of the Canadian Forces had been medically released. The eligibility period, as I said before, would increase from two years to five years.


    We believe that an increased length of time is justified for veterans who wish to pursue university studies. For example, a regular veteran, a regular Canadian, would take about four years to get a university degree. However, in the public service, advanced degrees past the first degree are often key to getting a good job in the public service. Even with that increase, it might be too late for them to take advantage of this hiring priority.
    Veterans Affairs Canada, together with the Department of National Defence, should explore other collaborative opportunities with organizations. Some of these were outlined in the report of the Veterans Ombudsman that came out in June last year. We should explore opportunities with organizations such as the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, and so forth.
    It should be the job of the government, and part of this bill, to cultivate partnerships with organizations that specialize in job placement, mentorship, and internship opportunities, which, again, was indicated in the report of the Veterans Ombudsman. It should be developing affiliations with academic institutions and the provinces to translate military skills, experience, and training into civilian academic equivalencies recognized by provincial ministries of education. That was also from the Veterans Ombudsman.
    It is pretty clear from the statistics that most departments do not hire veterans. A culture shift is required within government departments themselves. Of the few hundred each year who take advantage of priority hiring, 50% to 80%, depending on the year, will find positions in the Department of National Defence, not other departments. There should be a general effort made to ensure that this happens.
    A universal deployment principle could be adjusted for Canadian Forces members who have been injured in the line of duty. The latest figures I have are from 2011-12. In that period, of the 942 medically released former Canadian Forces members, only 10% had a completed or partially completed post-secondary education. Nearly half of them had high school levels or less in education.
    In the future, seven out of 10 jobs will require specialized post-secondary education. Therefore, the onus should be on the federal government to ensure that those opportunities are there for our veterans.
    Equally interesting is that only 16% of the companies that were polled would make a special effort to recruit veterans. Clearly, knowledge and understanding of veterans and their experiences have not translated into the private sector.
    Only 13% of the companies polled said that their human resources departments knew how to read the resumés of military applicants. That is understandable, because their training is a little bit different. I remember a few years ago, before the program ended when MPs had a chance to spend some time in the military, I was with the navy. I asked a question of the soon-to-retire captain of a ship. We were passing a cruise ship, and I said that there could be a cruise ship opportunity for him as a captain. He told me, quite politely, that his training really did not translate into being a cruise ship captain. People clearly do have to know how to read the resumés.
    I would like to say one more thing about veterans, and Thunder Bay in particular, where the office recently closed. In 2012, 3,127 veterans were served in the Thunder Bay office, which is now closed. That office cost about $686,000 a year to keep open. All the veterans offices that were closed cost about $4 million. Strangely enough, that is the same amount of money, $4 million, the government is now spending on veterans advertising. There could have been some better use of that money.


    Mr. Speaker, there is a government freeze on hiring right now. It has already cut about 20,000 jobs, with an expectation of cutting another 30,000 jobs.
    My question is simple. I see this more as window dressing and as a very hollow bill. There may be a few people who might get jobs, if that. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on that observation, which is shared by many people.
    Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. As I said in my short speech, I believe that the bill does not go far enough. It focuses on a very small number of veterans in transition. He is absolutely right that even that small number of veterans may not have the opportunity to take advantage of priority hiring. It really is unfortunate. If the government had decided to implement some of the career transition recommendations made by the Veterans Ombudsman and the Auditor General, perhaps we would be in a better position to help veterans.
    I would be remiss if I did not mention again that, unfortunately, the government is balancing its budget on the backs of veterans, in spite of the good work of all parties on the new veterans charter, which will be tabled tomorrow.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his great speech. I was surprised by the percentage he gave, which is that 10% of veterans, out of 942, which is roughly 94 veterans, are going through this program. I was also surprised to learn that the RCMP is not included in this bill.
    I would like my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River to try to explain to us why so many veterans are being ignored by the government.
    Mr. Speaker, most Canadians do not realize that the RCMP is included under Veterans Affairs, and I think the government may think that RCMP veterans, in fact the large majority of RCMP veterans, have actually worked their entire lives and have retired at an opportune time from the RCMP. It does not address issues concerning RCMP veterans who are perhaps injured in the line of duty.
    We do not have to talk about physical injuries. Just like members of the Canadian Forces, members of the RCMP are also subject, perhaps even more so, to certain injuries, such as PTSD, for example, and others that would put them on a new career track if they were included in this bill.
    Mr. Speaker, last week a wonderful group of people from the private sector came to the Hill. It was an apolitical event where the private sector was being encouraged to look at individuals who have served in the forces. The argument is that not only do we owe a great deal of gratitude and thanks to members who have served in the forces but that they also have certain skill sets that could be utilized within different sectors of society, whether it is in the private sector or the public sector.
    I wonder if the member would like to comment on the benefits of the skill sets members of the forces acquire by serving.


    Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, many in the private sector, as evidenced by the statistics I gave earlier, do not even know how to read the resumés of people who have been in the Canadian Forces. It is understandable that a human resources director may not see how valuable experience as an infantryman is, for example, when it may not translate exactly into a particular business. I believe that as part of this bill, the government should be reaching out to private sector organizations, not just to public sector organizations, to ensure that veterans have the best opportunities possible.


    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, concerns a top priority: our veterans. No one will say otherwise.
    It is not enough to say that we are behind them. We must take action. After these people have put their lives and health at risk, it would be hypocritical not to provide them with all the assistance and support they need to return to civilian life.
    This bill is an amended version of Bill C-11, introduced in the fall of 2013, which the government allowed to die on the order paper after seven days of debate. Even though we feel this bill does not go far enough and the main flaws in Bill C-11 have not been corrected, we nevertheless support Bill C-27 at second reading.
    Enough time has been wasted, and much work remains to be done in committee. We must work to ensure that this bill truly helps veterans return to civilian life.
    In its present form, this bill will not help veterans who are finding it hard to make the career transition from the armed forces to civilian life. The vast majority of them do not have a university degree, which is necessary to secure a position in the public service, whereas others simply are not interested in that kind of career. I understand why because soon there will be no more public servants.
    Under subsection 39(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, preference is given to veterans of World War II and the Korean War. However, surviving spouses of former members of the Canadian Forces who served less than three years will not have access to this preference, unlike the surviving spouses of World War II veterans.
    We disagree with this proposal because we believe all veterans deserve the same treatment. By creating so many classes, the Conservatives are abandoning the principle of a single class of veterans, those who risked their lives for Canada.
    In view of the staff cuts in the public service, veterans do not have access to as many positions as they did previously. Employees who have been victims of the cuts take precedence.
    There also appears to be a flaw in the bill regarding the period during which veterans have hiring priority over other candidates. We feel that the period during which employment priority applies is quite short.
    Veterans wishing to earn a university degree will need about four or five years, in certain cases where the position requires a master’s degree. This five-year period begins when the member is released. Consequently, if a member challenges the reason for his or her release or whether an injury is service-related, the priority period will continue to run during the proceedings, which may extend over several years. The member would therefore be put at a disadvantage relative to another member who would not have to challenge the matter before an administrative tribunal.
    Private sector co-operation must be improved because people in the private sector are unaware of veterans’ skills. Human resource departments do not know how to interpret the curricula vitae of veterans who apply for jobs.
    The government has announced that it will reimburse veterans up to $75,800 for training and transition costs. That amount will be spread over five years, and the budget has a ceiling of $2 million. If the maximum amount is granted to every veteran, only 27 will be able to receive it, roughly five a year. When we think of the tens of thousands of veterans returning from Afghanistan, we wonder how many veterans will be able to take advantage of this program.


    In a recent advertisement, which focuses more on the government’s image than the service advertised, the Conservatives show a veteran standing in front of his closet. He hesitates between his uniform and a suit, as though he is merely making a clothing choice. However, the reality is completely different.
     I cannot help but think of another veteran I saw. At the Remembrance Day ceremony on November 11, 2013, a man in his fifties leaned on his cane so that he could lay a floral wreath in front of the cenotaph. Having been wounded in training, he was forced to retire from the armed forces two years before he was eligible for a full pension. Today he must live on a pension that has been reduced by 35%, which puts him below the poverty line. He told me that he had enlisted in the armed forces to fight for his country and that now he had to fight against his country.
     To sum up, there are two major classes of veterans: those the government presents to us in its advertisements and those who are fighting through an administrative maze against a bureaucracy that is preventing them from living their lives.
    Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my hon. colleague speak about Bill C-27, I was thinking it was quite incredible to force veterans to return to the labour market when they might not all be ready to do so. That really is a key point.
    The government is trying to confuse people with Bill C-27. Once again, it has set aside the recommendations of the veterans ombudsman. They have been set aside several years in a row. People told me that this made no sense and that the government should see that, year after year, a report was issued and included the same recommendations every time, calling for more services and more care for veterans. The government is setting it aside today and distracting us with Bill C-27, which is not at all up to expectations.
     I really would like to hear from my colleague on this. Can he tell us what we expect from this Conservative government and what we would like it to do?
    Mr. Speaker, we ask people to go and defend our convictions and our principles. They are brave, motivated people who put their lives and health at risk. The least we can do when they come home is to ensure that they have no more worries and provide them with a decent quality of life and standard of living.
     I base my remarks on the experience of my uncle, who fought in World War II. He was wounded in a landmine explosion in which his brother was killed right before his eyes. He went through something absolutely horrible. When he came home, despite the therapy he received, he was no longer able to live in society because he was shattered. He went to work in a logging camp for 20 years until he could return to some kind of balance.
     Today I believe we should do more for our veterans and ensure that they do not have to suffer misery after the trauma they have gone through.


    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the two veteran classes he mentioned: those commonly called “older” veterans and “new” veterans, who have mainly served in more peace-oriented missions in Bosnia, on the Golan Heights and subsequently in Afghanistan. That was no peace mission, but the 60,000 veterans who took part in it fall into this class of so-called modern veterans.
     I would like my colleague to describe for us his opinion and feelings about the injustice that is caused by the creation of two classes of veterans.
    Mr. Speaker, three of my uncles landed at Dunkirk and one of them died. To me, there is no difference between a Second World War veteran or a Korean War veteran and our young people who were recently in Afghanistan.
    If there is a difference, it is that the latest generation of veterans experienced events that were even more traumatic and highly publicized in a context that was less clear-cut than in the days when my uncles went off to fight fascism. Now the causes are harder to understand. However, there should be no difference in the way veterans are treated once they come back to the country having carried out their duty.


    Mr. Speaker, before starting, I would like to inform you that I will split my time with the member for Ottawa—Orléans.
    I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-27. I served for 23 years in the Canadian Forces, in the reserves, the regular force, and the cadet corps. I participated in the missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Afghanistan, in 2007, when we were starting to realize that we were not in a peacekeeping mission but at war.
    I am pleased to speak to yet another important way that our government is creating new opportunities for Canada's veterans and still-serving members who want to join the federal public service. The veterans hiring act builds upon our efforts to create priority hiring for those men and women who are medically releasing from the military because of a service-related injury.
    This new bill reflects our government's profound gratitude for the service and sacrifices of Canada's men and women in uniform, past and present. Just as importantly, it recognizes that Canada's veterans and servicemen and women are highly skilled and admired individuals who are known for their courage and dedication. It recognizes our government's appreciation for their leadership, their professionalism, and their teamwork.
    Most of all, it recognizes that they are renowned for getting the job done, no matter what the mission is. Our government is proud of them. We are proud of their extraordinary contributions to our great country, and we want Canada to continue to benefit from their experience and expertise. They have a lot to offer, even when they are retiring at the compulsory age of 60.
    Increasing access to career opportunities for veterans in the public service does all of this. It also builds on our many other important investments and initiatives to support veterans in their transition to civilian life, an ongoing eight-year commitment that started when we implemented the new veterans charter, in 2006, and one that has continued with the delivery of our economic action plan 2014, in February.
    Our government has been single-minded in doing everything we can to ensure that veterans and their families have the care and support they need when and where they need it. This includes ensuring Canada's veterans make a successful transition to civilian life, which often depends on finding meaningful new employment.
    The fact is that the average age of our releasing Canadian Armed Forces personnel is just 37 years old. These young men and women have the drive, skills, leadership, and experience to start successful new careers. That is why we are helping veterans and their families with vocational training and employment opportunities after their military service.
    This includes a flexible new approach to training for eligible veterans in the rehabilitation program, which provides up to $75,800 for even the most specialized training, if needed, and the hire a veteran initiative that is aimed at connecting veterans with employers.
    We are working closer than ever before with both the private and public sectors to remind them of the very real benefits and advantages of hiring former military personnel. We are committed to ensuring that veterans have the supports they need to successfully transition to civilian life.
    We demonstrated this when our government announced that Canadian Armed Forces veterans who are medically released due to a service-related injury or illness would be given the top level of priority consideration for job openings in the public service.
    The veterans hiring act builds on this. We want to help move veterans to the front of the line when it comes to hiring qualified Canadians for federal public service jobs.


    As well, this initiative would provide even further support for all medically released veterans, by extending their existing priority entitlement period from two years to five years.
    However, our government proposes to go even further.
    The bill adds new measures that would benefit even more veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel. Among other things, we would extend additional hiring opportunities to other honourably released veterans and still serving members who want to start a new career in the federal public service.
    Through the amendments we are proposing, qualified veterans who have at least three years of military service will be given access to internally advertised positions. We will also allow them to continue to compete for these internal postings for a full five years after their release from the Canadian Armed Forces.
    As well, these veterans would receive a hiring preference in the externally advertised hiring process if a veteran is equally qualified and has been honourably released and has at least three years of military service. Simply put, if a veteran is as qualified as the other candidates, the hiring priority will ensure that the veteran gets the job.
    During their service to Canada, Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans have acquired the skills that make them ideal employees. These new measures recognize that. They have demonstrated their commitment to Canada, and it is now our responsibility to ensure that they have access to the employment opportunities they need to be successful when their time in uniform is complete.
    At the same time, the five-year hiring preference would provide veterans with sufficient time to further upgrade their education and skills if required, before they seek work in the federal public service. This measure would ensure exactly what I mentioned at the outset of my comments, that our government will continue being able to tap into a remarkably skilled and dedicated pool of individuals, a pool of talent that was created through our country's investment in their training and development.
    Although their time in uniform is complete, their dedication to Canada remains, which is why I am pleased that these measures would help veterans continue their service to Canada in the public service. This is the right thing to do for every Canadian who has proudly worn our nation's uniform.
    We hope all members of the House will throw their full support behind these measures. Let us move quickly so that we can put these enhancements into effect as soon as possible. Our nation's veterans and still serving members deserve our support, and our government is proud to deliver it.
    Obviously it is a shame that the Union of National Defence Employees is unsupportive of what is being proposed. It does not agree that we should recognize the service of Canada's veterans by providing them with access to jobs that will help them and their families succeed. Instead, it wants to see them moved to the back of the line behind civil servants. I strongly urge the NDP to bring the union bosses onside and support this legislation.



    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill. However, for several reasons the NDP believes that it does not go far enough. In my riding, I meet a lot of veterans and their families. These veterans and their loved ones have to cope with a lot of problems. They feel that they do not get enough support from the government.
    The government decided to cap its training spending at $2 million over five years. That is a way of restricting access to the program.
    Why did the government decide once again to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans?


    Mr. Speaker, our government is taking care of veterans. This legislation would allow serving members who are honourably discharged to use their skills and participate in the internally advertised jobs in the public service.
    It is a shame that we who served in uniform are not considered qualified for these jobs. This is the reason that I am here in Parliament today, to fight for Bill C-27.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Pickering—Scarborough East for his service to our country at the various fronts that he referred to. However, his words ring hollow.
    On Thursday of last week, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that the Conservatives increased their advertising budget by $4 million. However, their budget for career transition counselling increased by $11,000. That means they are going to serve 296 veterans in career counselling. That is 296 resumes. We have 40,000 veterans coming out of Afghanistan, but it is 296 resumes, at $1,000 a piece.
    The government has taken 20,000 jobs out of the public service, and it is going to take another 30,000 jobs. It has put on a hiring freeze. Therefore, I would suggest that the member's words ring hollow.
     I would ask the member to give me some substance, not words. Does he know how many jobs will be provided? When the member says that the government is doing everything it can, I do not believe it, and Canadians do not believe it. Tell me how many jobs will be created by this bill for these veterans.


    Mr. Speaker, the member is spouting numbers left, right, and centre. I think that this legislation would allow armed forces members access to services. It would not necessarily qualify them, but at least they could access the service.
    Our government has eliminated compulsory retirement in the public service. However, in the Canadian Armed Forces, one needs to retire at 60 years of age. There are able people who can work longer. Even if there is one job, it is more than zero, and this legislation would provide it.
    Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East for the service he has given to our country and for graciously sharing his time with me today.


    It is the men and women in uniform who have served and sacrificed so much for our country, and those who continue to do so, who have made our nation what it is today.


    That is why I am pleased to rise today to support the government's efforts to recognize these sacrifices by helping our veterans find meaningful employment in the federal public service. It is the least that we can do.


     Our veterans are the ones who have defended our freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law and the ones who, too often, have given their own lives doing so.


    Their sacrifice has allowed us the freedom and peace to pursue and realize the great riches and potential that our country offers.


    Indeed, Canada’s veterans personify the ideal of commitment to cause and country. They embody honour and modesty.


    Each week, I run into many veterans, whether I am stopping by at the Orléans branch of the Royal Canadian Legion or participating at different commemorative events. There are a considerable number of military personnel and veterans in Ottawa—Orléans, and of course, Branch 632 is the friendliest Legion in the region.


    When veterans are asked about their service, their sacrifice or the reasons why they served, their answer is almost invariably because it was their duty.


    They did much more than that. They have made Canada a nation that is universally respected around the world. They have helped those in crisis and in need. They have helped to keep the peace in many troubled areas far from Canada.


    When all other avenues failed, they fought to protect our way of life and preserve the right of others to live in freedom.


    The proud record of Canada's veterans explains the government's deep commitment to recognizing their service and honouring their sacrifice every day.
    The government continues to strive to ensure that veterans and their families receive the care and support they need whenever and wherever they need it.


    The veterans hiring act further solidifies the government’s commitment and determination to be there for those who have always been there for Canada.


    It is our responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete.
    The measures we are proposing today will greatly help veterans succeed by creating new opportunities for veterans and still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces to start rewarding new careers in the federal public service.


    We will create a five-year statutory priority entitlement for Canadian veterans who are medically released for service-related injuries and illnesses.



    This change will move these veterans to the front of the line, ahead of all other groups for jobs in the federal public service and by doing so, it will recognize their very real sacrifices for Canada.


     Additionally, these new measures will extend the priority entitlement period for all medically released veterans from the current two years to five years.


    This means that eligible veterans whose military service is cut short by a career-ending injury or illness suffered in the line of duty will have the time they need to find a federal public service job.
     However, we must not forget our other honourably released veterans and still-serving military personnel. As outlined in economic action plan 2014, the government made a commitment to allow eligible, still-serving military personnel to participate in the hiring process for internally advertised positions in the federal public service. This eligibility would extend for a full five years after their release from the Canadian Armed Forces.


    To ensure our veterans move to the front of the line for federal public service jobs, a hiring preference for our veterans will be established.
    If a veteran has the same qualifications as another applicant in an externally advertised hiring process, the veteran will get the job.


    This new hiring preference will be available to all veterans who are honourably released with at least three years of military service. It will last for up to five years from their release date.


    This will give our veterans who want to upgrade their skills and education before entering the public service the time to do so. This is great news for these remarkable men and women, and it is the kind of action Canadians have come to expect from us.


    Check our record. The government, regardless of fiscal pressures or economic uncertainties, has delivered on its pledge to maintain and enhance veterans' programs and benefits.
    Due to the action taken by the government, the annual budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs has increased by a total of almost $785 million since 2005. In total, almost $5 billion in new funding has been invested towards enhancing veterans' benefits, programs and services.
    At every turn, we have been adapting our programs and benefits to meet the changing needs of the men, women and families that we serve.


    We have been streamlining the way we provide this support. We have been simplifying and reviewing our programs and policies.


    We have been introducing new technologies to deliver better and faster service. It is all part of our cutting red tape for veterans initiative, because on this side of the House we are actually allergic to red tape.
    The government has made significant improvements to ensure the best care, support and benefits for Can