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 accessible@parl.gc.ca.

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

41st PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 099

CONTENTS

Monday, June 9, 2014




House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 147 
l
NUMBER 099 
l
2nd SESSION 
l
41st PARLIAMENT 

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Monday, June 9, 2014

Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer

    The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayers


  (1105)  

[English]

Business of the House

    Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
    That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, any recorded division demanded, in relation to a debatable motion, during the present sitting, shall be deemed to stand deferred until the conclusion of the proceedings related to the Business of Supply on Tuesday, June 10, 2014.
    Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (Motion agreed to)

    It being 11:05 a.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Private Members' Business]

[English]

Canada Pension Plan

     He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present my first private member's bill, Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act.
    It is an honour to have the opportunity as a member of Parliament, representing my constituents of Chatham-Kent—Essex, to make a positive impact on this great country, helping to make it a better place for us and our children. Bill C-591 is such an attempt. This bill would close a long-standing loophole that enables someone in Canada today, convicted of killing their spouse or their parent, from receiving their victim's CPP benefit or CPP orphan benefit.
    This bill is consistent with a long-standing common law principle, known as ex turpi causa, that criminals should not benefit from their crimes. This bill would restore fairness to the victims and their families by ensuring that those convicted of first- and second-degree murder would not be entitled to their victims' benefits.
    The bill would apply to those convicted of first- and second-degree murder, which by definition is murder involving deliberate acts with intent to kill. The bill would not include those charged with manslaughter, since manslaughter, by definition, is death resulting from unintentional actions, such as accidents, provocation, or history of abuse. I will address this issue later in my speech.
    A conviction of first- and second-degree murder must be within the meaning of section 231 of the Criminal Code of Canada or its equivalent in a foreign country, provided that the minister is satisfied that the procedures were fair and unbiased.
    One cannot imagine the horror of having a loved one murdered, yet every year in Canada we read of tragic cases where someone loses their life by an act of murder. Sadly, this is done, at times, at the hands of a family member.
    In an article posted in The Sun on Saturday, December 21, 2013, the headline reads, “Murder cases close to home — 2013 sees deadly rise in family related slayings in Calgary”.
    Of the tragedy in our first nations communities faced by our aboriginal women, the Native Women's Association of Canada reports in their fact sheet of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls that of the murder cases in the NWAC's database where someone has been charged, 23% are committed by a current or former partner of the victim.
    John F. Conway writes in The Canadian Family in Crisis, fifth edition, “About 40% of homicides in Canada involve victims and suspects in a domestic relationship...”
     These are shocking statistics. I am not suggesting that all of these tragic events would be affected by my bill but what I am saying is, today, in Canada, approximately 30 cases a year involving murder of a spouse, common-law partner, or child could be affected by this legislation.
    How terrible a thing to suffer the horror of family violence, how much more the horror of murder, but to have the added pain of witnessing someone profit from their crime, a clear violation to the long-standing common law principle of ex turpi causa, by way of collecting the victim's survivor benefit, is not fair to the families of the murder victim, and it is an injustice that cannot be allowed to happen.
    I will first define who would not be eligible by providing an explanation of the CPP death benefit package, followed by the procedure to be put in place, the role of the minister, consideration of appeals, burial payments, explanation of first- and second-degree murder, and then a wrap-up.
    First, I will talk about those to whom the bill is targeted by way of examination of CPP death benefits and OAS survivor benefits.
    The Canadian Pension Plan is a social insurance plan that provides contributors and their families with a modest income replacement upon retirement, disability, or death of a contributor. It is this last provision, death of a contributor that is the essence of Bill C-591. At the death of CPP recipient, the survivors are eligible for these benefits: the monthly survivor pension paid to the spouse or common-law partner; the monthly orphan's benefit for dependent children; and a one-time lump sum death benefit.

  (1110)  

    As well, under the old age security program, the annual allowance for survivors, ALWS, is provided to low-income survivors aged 60-64 who meet the residence requirements and have not entered a new relationship.
    These are the benefits that are provided through the Canada pension plan and old age security to the survivor of someone who is receiving CPP or contributing to CPP upon death.
    The bill would make changes to the act that defines these benefits so that no one who has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder and who would normally be entitled to receive the survivor benefits would ever collect the victim's pension or survivor benefits.
    Allow me to define the role of the minister. When the minister is informed and satisfied than an individual has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder, the payment would immediately cease. In cases of death benefits paid, when CPP monthly survivor pension, monthly orphan benefit, or one-time lump sum, the individual convicted would be determined never to have been eligible for the benefit and as such it would be considered an overpayment. All or any CPP and/or OAS benefit payment would be deemed repayable.
    However, what if the disentitled individual were found innocent upon repeal or is subject to a new trial? If the disentitled individual appealed the conviction or were granted a new trial, the decision to cancel the benefit as a result of the original conviction would remain in effect pending the final outcome of the judicial process. If the individual were subsequently convicted of a lesser crime or acquitted, the benefit would be reinstated upon the department being notified. The individual would be entitled to payments dating back to the first day of eligibility.
    The CPP would not be amended for orphans under the age of 18. In Canada, children under age 18 are considered minors and as such those charged with care and custody of a minor would receive the CPP orphan's benefit.
    However, the orphan's benefit that normally is paid directly to someone between the ages of 18 and 25 who retain their eligibility by attending school would not be available to a child who has been convicted of murdering a parent when he or she turns 18. This approach recognizes the guardian's expenses undertaken to care for the child and the fact that the guardian, in some cases the surviving spouse, has not committed the crime.
    Let me now address the death benefit. As stated, the CPP would be amended to ensure that any individual convicted of murdering his or her spouse would not be eligible to collect the CPP death benefit. However, the death benefit would continue to be paid to the estate of the deceased to help with the funeral costs or if there were no estate, the person who paid for the funeral costs might be eligible to receive the costs.
    While the legislation would not permit the death benefit to go to the murderer, even if she or he paid these expenses, it is important to note that the funeral expenses would already have been paid by the time the person was convicted of murder. If the murderer received the death benefit before being convicted, he or she would lose eligibility for the death benefit and would have to reimburse the department at that point.
    Next, let me explain why the bill would only apply to first- and second-degree murder. As stated earlier, the amendments made by Bill C-591 are based on a common-law principle that individuals should not benefit from their crimes. This principle of ex turpi causa clearly applies to conviction of first- and second-degree murder. The principle does not apply as clearly or uniformly to cases of manslaughter and other offences since they do not necessarily involve the intent to kill and can involve abuse, provocation, or accident. Courts have said that the principle of ex turpi causa should not be applied automatically to manslaughter and other offences involving responsibility for a death without examining the specific circumstances of each case.
    Further to the role of the minister, it would be impossible for the minister to proactively identify murderers nor would it be feasible to implement a tracking system due to major obstacles such as provincial and territorial privacy laws. Creating the legal obligation for the minister to proactively detect who is subject to this provision would set an obligation upon the minister that is impossible to fulfill.

  (1115)  

    Therefore, there must be engagement with victims organizations to increase awareness of these amendments. This can be done by calling the department, by writing, or by visiting a Service Canada office. The department can then verify ineligibility due to murder by first and second degree through a copy of an official document confirming the conviction.
    As stated, it is estimated that approximately 30 individuals per year would be affected by this legislative amendment. Of those, roughly half would apply for CPP survivors' benefits, roughly one-third would be OAS allowance recipients, and less than 10% would relate to CPP orphan benefits.
    Familial homicides are not all committed by spouses, children, or common-law partners, and not all cases are charged with murder, convicted, nor have all victims sufficiently contributed to the CPP or possible recipients of the allowance for survivors.
    The intent of the legislation would not be to punish families. The focus would be on preventing murderers from benefiting from their crimes. An individual convicted of murdering his or her spouse would be ineligible for survivor pension. However, if there are children, the orphans' benefit would still be applied.
    The proposed approach is feasible, cost-effective, and consistent with privacy laws. It respects areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, ensuring that the minister would be able to fulfill obligations.
    In closing, nothing can take away the pain and suffering experienced by the survivors of a murder victim. No law can ever bring back those whose lives have been taken by such a cruel act of violence.
    However, this bill would restore fairness to victims and their families. This bill would ensure that those convicted of first and second degree murder would not be entitled to their victims' benefits. None of us wants to see those who suffer the loss of a loved one suffer the added insult of seeing the one responsible for their death by first or second degree murder collecting the victim's benefits as well.
    I hope that the bill is supported by all members of this House and sees swift passage after a thorough debate.
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex for his contribution with this private member's bill. It closes an obvious loophole that I am sure will be closed with the support of all, if not most, members.
    Mr. Speaker, my question through you to the member is relating to his decision in the bill to exclude manslaughter from the ambit of what I think he is very properly trying to do with respect to the Canada pension plan and the old age security benefits.
    Section 232 of Criminal Code says:
    (1) Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation.
    It seems to me, without evidence before me to substantiate that, much of the spousal homicides that occur would be either the subject of manslaughter, or perhaps a plea bargain, where a first or second degree murder charge is reduced to manslaughter.
    I ask the hon. member whether he would consider an amendment at the committee stage to address, in some way, the underinclusive nature of his bill.

  (1120)  

    Mr. Speaker, the question of manslaughter is indeed an area that has been discussed. I understand it was presented in a similar bill by the member for Hamilton Mountain.
    I feel that the legislation would have more strength if we restrict it to first and second degree murder. As I stated in my speech, the courts have said that in the cases of manslaughter, this would possibly cause problems and could be thrown out of court. What I am trying to do today is to present a bill that is solid, that would be able to make passage.
    However, as the member said, the bill will go before committee, and these are the things that we need to discuss further.
    I thank the member for his statements. I thank him for his kind words. I look forward to the passage of the bill. I am also very thankful to hear that the members opposite also support this as something that needs to be done.
    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that there is a great deal of merit in the bill, and we will be supporting it. However, if I was going to stand up on OAS and our pension program, the CPP, my first inclination would be to talk about the government's actions with respect to increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67, or the guaranteed income supplements. Canadians believe strongly and passionately about our pension programs.
    Having said that, I will resist asking a question on that. Rather, I would ask the member if he could give any indication as to the number of individuals who today would be a benefactor of any form of Canada pensions through the current system. He mentioned that it has been about 30 a year in recent years. Does he have any sense as to the number of people in our institutions today who have committed that type of crime and who are receiving the types of benefits that this bill is designed to prevent in the future?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the way for keeping this discussion on the bill. I recognize the temptation. I appreciate his question. It is a good question.
    Due to privacy laws, the exact number is impossible to know. We have suggested, and I have suggested in my bill, that we put a program in place where the minister can inform the public where there are cases that this is taking place. It would be retroactive, in which cases they would then cease.
    As to the number, the member is right, as I stated in my speech, I spoke about approximately 30 people who could be affected. It would not apply to all of those. However, as to the number who would cease to receive the benefit, if the minister is notified, it would be all of them.
    Mr. Speaker, as I foreshadowed in my question for the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, New Democrats say categorically that we as the official opposition will be supporting this bill. This is a bill that closes a very obvious loophole, but for reasons that I will describe, in my judgment it does not go far enough.
    This bill is remarkably similar to legislation initiated and introduced in 2011, over three years ago, by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain. New Democrats are pleased to see that the Conservatives are finally recognizing the need to address this issue and to close such an obvious loophole. An unfortunate failure of the current Canada pension plan legislation is that survivors' pension death benefits or orphans' benefits may be made payable to those convicted of murdering their spouse or parent. I am sure that to 100% of Canadians that will sound bizarre in the extreme. That it has taken a private member's bill and the government three years to respond to the private member's bill of my colleague from Hamilton Mountain should seem equally strange to Canadians.
    When the member for Hamilton Mountain introduced a similar bill, she was responding to this letter from a constituent, which stated:
    I have a relative who killed his wife, served very little time for manslaughter, and is (and has been) collecting CPP survivor benefits for over 10 years. Since 1-2 women per week die at the hands of their partners, how many more men are collecting this? How is this legal?
    That is an excellent question, but, as we will see, as in many cases of this kind, the constituent was talking about manslaughter, not simply first or second degree murder, which is the sole ambit of the private member's bill before us today.
    A few days ago, on CBC TV, in my part of the world, British Columbia, the following was said:
    A North Delta woman, whose father killed her mother, wants the federal government to plug a loophole that allowed him to collect pension survivor benefits for 28 years until his death.
    Susan Fetterkind's mother Vivienne was stabbed multiple times by her estranged husband.... [He] collected Canada Pension Plan benefits until he died last year.
    She went on to say:
    The government is enabling killers to profit from murdering their spouse. You're not supposed to be able to profit from murdering somebody.
    That is so obviously true. Once again, the largest proportion of family-related homicides are spousal murders, and of those, a great number result in a plea bargain and a reduced conviction of manslaughter. Ms. Fetterkind is hoping that this Parliament, aware of this initiative before us today, will embrace not just first and degree murder, but also manslaughter, which I will talk about in a moment. Correcting this error and ending the ability of those convicted of murdering their spouses or parents to collect survivor or orphan benefits is obviously something that the official opposition will strongly support. That is, of course, why New Democrats introduced legislation long ago.
    As my colleague from Winnipeg North alluded to a moment ago, it is quite surprising that this initiative is taking the form of a private member's bill. I say that for two reasons. The Canada pension plan and old age security are the subjects of enormous debate right now in Canada. The need for income retirement security has never been greater, yet the government is not addressing that. All it has done on OAS is to increase the age of collection until 67, and refused to act in a comprehensive way on CPP. Therefore, it is surprising that this is not part of a comprehensive reform that is so desperately required in both of those contexts.
    However, equally surprising is that this is a private member's bill. The government routinely introduces—I do not know how many times now—omnibus budget bills, what we call “everything but the kitchen sink legislation”, of which this could readily be a part, yet it is now in the form of a private member's bill. Having said all of that, I do not want the form to triumph over the substance. The substance is critical and long overdue, although it is rather strange that it is taking the form of a private member's bill.

  (1125)  

    In June 2011, the member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain reintroduced Bill C-206, an act to amend the Canada pension plan in relation to pension and benefits. It would have amended the Canada pension plan to prohibit the payment of survivors pension, orphans benefits, or death benefits to a survivor, child, or orphan of a deceased contributor if the survivor, child, or orphan had been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the deceased contributor. That bill quite categorically embraced the category of manslaughter, unlike the bill before us today.
    As my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex pointed out, many would assume that the long-established principle in law would be that no one should be able to benefit from a crime and that this principle would also be enshrined in the eligibility criteria for government benefit programs, but that was not the case for CPP benefits and old age security benefits. This loophole is obvious and needs to be closed, and that is why the legislation was introduced before.
    In response to what my colleague said about manslaughter, while I appreciate that he wants to keep the bill clear and easy to put into legislation, I would urge him to consider including manslaughter in the bill when it goes to committee, for a couple of important reasons.
    I do not believe there is any reason a court could not, as part of the sentencing on manslaughter, take a look at the circumstances. Among the things the judge could look at is whether, in his or her judgment, CPP and OAS benefits ought to be denied to the survivor, the person who committed the murder or manslaughter, when convicted. It could readily be part of a court order. There would be no privacy concerns whatsoever, as the statement would be made in open court.
    I confess I do not have statistics for it, except the experience of all criminal lawyers as they plead their client down from murder to manslaughter, but if I am right that it will be a larger category, it seems ridiculous that we would not include those convicted of manslaughter within the ambit of this legislation. In other words, to put it baldly, if a person is convicted of murder, they cannot collect these benefits, but if they manage to get plea-bargained down to manslaughter, that is just fine.
    I do not believe Canadians would accept that. I do not believe the two people whose direct experience I cited earlier would accept it, because in both cases their father was convicted not of murder but of manslaughter. We are not doing the right thing by Canadians if we limit ourselves to that. Most crimes of passion would be manslaughter, not premeditated murder, so it seems to me that we are missing the boat in a massive way if we do not close that loophole as well.
    I commend my colleague for bringing this measure forward to embrace the category of murder, but to not embrace manslaughter seems rather ridiculous, given that culpable spousal or partner homicide is most likely to result in manslaughter, not murder. If I am wrong on my statistics, I of course will stand to be corrected, but I believe that to be the case, just based on common sense and experience in the courts.
    I think that is the only thing that would be in the way of our providing unanimous and immediate support for this measure. We should decide to make it more inclusive than it is.
    In terms of validators for a position that we are taking, needless to say, it is common sense. If we asked Canadians how they would feel about someone collecting these benefits if they have been convicted of spousal homicide, obviously clearly they would agree with the bill. The Woman Abuse Working Group's action committee supported Bill C-206 and commended the member for Hamilton Mountain for bringing it forward, and I am sure that women's groups would also accept this measure as well.
    In conclusion, I commend the member for bringing the bill forward. It is an overdue initiative. I just hope that at committee stage, we will be able to persuade the hon. member and the government to expand it to find a creative way to include manslaughter within the ambit of this important initiative.

  (1130)  

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is pleased to support this legislation. Logic and natural justice seem to make it clear that an individual should not benefit from a crime, particularly when that crime is murder. The murder of a spouse, the murder of anyone, is obviously an extremely serious crime, so we do not want the system to be such that an individual who murders his or her spouse would benefit through the collection of any kind of government benefits. This legislation would stop that from happening for both Canadian pension plan benefits and old age security benefits.
    We are told by the Library of Parliament that it may happen to be a policy of the government, which is not law. I am not sure if that is correct, but whether or not it is correct, it is a principle that is worth enshrining in law so that there is absolutely no doubt that it is the law of the land. We in the Liberal Party have no hesitation whatsoever in offering our support to the bill.
    Right at the core of the bill is old age security, and old age security is an important issue for Canadians in a number of areas. To deprive an individual of the OAS benefits of his or her murdered spouse is critical, important, and positive, but that might affect up to four dozen people, whereas the raising of the age for OAS from 65 to 67 must affect hundreds of thousands of people. Given the centrality of OAS in this particular private member's bill, it is worth spending a little time talking about OAS in the context of what affects thousands of Canadians.

  (1135)  

[Translation]

    The Liberal Party is opposed to the government's plan to increase the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67. We oppose it for two reasons. First, contrary to what the government is saying, all of the experts are telling us that the current system is actually viable.

[English]

    The government says that the system is not sustainable because of our aging population, but the chief actuary, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and other worthy and qualified bodies and individuals say that it is. When asked to choose between the statement of the government on sustainability and the statement of these experts, I will go with the experts.
    My second point is that even if we deny what the experts say and argue that the current system is unsustainable, there are different ways to make it sustainable. One is to increase the age from 65 to 67, which the government is proposing, but that is the most mean-spirited method. It would really hit the most vulnerable. If we really believe it is unsustainable, which I do not, another way would be to reduce the income level—
    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to thank the Liberal Party for its support of the bill, but the member should focus on the bill itself. The current subject that he is debating is really not a part of the bill. I would ask the member to focus on the important dialogue of discussing the bill.
    Does the hon. member for Markham--Unionville want to respond?
    Mr. Speaker, I indicated the wholehearted support of the Liberal Party for the bill. I also said OAS is central to the bill. Having indicated my support, I thought it was perhaps in order for me to discuss another aspect of OAS. This aspect of the OAS, which I was in the middle of discussing, has an important impact on hundreds of thousands of Canadians, so I did think it was germane to the debate.
    I think the point of order on relevance is appropriate here. I have to say to the member for Markham—Unionville that I am having some difficulty seeing the connection. Even recognizing how broadly we have interpreted the range of relevance, I am having some difficulty in this particular case. Perhaps I could invite the member to bring his comments back to the bill before us.
    Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me a minute to complete my thought and then I will return to the bill.
    I was in the process of saying that if the government thinks the OAS is unsustainable, instead of raising the age from 65 to 67, it could reduce the income level at which people receive it. This second way would be hitting Canadians who are better off. However, the way the government has chosen do it hits the worst-off Canadians, particularly those on disability and those who have had worked in hard physical labour and are incapable of working, for physical reasons, beyond the age of 65, and they would also would lose their GIS.
    I think I have addressed that point as much as I am allowed to in the context of this debate. I will now return to the private member's bill that has been proposed.

  (1140)  

[Translation]

    I can only reiterate that the Liberal Party, for all the reasons laid out by the member sponsoring this bill, agrees with the principle and the details of the bill. I do not think it is a partisan issue. It has already received support from all of the parties. I believe that the NDP even introduced a similar bill in the past. I believe that all of the members will support this bill, and that is why the Liberal Party will be supporting it.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-591. I would like to first congratulate the hard-working member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for introducing this terrific bill. I hope that all parties will support the bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act to deny CPP survivor benefits and the OAS allowance to anyone convicted of murdering a spouse, common law partner, or parent.
    As the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex has pointed out, no one wants to see criminals rewarded for their crimes. Certainly no one who pays taxes or who personally contributes to an insurance plan wants to see murderers receive a benefit for killing someone. Our government always puts victims first and has a strong record of bringing back fairness to the criminal justice system. I agree, and the government agrees with the member's bill, and I will be pleased to support the bill when it comes up for a vote. We will be making some technical amendments at committee. However, we believe that the crux of the bill meets the challenge.
    I hope we will work with the opposition to see the bill pass quickly so that the human resources committee can study it this fall. As we have heard, there is all-party support for this legislation.
    Let me describe the benefits we are talking about. When a contributor to the Canada pension plan dies, his or her surviving spouse, common law partner, and dependent children are entitled to certain benefits. Specifically, these benefits are the monthly survivor's pension plan paid to the spouse or common law partner, the monthly surviving child benefit for dependent children up to the age of 25, if they are full-time students, and a lump sum death benefit usually paid to the contributor's estate.
    For a spouse, common law partner, or child to be eligible for CPP survivor benefits, the deceased contributor must have made significant contributions to the Canada pension plan. In the case of old age security, the surviving spouse or common law partner is entitled to the allowance for the survivor if the survivor is aged 60 to 64, has a low income, and has not started living with another partner.
    The Department of Employment and Social Development already has administrative procedures, based on common law principles, that prohibit a spouse, common law partner, or child from receiving survivor benefits if the department is informed that the person has been convicted of the murder of an individual and is the survivor and consequently the primary beneficiary. The problem is that there is no provision in the law to prevent these provisions from actually being paid. What C-591 would do is give clear authority, raise the visibility, and increase transparency to ensure that no one could benefit financially from murdering a spouse.
    The member for Chatham-Kent—Essex will be requesting that the Minister of Employment and Social Development write to the provinces and territories to raise awareness of this bill and new legislation so that no one convicted of murder would be benefiting from the crime. We believe that the member's approach is the right approach, and we will be pleased to support it.
    Thankfully, death at the hands of family members is not all that common in Canada, and the convicted murderers are not always eligible for these benefits anyway. However, over the last decade, an average of 48 people a year have been charged with spousal murder. Most of these were young men charged with killing their wives or female partners.
    Each year between 2003 to 2012, an average of 21 individuals in all age categories were accused of killing a parent or step-parent. Among them were approximately five or six persons accused who were between the ages of 18 and 25. Only three of the accused were under the age of 18. Age 25 is the upper limit for eligibility for a child survivor benefit under the Canada pension plan.
     That is why it is so important that Parliament pass the bill, because if even one person can benefit financially from killing a spouse, this is one too many.
    The member is correct to proceed carefully with C-591, because it must be both fair to victims and fair to due process. First, this legislation would apply only to people who have been convicted of murder rather than to those who have been charged with murder. It is a basic principle of common law that a person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. If the minister learns of a conviction, however, the individual would not only be disqualified from receiving survivor benefits but would also be required to pay back any survivor benefits he or she might already have received. This legislation would be retroactive.

  (1145)  

    If, however, such individuals eventually had their convictions reversed on appeal, their benefits would then, of course, be reinstated. This is the right approach, the fair approach, and the reasonable approach.
    This law would not apply to minor children who have murdered a parent. The surviving child benefit is received not by the child but by that child's parent or guardian on the child's behalf to help cover the costs of caring for that child. We do not want to demand repayment of those children's benefits from a grieving widow whose child has been convicted of murdering her spouse.
    What if the murderer was between the ages of 18 and 25 and a full-time student who would normally be eligible for the child benefit following the death of his or her parent? In such a case, the individual would be treated as an adult and would be rendered ineligible for these payments.
    I would like to point out that this law would not prevent CPP death benefits from going to the estate of the murdered person. However, it would prevent the death benefit from going directly to the spouse or adult child convicted of the murder.
    The government expects that victims organizations and family members would notify Employment and Social Development Canada in the event of these kinds of cases to help ensure that murderers would not benefit from their crimes. To help facilitate this, the government would engage directly with victims advocacy groups and stakeholder groups so that they could easily notify the department when someone was convicted of the murder of someone whose death could otherwise entitle them to a CPP or OAS benefit. In fact, the bill would increase the visibility of the issue, and we expect that it would increase notifications from individuals and groups.
    I would like to commend the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for introducing this bill and for all the hard work he continues to do in representing victims across Canada. This proposed legislation would restore fairness to victims and their families. Therefore, I highly encourage my fellow members to join with us, support this bill, and support it in passing quickly.
    Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada pension plan and the old age security act. As was pointed out by the member for Victoria, the NDP will be supporting this piece of legislation.
    I want to note that this bill seeks to end CPP survivor benefits for convicted murderers. The bill is remarkably similar to legislation introduced by the New Democrat MP for Hamilton Mountain. Because we have already had a history of introducing this legislation, we will support this bill.
    It is unfortunate, and I suspect that many Canadians did not realize it until the matter came up for debate before the House, that part of the failure of the current Canada pension plan legislation is that the survivor's pension death benefit or orphan's benefit may be made payable to those convicted of murdering a spouse or parent. I will talk specifically about a story that was on the CBC recently, but I first want to put some numbers on the record.
    Over the past decade, more than half of the spouses accused of homicide had a history of family violence involving the victim. That is, 65% of spouses accused of homicide had a history of violence regarding the victim. According to police-reported data in 2011, there were 81 female victims of intimate partner homicide in Canada versus 13 male victims. Finally, women are far more likely to be the victims of spousal homicide. This legislation removes the possibility that a spouse could receive a benefit following a conviction for murder.
    In our own province of British Columbia, there was a recent story in that respect. The title is “Spousal killers shouldn't get survivor benefits”. This was with respect to the victim's daughter. This story appeared on June 7 of this year. A woman named Susan Fetterkind wants the government to plug benefit loopholes in spousal murder cases. The story states:
    A North Delta woman, whose father killed her mother, wants the federal government to plug a loophole that allowed him to collect pension survivor benefits for 28 years until his death.
    I cannot imagine what it was like for the children. This was an example of a known history of violence. The husband was estranged at the time he murdered his former partner. Although we commend the member opposite for bringing this bill forward, as Susan mentioned in the article the bill does not go far enough. She said:
    His bill mentions first and second degree murder but it doesn't mention manslaughter. My father did a plea bargain and he was convicted of manslaughter.
    That is a good case in point. This man collected survivor benefits for 28 years. He was convicted of manslaughter because of the plea bargaining that is part of our system, so this bill would not have dealt with that issue.
    I also want to acknowledge that the member said that at committee stage, amendments could be entertained. The member for Victoria has ably outlined the concerns with respect to the manslaughter provision.
    Because of the fact that we are talking about survivor benefits, and largely we are talking about intimate partner violence, one of the things we need to do as a country is tackle some of the issues that leave women so vulnerable that these kinds of things can happen.
     In 2009, West Coast LEAF, which is the women's Legal Education and Action Fund, produced a report on CEDAW, which is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It relates directly to some of the issues in this bill, because we would not need to talk about this if we actually protected women from being subject to violence from partners or other family members. LEAF produced a report card and gave grades to particular initiatives governments had undertaken. This is not a partisan issue. The fact of the matter is that this is where Canada is at this stage, through a series of governments.
     It talked about two things. The first was with respect to missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls. They gave an F grade.
    Many of us in this House are very familiar with the Robert Pickton murders in British Columbia. He was arrested and charged with the murder of 26 of these women in 2002, which drew a national outcry.

  (1150)  

    The report continues:
—the systemic problems in the investigative process, or lack thereof, have not yet been addressed by the authorities, and the sustained and widespread calls for an inquiry into the missing and murdered women have thus far been ignored. In addition, increased investment in social services, including improved access to secure housing, may help reduce rates violence by protecting vulnerable women, such as those working in the sex trade.
     This is an example of the fact that women are subject to violence. These are the kind of situations we see with the CPP survivor benefits.
    Violence against women and girls received a grade C. It said that the CEDAW committee had noted that gender-based violence was a form of discrimination that seriously inhibited women's ability to enjoy equal rights and freedoms.
     In 2008, the committee stated:
—remains concerned that domestic violence continues to be a significant problem.
     The Committee was particularly concerned about a number of elements of the social services’ and justice system’s response to violence against women, including: the use of diversion and mediation in situations involving domestic violence; the practice of “dual charging”; an insufficient number of shelters for victims of violence; and the failure of courts to take domestic violence into account in custody and access determinations.
    Despite past progress on this issue, the widespread nature of violence against women and recent regressive policy changes make this issue one of the most persistent barrier to women's equality in B.C. These are B.C. provincial government policies.
    Further, evidence indicates that violence against women and children increases during times of economic crisis, calling for increased services rather than funding cuts.
    Later on, they reiterate the issue around retrogressive social policies and say that decreased spending for services, such as social assistance, housing, child care and legal aid decreases women's independence, and consequently their ability to leave abusive relationships. Inaccessible and inadequate social services particularly impact the freedom of immigrant women who are sponsored by their abusive spouses.
    First, when we have a justice system, as the member from Victoria rightly pointed out, that provides for plea bargaining, allows a spouse who has been convicted of murdering his spouse to then end up with a manslaughter charge and, as would be covered under this bill, that manslaughter charge would result in survivor benefits.
     Second, we need to ensure that women are protected so they do not end up becoming the victims of spousal homicide.
    Whether it is investments in shelters or legal systems that allow the families of the victim to ensure they have adequate legal representation when it comes to justice matters, these are all really important aspects.
    Again, I commend the member for raising the bill before the House. I know the New Democrats will be supporting the bill. I look forward to a full discussion at committee, so perhaps some amendments can be made to deal with the manslaughter aspect of the bill.

  (1155)  

    Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand to speak to the private member's bill from my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex. It is always a treat when we get to bring forward private members' bills and introduce them in the House. I congratulate him on having his first one here today.
    The bill he has put forward is important and excellent. It sounds like all sides of the House will support the bill, so I congratulate him on that.
    I would like to focus on a few of the changes the bill would bring.
     For the first part, the bill aligns with the commitments the government made in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, which focuses on victims of crime and to strengthen our justice system.
     The bill would also ensure that victims' rights would be placed ahead of those of convicted murderers. The bill is based on the well-established common-law principle that an individual should not benefit from his or her crime.
    By legislating the principle that an individual shall not benefit from his or her crimes by becoming eligible for CPP or OAS benefits as a result of committing murder, Parliament would provide clear legal authority to prevent murderers from receiving pensions.
    The CPP benefits we are talking about are the monthly survivor pension paid to the spouse or common-law partner or the deceased contributor, the monthly children's benefit for dependent children up to the age of 18 or to the age of 25, if they are full-time students, and a lump sum death benefit usually paid to the contributor's estate.
    For a common-law child to be eligible for the Canada pension plan survivor benefit, the deceased contributor must have made sufficient contributions to the Canada pension plan to generate such a benefit. The bill would also apply to the OAS program allowance for the survivor provided to low-income survivors aged 60-64.
    Here is again how the bill would work. If the survivor of the deceased individual would normally be eligible to receive them, survivor benefits could initially be paid to an individual charged with murdering a spouse, common-law partner or parent. This eligibility would immediately be revoked when Employment and Social Development Canada was informed that the claimant survivor had been convicted of murdering the person in whose name the benefit would be paid. At this point, the claimant would be determined to have never been eligible for the benefit.
    An overpayment would then be established for all CPP or OAS benefits the individual received as the result of the death and steps would be taken immediately to recover the overpayment.
    In cases where the person would be convicted of murder but was subsequently found to be not guilty, for example as a result of an appeal, then the person would be entitled to the full benefit once the Department of Employment and Social Development was notified. This would include payments retroactive to the first day of eligibility resulting from the death of a spouse, common-law partner or parent.
    With respect to the CPP, in cases where a person under the age of 18 is convicted of murdering a parent, the surviving child benefit can be paid until the child reaches the age of 18. That is because when a child is under 18, the children's benefit is not paid to the child, but to the parent or guardian to help with the costs of caring for the child.
    We do not want to create a scenario where the surviving parent of the child convicted of murdering the other parent is forced to repay the children's benefits they receive. This would be punishing a victim who had committed no crime.
    The Canada pension plan would be amended to ensure that under no circumstances could individuals known by the minister to have been convicted of murdering their spouse, common-law partner or parent be eligible for the CPP death benefit resulting from that death. This does not affect the estate of the person who has been murdered. The Canada pension plan death benefit could still be paid to the estate of the deceased.
    Again, the bill is entirely consistent with, among others, the policy of the United States Social Security Administration, which makes individuals convicted of felonious and intentional homicide in the death of an insured wage earner ineligible for survivor benefits.

  (1200)  

    The United Kingdom also has legislation to prevent an individual who has unlawfully killed a spouse or partner to receive benefits resulting from the death.
    To better enforce these new legislative provisions, the government would engage directly with victims, advocacy and stakeholder groups so they could easily notify the department when someone had been convicted of murder and the death of the victim would normally entitle the convicted person to the benefit. These amendments underscore and emphasize our government's commitment to maintaining a key principle of justice, namely, that a person convicted of a crime should not profit from that crime. It has been made crystal clear that the murderer of a spouse, partner or parent will not benefit from a crime by gaining CPP or old age security benefits.
    It is clear that our Conservative government continues to stand up for the rights of victims and that Canadians can count on us to deliver results. I would also like to note, as I said at the start, we have heard from the New Democrats, the Liberals and the member who introduced the private member's bill that this is an important, common-sense piece of legislation that all members of the House can get behind. I truly think that most Canadians, if they knew that someone could murder a spouse or a wife and be eligible for government survivor benefits, they would be absolutely appalled.
    What we have is legislation that is inherently sensible. I am appreciative that all members in the House will support it. It is the right thing to do and it sounds like we do have support from all members of the House.
    Again, for the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, congratulations on important legislation, and we look forward to moving it through the process and seeing this into law.

[Translation]

    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

[Government Orders]

[Translation]

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

Bill C-24—Time Allocation Motion 

    That, in relation to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the bill and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and
that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third 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 stages of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day in the history of our Parliament. Unfortunately, this is the 71st time the government has used time allocation to shut down debate on an issue.
    A few weeks ago, the Conservatives broke the corrupt Liberals' sorry record for the number of time allocations during a single Parliament, a record that the Conservatives always used to condemn. They always used to say that this was no place for time allocation motions. Now, with their 71st, they have left the Liberals' record far behind. The Conservatives are worse than the Liberals, and that is not very impressive.

[English]

    The headline this weekend in the Vancouver Sun was, “[Prime Minister's] Abuse of Power Comes Daily”. It talked about the culture of secrecy, partisanship, and contempt for due process that runs rampant in the current government. This is particularly the case with Bill C-24.
    Bill C-24 is controversial. It has had opposition from across this country. The Conservatives used closure to try to ram it through, but they said in committee that they would actually consider amendments. However, the bill comes back from committee, not only without being amended, but even more appalling, this Conservative majority did not allow any witnesses to consider the bill. That is the real reason they are using closure.
    It is an embarrassing bill, one that is not going to stand up in court, and it is igniting a lot of opposition across the country. Instead of having a proper parliamentary debate, instead of allowing witnesses to speak on the bill and have Canadian groups in who are actually concerned about the bill, the Conservatives have shut that process down: no amendments and not a single witness. Is that not the real reason the Conservatives are bringing in closure? Is it because they know that witnesses speaking to the bill will criticize it?
     Of course, if there are amendments that could be brought in, all they could do is improve upon a bill that has a bad principle and a bad direction. However, is that not the real reason the Conservatives are bringing in closure today? They want to shut down debate before the public becomes aware of what they have done with the bill.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for Canadian citizens who have been calling for these changes for years—decades even. This is also a great day for future citizens.
    The last time there was a massive overhaul of the Citizenship Act was in 1977, and happily, that era is in the past. The measures in our bill are popular across the country, especially with people who are looking forward to receiving the gift of citizenship and the privileges and responsibilities that go with it.

  (1210)  

[English]

    Yes, this bill is needed. It is needed by those whose applications are in process. It is needed by the record number of immigrants in this country today who are applying for citizenship once they meet the requirements and who are driving our naturalization up from where it already is, the highest in the world, to be even higher with each succeeding year.
    Yes, we as a government are taking action to make sure these measures come into force sooner rather than later on the basis of a very full debate. It is just plain wrong for the opposition House leader to say that there has been no discussion in committee. On the contrary, there was 12 hours of study in committee, led by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and with discussion led by a number of very credible and competent witnesses on all sides of the issue. However, none of that study has changed the fact that across the length and breadth of this country, these measures are popular because Canadians attach value to their citizenship as never before, and they want to see that value fully reflected in legislation.
    Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is saying is quite surprising. I am a member of the citizenship and immigration committee. However, at committee, the bill was not studied. There were zero witnesses that the committee heard after the bill was sent from this House to the committee. Maybe the minister is confused with the pre-study on the subject matter of the bill that we did, which was also under time allocation. We were very limited as to the number of witnesses we were able to hear from.
    The UNHCR and Amnesty International, to name a couple, were organizations that wanted to make a presentation and appear as witnesses before the citizenship and immigration committee, but were not allowed. It was because the government's decision was that it was not going to hear any witnesses at the citizenship and immigration committee.
    My first question for the minister is this: why is he misleading this House and Canadians who are watching by saying that?
    Second, the minister said that the bill has support and approval from Canadians across the country. We know that is not true either, because there are many online resident-generated petitions with more than 30,000 signatures. That does not mean that there is broad support for the bill.
    I want to know why the government, now for the 70th time, is moving time allocation, curtailing debate in this House, and not letting the voices of Canadians be heard in this House.
    Mr. Speaker, there you have it. The government House leader says there has been no study and now the member for Scarborough—Rouge River says there was a pre-study. Once again, the New Democrats are all over the map. Once again, they are the ones confusing an otherwise attentive Canadian audience, which wants the measures in this bill enacted.
    We not only studied this bill, we did it in advance of report stage and referral to committee to make sure that all those who had perspectives on this bill, and it is an important one, had the opportunity to express them, and we have heard those views. We heard them in committee, and we saw them in newspapers and media across the country and in correspondence and feedback to our offices and MPs. Let me emphasize that the response has been overwhelmingly positive.
    What has not been well received and what reflected a very low quality of work were the amendments proposed by the NDP and Liberals in committee. We were unable to adopt any of them because, to be perfectly honest, they were not up to spec. They did not improve the bill. They would not have made it faster for Canadians to attain citizenship, to which they have a right when they meet the requirements. They would not have reinforced the pride that Canadians take in their citizenship or reinforced the value that so many across this country are talking about. They would have watered down the penalties for disloyalty that we are absolutely adamant be in this bill, because there are limits to the forms of behaviour that are acceptable from Canadian citizens if they are going to retain citizenship when they are dual nationals.

  (1215)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to start when we hear that kind of thing from the minister. Honestly.
    Let us begin with the accelerated citizenship process. The Conservatives have performed very poorly on this issue. They have let citizenship application processing times more than double in the past few years. They are just now reacting, and they are doing a poor job of it. We are not convinced that anything in this bill will result in adequate and essential measures to reduce waiting times for those who are entitled to citizenship and get mired in an administrative morass.
    Speaking of helping people who deserve it get citizenship, this morning alone, I received a number of calls from people across the country who are concerned and angry because in a few days, weeks or months, they will have met the time requirement for filing a citizenship application. They have planned their lives around that and carefully calculate every day that counts toward being able to file their citizenship application as soon as possible. Today, the minister is telling them that despite their expectations and dreams, the waiting period is being extended. That is very disrespectful. On behalf of all of them today, I just want to say how unacceptable it is to rush the debate like this. For one thing, it penalizes many people who were counting on filing their citizenship application shortly. It also flies in the face of all the normal House procedures.
    This bill was first introduced on February 6. The second hour of second reading did not happen until May 29. For three months, the minister dilly-dallied instead of bringing this bill back to the House. We were not able to debate it, and at the last minute, the minister is bringing the bill back and forcing it down our throats without accepting any real debate. This is unacceptable.
    Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, she is simply wrong about what she just said. We are speeding up processing times.
    It is the NDP that is against processing pending applications more quickly. If the NDP had it their way, debate on this bill, the debate would go on until the end of this session or even until fall. Maybe in 2015, or later, we might have results for those who are patiently waiting for faster processing times.
    This government will never accept that kind of approach. We have accepted 1.4 million new citizens. We are proud of new Canadians' commitment to their citizenship. There are certainly some backlogs, but thanks to the measures in this bill we will be able to process files much more quickly. Backlogs will be less of a problem for those who apply for citizenship once this newly reformed legislation comes into effect, and processing times will be much quicker.
    I see no reason for the people calling my hon. colleague to be concerned.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the minister wants to close the debate on the bill is because he keeps making stuff up and does not want the scrutiny of Parliament to uncover the fantasy-based facts that he continues to underlie his reasons for the bill.
    The bill would increase wait times. It would make citizenship harder to acquire for those who are waiting right now. There are already over 300,000 people waiting, their applications pending. The bill would make it harder. It would make it harder for children and seniors to acquire citizenship because they would have to undergo rigorous language tests. It would extend the wait times, which are already over eight years. It would give the minister unprecedented powers.
    Are these the reasons why the current government wants to shut debate, because it does not want Canadians to really understand the fundamental ways in which the government would change the rules for citizenship, which are the cornerstone of who we are as a country?

  (1220)  

    Mr. Speaker, make it harder to become a citizen? Waiting times of eight years?
    With statements like these from the opposition benches, it is no wonder that some Canadians are confused. They are receiving false information from some in this House. That really is unfortunate, given the importance of the bill.
    Here are the facts.
    Yes, there are over 300,000 applicants in the system. Yes, waiting times for new applications, as things stand now, are two to three years.
    However, with the measures in the bill, which the NDP would see us postpone, delay, et cetera, those waiting times would come down later this year, plummet in 2015, and be under one year by the beginning of 2016.
    Moreover, yes, we are extending the knowledge requirement, the language requirement, to a slightly larger age spectrum, down to high school age and up to late working age, the eve of the normal legal age of retirement in this country, 64 years.
    However, every time we strengthen the requirements of citizenship, we find it becomes more popular. We find more people apply. We find the naturalization rate goes up.
     Therefore, we would not be making it harder to become a citizen of this country. We would actually be making it more meaningful. We would be doing something that Canadians have responded to extremely positively with every form we have brought in. We expect the same positive response this time.
    Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the minister. First, what we are doing in this half-hour period is actually talking about parliamentary process. What we are talking about is not the merits of the bill, but parliamentary process, in terms of shutting down debate around a very important matter before this House.
    I have to comment on a couple of things that the minister raised. First, he accused the NDP of not wanting to deal with the significant delays in citizenship and immigration. He is well aware that our constituency offices spend a significant amount of our time dealing with the unconscionable delays with regard to citizenship and immigration. It is ludicrous to hear the minister say that we support keeping those delays in place.
    We do support legislation that is thoughtful, that takes into account the concerns of Canadian citizens, and that looks at due process. The minister is saying that everybody is happy about this legislation. I should perhaps send him three documents. The Canadian Bar Association, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and a number of prominent scholars and academics, just to name a few, have done a detailed analysis of this legislation and have raised significant concerns.
    I ask the minister, why is it that he supports shutting down a democratic process, a democratic debate, that would allow us to have a full review of this piece of legislation in the appropriate kind of process? Why is he shutting down that opportunity?
    Mr. Speaker, why did the NDP, on February 27, in the person of my colleague, the immigration critic for the NDP, move to end debate on Bill C-24, to discontinue debate at that early stage? Was that a positive co-operative expression of faith in the democratic process? We do not think so, nor did we think so in the three days of debate allocated to second reading. We heard the same speech time and time again from the NDP, citing the same inaccurate information, often from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association or a small section of the Canadian Bar Association. They do not speak for Canadians across the board. They do not even speak for lawyers across the board. That is what we have heard from the much broader feedback that we have had, from a much broader group of people.
    I spoke to people last week who signed the petition, which contains thousands of names, as many online petitions do. After a five-minute discussion, they said they would be taking their names off the petition. They had not understood what they were actually expressing their opposition to. They had not understood the benefits of the bill. They had not understood how processing would become faster. They had not understood how the value of Canadian citizenship would be strengthened by a four-year residency requirement. It would ensure that we are not moving in the direction, as Richard Gwyn regretted some years ago, of turning Canadian citizenship into “the unbearable lightness of being Canadian”.
    We want people to have a substantial understanding of this country, its laws, its traditions, its system of government. That is what the “Discover Canada” guide does; that is what our reforms today have done; that is what the bill will do, and that is why it is popular with Canadians.

  (1225)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the minister is failing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When he says that all members have had the opportunity to speak to this bill, that is not exactly true. We give speeches here in the House as a way to connect with our constituents about bills. That is one way that we can let our constituents know what is going on.
    The real reason for the debate that is happening right now is that once again, the Conservatives are limiting the time members have to explain things to their constituents in simple terms, so that they in turn can express their opinions on the subject.
    A Togolese resident of my riding is facing deportation on June 19. The parliamentary process is not working. The minister received a letter in this regard. Perhaps there will be a question about this in the House, or perhaps not, but the process is not working. The bill in question is going to once again delay the process and drag it out.
    This situation is a terrible shame. The last thing I want to say is that it is important that we be able to have a say and help the government make better laws. The Conservatives' habit of always limiting time for debate is shameful.
    Mr. Speaker, fortunately, we have not yet had the opportunity to hear every member of the NDP repeat the same speech.
    However, many of them have said the same thing, and it is doing them more harm than good. Canadians have heard them and are now saying to themselves that the NDP has nothing substantial to say about this bill.
    If we read the debates about the Citizenship Act from 1946 or 1914, no member of the House repeated himself or said the same thing. Generally speaking, members act responsibly in the House. They try to avoid wasting the House's time and to bring forward new perspectives and add to the debate. However, that is not what the NDP is doing.
    The NDP wanted to put an end to this debate and postpone the reform of our Citizenship Act until the end of February. We are moving forward because the process is working fairly well. Over 100,000 Canadians have already received their citizenship this year, and the measures set out in this bill will ensure that the number of successful citizenship applicants continues to rise.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying “71”. That is the number of times that the government has brought in closure on debate in the House. It is a record, by the way. I am sure by the end of the day, it will be 72, and if not today, it will be tomorrow.
    The minister said that the NDP is saying the same thing over and over again. The NDP has a lot to say on this legislation because it is important legislation. It is more a matter of him not liking what we have to say and that he would like to dismiss it.
    He also said that the system is working very well. I can understand that. From his point of view, the system is working very well when the government controls it 100% and can basically bypass the legislative process in the House.
    I do need to point out that no witnesses were heard when the bill was at committee. The government says that pre-consultation was done. The fact is that we abide by due process at committee, hearing parliamentary witnesses at committee. That is an integral part of the parliamentary process. Quite frankly, I am shocked and disturbed that the minister is not taking responsibility and does not see the error in trying to bypass a legitimate process at committee. There is no excuse for it.
    Of course, it is the government's prerogative if it wants to hold pre-consultations. However so many bills, whether it is Bill C-23 or this legislation, are being rammed through the House without due process, and that negates the very reason we are here. We were elected to hold the government to account, to examine legislation, and the committee process is an important part of that.
    Again, we are having another vote on a closure motion, a censure on debate, on an important bill. How can the minister defend that? How can he defend bypassing an important stage at committee?

  (1230)  

    Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. There were 25 witnesses who were heard in committee on the bill. It is a bill that was absolutely made public and available to all members of the citizenship and immigration committee. It was prestudied. It was studied in clause by clause. It was prestudied because we considered it important to have that debate in committee as early as possible.
    How can members opposite claim that no witnesses were heard? How are those 25 people who made the trip to Ottawa, who prepared for their testimony, going to react to being told by the NDP that they did not exist?
    The NDP has repeated itself. Those members have gone around in circles. We have heard the same speech many times, not just on this subject, but on many subjects. That lessens the effectiveness of this place. That bothers Canadians. They want us to add value every time we stand up in the House of Commons to discuss legislation. They do not want stonewalling, by any political party . We have a strong mandate to govern, and we have a strong mandate to bring this legislation up to date. The bill has not been reformed in 37 years. The NDP would have us go years more, perhaps another decade, before any updates are made, with all of the terrible consequences we know that would bring.
    The real issue, and it is passing strange that the NDP has not raised it this afternoon, is that we and the NDP have a fundamental difference of opinion about the one issue that some in the bar association and in the BC Civil Liberties Association have raised. The NDP is also of that view. Those members think that terrorists, spies, and traitors, even if they are dual nationals, should stay—
    Order, please.
    The hon. member for Nickel Belt.
    Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong again. At committee, there were no witnesses called—
    That is a fact.
    Mr. Speaker, that is a fact, and maybe the minister can stand up and apologize for misleading Canadians.
    I have been on several committees since I have been here. When a committee is studying a project or a bill, we bring in witnesses. The Conservatives will bring in witnesses who are tilted to their way of thinking. However, they could not bring in any to discuss Bill C-24 because they could not find any Conservative witnesses who shared their way of thinking.
    Will the minister now stand up and apologize to Canadians for misleading them and trying to make them believe that there were witnesses at committee when there were not?
    Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate to see the member opposite putting himself in this position. He is not a member of the committee. Obviously, his colleagues on the NDP side have misled him about what the committee actually did.
    The committee prestudied the bill. It heard 25 witnesses with views from across the spectrum, on all sides of the bill. It was a useful study. It contributed to our understanding and Canadians' understanding of the bill.
    The New Democrats are the ones who should apologize. Citizenship in this country involves an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. It involves loyalty to our institutions, to our political system, and to all of the benefits that citizenship brings us.
    That is one of the important points in this bill, which may be the only substantial point that the NDP has returned to time and time again. That is why we think that dual nationals who have committed acts of terrorism, espionage, or treason should no longer enjoy citizenship. They have forfeited and violated their allegiance to this country. The NDP differs with us on that, and it is offside with most Canadians in that same respect.
    This bill would speed up processing. It would underline and deepen the value of Canadian citizenship, as never before. It would reward those who serve Canada at home and abroad, and it would send the clear message that gross acts of disloyalty, when they are committed by dual nationals, would lead to revocation of citizenship.
    These are all measures that are hugely popular with the citizens of this country, and we look forward to celebrating them with Canadians on July 1.

  (1235)  

    The time has expired for questions and comments.

[Translation]

    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 Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
    Some hon. members: Yea.
    The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
    Some hon. members: Nay.
    The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
    And five or more members having risen:
    The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

  (1315)  

[English]

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

(Division No. 169)

YEAS

Members

Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Bateman
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 134

NAYS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Atamanenko
Aubin
Bélanger
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brison
Brosseau
Caron
Casey
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Cleary
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Fortin
Freeland
Garneau
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Turmel
Valeriote

Total: -- 102

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare the motion carried.

Report Stage  

    The House resumed from June 6 consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
    Mr. Speaker, thank you for the chance to speak one final time on Bill C-24, a bill respecting the strengthening of Canadian citizenship. This is a challenge that has been before the House in one way or another for well over a century, since Confederation, as we have sought to understand and reinforce the value of the rights and privileges as well as the responsibilities and duties that we have as Canadian citizens.
    It is important to realize that the bill has received wide-ranging debate, both in the House and across Canada, in committee and in this Chamber. We disagree perhaps with New Democrats on the nature of that debate. They have forgotten about the pre-study of the bill in committee; we have not. Earlier today in debate they declined to acknowledge that 25 very solid witnesses appeared before committee on the bill. We listened to their testimony with attention and found it extremely valuable.
    There is a more fundamental issue, and this debate has revealed the fundamental difference of opinion between the NDP and ourselves on the bill. It revolves around the issue of revocation.
    The NDP is silent on the issue of revocation of citizenship when it is fraudulently obtained. That is a power that we as a government already have under the current act. It is a long-standing power that has existed in one form or another through generations in the various versions of legislation governing Canadian citizenship. It is required, because as we in the House and all Canadians know, there was a phenomenon of abuse, particularly after 1977 with the Trudeau reforms to citizenship, of this highly prized program. People received the status of permanent residency but then actually failed to be physically present in our country. Instead, they paid lawyers and consultants to pretend they were here.
    We have made great strides in understanding this issue. In collaboration with the RCMP, thousands of cases are being investigated, and they have led to dozens of revocations, as is proper in the minds of Canadians, who, as we all know, rightly have a low tolerance for abuse, for short-circuiting the system, and for rule-breaking of this kind, particularly when it relates to an issue as serious as citizenship.
    Then there is the issue of revocation for gross acts of disloyalty to Canada. We on this side think that dual nationals who commit an act of treason or espionage or who are members of a terrorist group serving inside or outside our country have morally forfeited the right to be Canadian citizens. We think that moral forfeiture to the right to Canadian citizenship should be reflected in legislation. We should have the power, as a government and as a country, to revoke the citizenship of those who have taken up arms against the Canadian Forces or sold state secrets.
    These are not widespread phenomena in Canada, fortunately. The loyalty of the overwhelming majority of Canadians is not in question. However, that same overwhelming majority understands that citizenship brings with it the concept of allegiance to a crown, to laws, to a political system, a democracy that has rules. When someone literally sells state secrets to a foreign power, betrays our country in fundamental ways, or takes up arms in a terrorist organization or in some other organized force against Canada and against international order, in the case of terrorism there should be a power to revoke citizenship when we are not making citizens stateless. That is a responsibility we take extremely seriously.

  (1320)  

    The bill would not create new classes, in isolated cases or larger numbers, of stateless persons, but it would give us a right that every other NATO ally, with the exception of Portugal, already has, which is to revoke citizenship for gross acts of disloyalty. This is a fundamental difference we have with the NDP and the Liberals, who do not seem to acknowledge that this power is relevant and that it should be reflected in the modernization of our Citizenship Act, which Bill C-24 would bring.
    Second, we have a difference of opinion with a couple of stakeholders, notably, a few in the Canadian Bar Association, who have declared the bill unconstitutional. They do not listen to lawyers from the Department of Justice. They do not listen to lawyers across the country who are specialists in citizenship and immigration and see this bill as valuable, legitimate and entirely constitutional. They think that by asking permanent residents if they have the intent to reside in Canada as they begin the process of accumulating their residence in Canada to qualify for citizenship, is an unconstitutional request. We beg to differ.
    If people are resident in Canada for three out of four years under the current law and four out of six years under the new law, they clearly have had the intent to reside in Canada. People do not take up residence in a country by accident, and it is entirely legitimate not only to ensure that there is physical presence for the requisite number of years but that people who are aspiring to attain citizenship have the intent to reside. If their intentions change, so be it. They may qualify for citizenship over a longer period, or their plans may change and they may go to live in another country, take up a job opportunity or follow family circumstances to another part of the world. They will not meet the residency requirements and they will not become eligible for Canadian citizenship. However, we are going to ask, and it is absolutely reasonable to ask, those heading toward the prized goal of Canadian citizenship if they intend to reside here.
    Apart from those two criticisms, we have not heard much. There are isolated pockets of opposition to the bill, many of them badly informed, unfortunately, I think often by members opposite who have mischaracterized some of its provisions. There was an online poll, as I was saying in an earlier debate. Some of those who unwittingly signed were under a complete misapprehension of what the bill actually contained. If we on this side of the House had the opportunity to meet with these people, communicate with them directly, as we do in correspondence and emails every day, those misunderstandings would not have gone as far as they did.
    The bulk of the reaction we have had from across the country, from the north and south, from the east and west, and everywhere in between goes along the following lines. I will quote Nick Noorani, managing partner of Prepare for Canada, who stated:
    I congratulate the government on its changes [to the] Citizenship Act that combat residency fraud and ensure new Canadians have a stronger connection to Canada. With the changes announced today, processing times will be improved and new Canadians will be ready to fully participate in Canadian life.
    Martin Collacott of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, a former Canadian ambassador, stated:
    The government's new citizenship legislation addresses a host of long overdue issues relating to the acquisition of citizenship. Its provisions, such as strengthening residency requirements for applicants, will increase the value and meaning of Canadian citizenship...
    Gillian Smith, executive director and CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, stated:
    Our organization works extensively with Canada’s newest citizens who tell us that measures taken to foster their attachment and connection to Canada have a positive effect on their successful integration. New citizens' sense of belonging comes in large measure from experiencing Canada first-hand-its people, nature, culture and heritage.
    There are others, such as Sheryl Saperia on the need to send that clear message of deterrence to those who might contemplate terrorist acts and Bill Janzen, a consultant in the Central Mennonite Committee, who applauded us for the work to address the long overdue issue of lost Canadians.
     There is a lot here. There is real value in this bill, such as faster processing, increased value for Canadian citizenship, honouring those serve and deterring disloyalty.
    One hundred years ago, debate concluded in the House on the Naturalization Act, which is one of the forebears of this bill. Mr. Diefenbaker said the following on the last day of that debate, which took only one month:

  (1325)  

    If ever there was a time when we should assert and practise what our citizenship means, it is now....It is our duty and responsibility as Canadian citizens to maintain those principles and traditions which mean so much to us and to guard against infringement of the great principles of freedom; for...the hallmarks of liberty can be erased as a result of the acts of a zealous person who is misdirected, no less than by one who destroys those principles with evil intent. We will give a great citizenship to Canadians hereafter.
    Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly confused by the minister's speech. He says that Canadians are misguided. He says that the Canadian Bar Association does not know how to interpret laws and that it is a group of lawyers that is phony and does not know what it is doing.
     When I listened, I did not hear him talk about UNICEF. It wrote a brief and sent it to the committee when we did the pre-study. It said that the bill was making so many changes that it was going to make Canada in contravention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
    Lawyer after lawyer, committee organization after organization have said that the bill is not good completely as it is and have suggested many recommendations.
    Why did the minister's parliamentary secretary, under his guidance I am assuming, not allow a single amendment to the bill that was proposed by any of the opposition parties? Why did the government did not listen to the experts who made suggestions? Why did it not propose a single amendment and did not accept a single one of the amendments that were put forward by any of the opposition parties?

  (1330)  

    Mr. Speaker, the reason that the NDP amendments were not accepted was because they were not very good. They would have watered down the provisions of the bill. They would have left us with an inferior processing model for citizenship. They would have left us with backlogs and long processing times.
     Most crucially, they would have failed to address the issue of those who violated their allegiance to Canada, but somehow in the view of the NDP currently could continue along with their Canadian citizenship. We do not think that should be the case in future for dual nationals. That is why we have a fundamental difference of opinion with the NDP members who have no trouble defending these spies, traitors and terrorists and their right to continue to be Canadian citizens even after committing such gross acts of disloyalty.
    There are serious improvements in the bill. They go in the same direction as that debate 100 years ago on the Naturalization Act, which happened in only one month. No one on the opposition benches repeated themselves in that debate. The quote I just gave from Mr. Diefenbaker was from the 1946 debate on the Citizenship Act. That too was a fast debate on a historic bill, with rich contributions from all sides of the House. We have not seen that from the NDP in this debate.
    Mr. Speaker, I also want to pick up on the minister's gratuitous remarks about the Canadian Bar Association. I do not know whether that is because the minister is not a member of the Canadian Bar Association. I do not know why he would want to cast aspersions on the hundreds of thousands of lawyers.
    However, I want to remind him that under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is compelled for every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a minister of the crown, that would be that minister, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    The minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Justice, shall report any inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. In other words, the bill has to be constitutional.
     Could the minister please stand and table the legal opinions rendered by the Department of Justice lawyers, which actually prove the bill is in fact charter compliant and constitutional?
    Mr. Speaker, the bill in our view and those of the government's lawyers is constitutional. The risk of a constitutional challenge to any of its provisions is low. We on this side simply do not think that the small group of lawyers, which expressed itself in radical terms on the bill, speak for the hundreds of thousands of lawyers across the country. We do not think most of those lawyers are aware of what was said in their name.
    We also think it is the right of Parliament to legislate on citizenship to circumscribe the conditions under which revocation can take place. We think the provisions of the bill with regard to revocation are legitimate.
    Does the Liberal Party agree with these provisions? Because in 1947, when Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King brought the first citizenship bill forward, there were revocation provisions for treason, for other serious acts of disloyalty to Canada. What has happened to the Liberal Party of Canada on these and so many other issues?
    Mr. Speaker, I again speak to this bill as a member of the citizenship and immigration committee who sat there every day for at least six hours a week during the pre-study of the content and subject matter of the bill. Witness after witness, including expert testimony, said time and again that the clauses in the bill were either in contravention of the charter, un-Canadian, in contravention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, treated different types of Canadians unfairly, such as naturalized Canadians verses born-in-Canada Canadians, and did not value their pre-PR time spent in our country. During our committee study, I polled every witness with whom I had a chance to speak. Every one of them said that the clauses about not valuing the pre-PR time people had spent in Canada should be removed and amended.
    In the minister's answer to my previous question with respect to his speech, he made it clear that he did not value what any of the opposition members had to say or any of the amendments that the opposition had put forward. He also did not value the people who were putting time into our country and spending time learning what it was to be a Canadian and living the life of a Canadian.
    For example, international students who live in Canada for four years, who go to school with our children, who become their best friends, who party with them, who build strong relationships with our Canadian students and who volunteer in our communities learn what life is like as a Canadian.
     However, Bill C-24 states that those people and the time they have spent in our country have no value, that they are not learning what it is to be Canadian. It is easier for those who come to our country as landed immigrants and get their PR the day they arrive than it is for international students who spend four years learning what it is to be a Canadian and living like a Canadian. According to the bill, the time those students have spent in our country has absolutely zero value toward being a Canadian.
    I want to talk about some of the amendments the NDP put forward, which the minister said made no sense and were of no value. I forgot the exact adjective he used, but he basically said that they had no value to add. I will not talk about all of the amendments. I want to go through some of the ones we put forward at the committee stage and we were unable to speak to any witnesses.
    First was with respect to counting the value of PRs working abroad toward their citizenship application. That was with respect to permanent residents who were temporarily outside of the country for professional reasons. It could be somebody working on a United Nations project in any country around the world. We know that local businesses have operations outside of the country and their employees may have to travel for work. The government has said that even though those people might be living, working and paying taxes in our country, those days they spend working outside of Canada and bringing economic value and thrust to our country has no value. That is what the government said when it refused to accept one of the NDP's amendments.
    Another amendment we put forward was to reverse the age changes the government made for language and knowledge requirements. Currently, the law states that 18 to 54 year olds need to pass the language and knowledge requirement tests. What the government members put forward was to increase the maximum age to 65 and lower the minimum age to 14. That means that children who are 14 to 18 are now being treated the same as the adults. I spoke earlier about UNICEF Canada submitting a brief to the committee. It spoke to how that was in contravention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  (1335)  

    I will read a small portion from the actual brief UNICEF Canada sent to committee. It states:
    In relation to the acquisition of citizenship, a number of Convention articles are engaged, including: definition of the child (including age) (article 1); equality and non-discrimination (article 2); the best interests of the child (article 3); family integrity (article 5); survival and development (article 6); birth registration, nationality and protection from statelessness (article 7); family relations (article 8); protection from arbitrary separation from parents (article 9); and, family reunification (article 10).
    For those members in the Conservative Party who do not understand what I am saying, I have just finished saying that I am reading, from the brief from UNICEF Canada, which articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child would be breached by the bill.
    UNICEF Canada made it very clear that a child-rights-based approach to citizenship requires that we continue ensuring that we are not in contravention of the rights of the child.The language and knowledge requirements testing would be, actually. To quote UNICEF again:
    Bill C-24 proposes to amend subsection 5(2) of the Citizenship Act to expand the age requirements of applicants to 14 to 64 (currently 18 to 54) to successfully complete both the language and knowledge requirements. The proposed amendments would effectively put the onus on children aged 14 to 18 to successfully pass both language and knowledge requirements, without additional supports, in order to become a Canadian citizen.
    That is telling us that the current government wants to treat children as it does adults, as equivalent to adults.
    The NDP proposed two amendments to ensure that these children would not be treated as adults. Another amendment we put forward was to not increase the age from 55 to 65 at the top end of the bracket, because we know that many studies have shown that for older people in the community, it is actually harder to acquire a new language and to pass these knowledge tests in this new language they may be acquiring.
     The government members opposed both of those amendments and did not pass them.
    Another amendment the NDP put forward would have allowed an opportunity for the applicant to make a submission before a citizenship judge. This is about the minister increasing discretion for himself or herself and future ministers. There would be increased discretion for a minister, yet the applicant would not even have an opportunity to make a submission before a citizenship judge. The NDP put forward an amendment to try to make it more of a fair process so that applicants would actually have an opportunity to appear before a citizenship judge and make a submission themselves.
    Another amendment was actually recommended by the Canadian Bar Association. We know how the minister feels about that association and its validity, but I value what the Canadian Bar Association had to say. It specified that this amendment would specify that law students must be articling and offering advice while actually supervised by a member of the law society. The current law does not actually require that. We tried to make it so that law students who were helping out would actually be supervised by a member of the law society. This is another thing that apparently the government members do not seem to value.
    One last piece is about the revocation of citizenship, which the current minister likes, and how it would create two tiers of Canadian citizenship for those born here and those naturalized here. This is basically saying that the government, or the minister, would have the opportunity to deport people and strip them of their Canadian citizenship just because they are dual nationals. This would also mean that Canadian-born citizens who have Chinese, U.S., British, or Italian parents, for example, would have their citizenship revoked--

  (1340)  

    Order, please.
    Questions and comments.
    The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point the member opposite touched upon, dual citizenship, there are not two tiers of citizenship. There is one Canadian citizenship. Dual citizenship is the choice of the person. If a child is born here and the parents choose two citizenships for that child, they have to be ready to accept the implications that come with it. There are not two citizenships. People do not have to have two citizenships. Whether they are naturalized or they are born here, they can have one. They could choose Canadian only, and they would not have any problems.

  (1345)  

    Mr. Speaker, I find it funny that the member does not realize that there are many countries in the world where one cannot deny one's citizenship. For example, Canadians who may have been born in Canada or are naturalized Canadians and are of the Jewish faith have the right to return to Israel and claim their Israeli citizenship.
    Bill C-24 says that for those who are dual nationals, or if the minister has reason to believe that they have a claim to another nationality, hence the example of a Jewish Canadian who potentially could have a claim to another nationality, the minister could, on his own volition, choose to revoke their citizenship. That is creating two tiers citizenship.
     Those who do not have that option could not have their citizenship revoked because it would create a situation of statelessness. However, those who could be dual nationals or potentially have a claim to another citizenship could have their citizenship revoked. That would mean that there would be those who are full citizens and those who are kind of citizens. That is two tiers of citizenship.
    Mr. Speaker, when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister of Canada, we had citizenship processed in under a year. Under the current government, we have seen the processing of citizenship for those who qualify and meet the criteria taking 28 months, or almost two and a half years. Now the Conservatives are bringing in legislation to reduce the waiting period for citizenship by changing the process itself.
    Does the member not believe, as the Liberal Party believes, that if the government made it a higher priority to process citizenship, it should have been able to do that without the proposed legislation and that there is no reason to have people in Canada waiting in excess of 12 months to qualify for citizenship? It is about making sure that the proper resources are in place.
    Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the Conservative government could have come up with many other avenues to reduce the backlog that exists in the citizenship queue right now. It is choosing, rather, to make it far more difficult for people to qualify to become citizens of this country. For example, there are proposed changes to the intent-to-reside provision. It would double fees for an application of citizenship from $200 to $400, and it would make it more difficult with the age requirements.
    I could keep going, but I want to quote from a brief we received from the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, which said:
    What Bill C-24 really does, however, is as follows:

    It reduces backlogs by turning down more applications and making sure fewer and fewer permanent residents will become citizens.

     It diminishes the value of Canadian citizenship both by making immigrants wait much longer to become citizens, and by creating a two-tier citizenship—by distinguishing between people who have dual citizenship...
    This is something I have already talked about. It continues with:
    It violates Canadian values of democracy and the principle of the Rule of Law by giving new and sweeping power to the Minister to revoke citizenship while simultaneously reducing judicial oversight of the Minister's exercise of power.
    What I just read were from the briefs of three different organizations sent in to the committee on how the bill would increase the minister's discretion and ability to revoke citizenship. The bill would change the value of Canadian citizenship and make it so much harder for people to actually become Canadian citizens, when so many want to.
    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto to speak to Bill C-24. It is of vital interest to the people in my community of Davenport, in fact to people right across the greater Toronto area, because over half the people in the GTA were born outside of Canada, so any changes to our citizenship and immigration rules, laws, or structures are of vital interest to the people I represent.
    What we have here is a gross failure on the part of the government to address the fundamental issue facing so many of our immigrant families in Canada, and that is the failure of the government, in this legislation and in other pieces of legislation it has brought forward, to deal with the growing wait times, not just for citizenship but for family reunification. The bill does not address those issues. In fact, it makes those issues worse.
    Right now we have about 360,000 people waiting for their citizenship applications to be processed. What we would have liked to have seen is the government expedite this, bring this issue forward, in a way that would actually get some resolution for so many families who are in sort of suspended animation. They are doing the work. In every other way they are Canadian citizens, except that they have not had their applications processed. They are waiting and waiting.
    The bill also underlines a strategy the government employs time and time again, and that is to pick the outlier problem and use it as the justification for massive changes that would maybe appease some of its base but that would not address the fundamental issues immigrants in Canada face today.
    I would like to bring the attention of the House to the issue of fraud in the system. We have over 300,000 applicants for citizenship right now. The other day the minister admitted that only 3,000 of those over 300,000 are being investigated by the RCMP for potential fraud. Fewer than 1% are being investigated, and we do not know what those investigations will glean. Of that fewer than 1%, they may find some fraud. I am not saying that there is not some, but the government and the minister are using this fraction of abuse in the system as a rationale for sweeping changes, changes that would, as they do so often on the government side, amass more power in the hands of the minister, power that would allow the minister to retroactively change someone's citizenship status.
    If the Conservatives had listened to stakeholder groups, they would have heard quite resoundingly the deep concern of Canadians, immigrants, and the organizations that support and advocate on behalf of both refugees and newcomers to Canada.
    I would like to also underline the fact that the government has changed the language test requirements. It has made it now the rule that anyone between the ages of 14 and 64 needs to undergo a rigorous language test. The minister has never once revealed any data that would back up any reasons for the changes he has made. He says that young people would score great on this test, and it would be great. We know that.

  (1350)  

    However, he has never brought forward any study that shows that this is indeed the case. The minister has never answered the question regarding what would happen if the child does not pass the language test, but the adult does. What happens then? I believe that one of the reasons that the government moved time allocation on the debate is because it does not want to answer the tough questions that are being raised on this bill. The questions just keep coming.
    Today, there are families in my riding who have been waiting eight to nine years for grandparents and parents to come to Canada, and for the government to fulfill the promises that it made to newcomers when they first came that they could bring their parents or grandparents with them. What we have now is a government that says it going to fix the wait times for citizenship by making it much harder. In other words, the government would make the process and the system longer.
    Some of it seems to make absolutely no sense. It the government wanted to ensure that those who were seeking Canadian citizenship would forge a real attachment to Canada, why on Earth would it then disqualify all of the time that a person has spent here as a non-permanent resident from their application?
    That makes no sense. It sends a huge message to people. It tells them not to attach to us because we are not going to attach to them right now. That is fundamentally the wrong way to go, and it was not the case here in Canada until now, when the government politicized this debate.
    The extended times required to stay in Canada are also an issue for many immigrants. In case the government has not realized, Canadians travel abroad for work all the time. We are in a globalized economy. We have Canadians working in the United States and we have Canadians working all across Europe and Asia, looking for opportunities. When they arise, Canadian citizens can take those opportunities, but the changes that are in this bill would make it more difficult for permanent residents who are waiting for citizenship. Indeed, after they are granted citizenship, it would make it harder for them to take the opportunities that are there in the global economy.
    This seems incredibly unfair, and it brings up the point that my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River made earlier about the creation of two-tiered citizenship. Making it more difficult for new citizens to take those opportunities elsewhere in the economy is also a way of creating a two-tiered system of citizenship in this country.
    People should not be surprised that this is the direction that the government has gone in. After all, when we are giving a message to immigrant families that their grandparents and parents are not as important to Canadians as Canadian-born grandparents and parents, of course, we have a two-tiered system.
    We have always had families at the basis of our immigration system. The government, through its policies, whether on refugees or immigration, has moved Canada away from family values. It has seen families being torn apart. Quite frankly, we have to build an immigration that has, at its core and as its central function, the goal of keeping families together and a part of the Canadian community. The New Democrats on this side are committed to that.

  (1355)  

    That brings the debate to an end at this time. The member will have five minutes for questions and comments when we resume debate.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

  (1400)  

[Translation]

Lac-Mégantic

    Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House.
    Today almost one year has passed since the Lac-Mégantic disaster. On July 6, 2013, a train without a conductor crashed into the little town of Lac-Mégantic.

[English]

    I mention it today because 6,000 people of that community in a class action suit are seeking permission this very day to pursue justice through the court in Sherbrooke, Quebec, before the Quebec Superior Court.
    Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those who survived that disaster. We have taken action in this place to ensure it will not happen again.
    I send my best wishes to the attorneys for the petitioners, Mr. Joel Rochon, Mr. Jeff Orenstein, and Mr. Daniel Larochelle.

Navy League of Canada

    Mr. Speaker, Northumberland--Quinte West is proud to support a growing and well-served local branch of the Navy League of Canada. The Navy League of Canada Northumberland Branch is dedicated to sponsoring two corps, the 116 Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Skeena and the 194 Navy League Cadet Corps Northumberland.
    Just this past Sunday, the 194 Navy League Cadet Corps held its annual inspection. Sixteen navy league cadets aged 9 to 13 participated in the 11th annual review and demonstrated skills learned through their training year. The cadets proudly demonstrated their skill and enthusiasm for a group of over 50 parents, guests, and visitors. I am pleased to see the ongoing tradition of the Navy League of Canada, which celebrates excellence and high standards and promotes valuable leadership skills. The Northumberland Branch states that every cadet officer and instructor who has graduated from this program has contributed something special to the community.
    Congratulations to all the cadets of 194 Navy League Cadet Corps for another successful annual inspection.

[Translation]

49th Quebec Games

    Mr. Speaker, there are only about 50 days left before the 49th Quebec Games start in Longueuil. This is a special time that is bringing the entire south shore together. I am extremely proud to share this moment in the House today. I even decided to volunteer for the tourism brigade for the duration of the games. I booked a week off to be sure that I would not miss any of the celebrations. This is a rare opportunity to meet thousands of visitors and young athletes who will be discovering the top-notch competition venues, a welcoming and friendly community and some amazing tourism opportunities. Longueuil will shine this summer; I am sure of it.
    I invite my neighbours to rise to the challenge with me and volunteer their time from August 1 to 9, 2014. I also invite my colleagues to come visit us in Longueuil at Place des Jeux in Parc St. Mark—the place to be for sports and culture in Quebec in 2014.

[English]

70th Anniversary of D-Day

    Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of travelling to Juno Beach, France, this past weekend for the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of D-Day to recognize the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers in the Battle of Normandy. I was pleased to be joined by two schools from my riding, OSCVI and Grey Highlands Secondary School. I was honoured to meet veterans of the D-Day invasion who travelled to France to honour their fallen comrades.
    On June 6, 1944 Allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy to open up the way to Germany from the west. Against all odds, Canadian troops prevailed. The victory came at a great cost, as 340 Canadians made the ultimate sacrifice. We must never forget the great sacrifice made by Canadian soldiers on D-Day. While fighting would rage on in the days and months following the invasion, the Canadian victory on D-Day would pave the way for the end of the war. As General Dwight Eisenhower stated just hours before the invasion, “The free men of the world are marching together to victory.”
    We will remember them.

Kensington Centennial

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate one of the gems of P.E.I., the town of Kensington. While 2014 is the 150th anniversary of the Charlottetown Conference, it also marks the centennial of the Town of Kensington, incorporated in 1914.
    Kensington grew up around the intersection of five roads taking people through Kensington to and from Charlottetown, Kelvin Grove, Travellers Rest, Summerside, Malpeque, Irishtown, New London, and Cavendish. It still is known for its railway station, which served as a centre of the island's agricultural market in central P.E.I., now added as a stop along the Confederation bike trail. Those who pass through Kensington always note its charm and friendliness, and some even wind up staying.
    While the big celebrations were on the weekend of May 23 with fireworks, a concert,a parade, and a celebratory dinner, Kensington also shows that small town hospitality the whole year through. For business or pleasure, Kensington is a must stop in 2014.
    On behalf of the House, I offer my congratulations to the town of Kensington, its council, and its citizens.

  (1405)  

Houston Astros

    Mr. Speaker, a big congratulation goes out to Brock Dykxhoorn this weekend. He is a mountain of a man at 19 years old, 6 foot 8 inches, 240 pounds, who throws over 90 miles an hour. He was drafted in the first pick of the sixth round by the Houston Astros this weekend.
    Congratulations to Brock. He grew up in Goderich, Ontario. He played for the Team Canada under-18 team, and pitched in Florida and the Dominican Republic. He won a silver medal in Seoul, Korea, where he won two games. Brock pitched this year at Central Arizona Community College and last year at West Virginia University. He is one of the very first players to be drafted from Huron—Bruce to the major leagues. He throws 90 miles an hour and has great control.
    We should all watch for him. Even though some members like to wear their Blue Jays hats in the House of Commons, we can throw one on for Brock Dykxhoorn. Congratulations to Brock.

[Translation]

Mathilde Blais

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to dedicate my statement to the memory of 33-year-old Mathilde Blais, who died a month ago under the Saint-Denis/Des Carrières overpass. You go under this overpass just as you come into Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I happened to be there yesterday with my family, and there are still memorials marking this woman's tragic death.
    Mathilde Blais died after being hit by a truck. She was on her way to her job as a speech therapist in a school. She was a vibrant woman whom the children loved. Her death rocked the cycling community. It was a reminder of how dangerous it can be when bicycles, cars and trucks share the road. The boroughs of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Plateau-Mont-Royal have made bold commitments to make streets safer for cyclists. I want to commend them for that.
    As an MP and a cyclist, I am committed to encouraging active transportation and ensuring that it is better integrated into our road networks.

[English]

Canada from Space Maps

    Mr. Speaker, thanks to the extraordinary success of Commander Chris Hadfield's mission aboard the International Space Station last year and to Canadian inventions like the Canadarm and Dextre, students across this country have come to understand that Canada has an extremely proud history of accomplishment in space.
    A key pillar of the space policy framework is “inspiring Canadians”, which is why, today, our government unveiled the Canada from space giant floor map. This map was created from 121 images of Canada shot by our country's own RADARSAT-2 satellite.
    The Canada from space maps and teaching tools will be available to schools across the country, and will give students the chance to be inspired about Canada's role in space and to understand the role space plays in their everyday lives. These maps will help to inspire young Canadians to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math, so that we can continue to learn, explore, and push the boundaries of human ingenuity.

Shootings in Moncton

    Mr. Speaker, tomorrow police officers from across North America will gather in Moncton, New Brunswick, to say their good-byes to three fallen members of the RCMP, good-byes that are being said way too early in life, goodbyes that cannot be explained. The police community is tight-knit, and when something like this happens, it stirs strong emotions in each and every one of us. The day will be filled with many tears. As a retired member of the RCMP, it stirs up memories that I will never forget.
    To the families of Constable Fabrice Georges Gevaudan, Constable Douglas James Larche, and Constable David Ross, we will always be with them. Canadians will hold them in their thoughts and prayers in the days, weeks, and months to come. God bless each and every one of them.

  (1410)  

Dinstinguished Service Award

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Michael Kirby, who is here today to receive the annual Distinguished Service Award from the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians for his contributions to the field of mental health.
    Mr. Kirby was the first chair the of Mental Health Commission of Canada, which created the national standard for psychological health and safety in the workplace, something we hope will be implemented soon within the public service. The Mental Health Commission's other groundbreaking project, At Home/Chez Soi, has also provided important approaches to housing and mental health.
    Mr. Kirby's recent campaign, titled “Right by you”, focuses on the necessity for more mental health services for young people. With Canada's youth suicide rate at the highest of any industrialized country, it is more important than ever to address this growing crisis in our country.
    We extend our congratulations to Mr. Kirby for his exemplary work in the field of mental health and for bringing attention to an illness that is too frequently ignored while there is still much that needs to be done.

Armenian Youth Federation

    Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, on Saturday evening, I had the opportunity to attend the Armenian Youth Federation's 80th anniversary. The federation itself focuses on education, on its social awareness, athleticism, and cultural awareness. While Boston may have been the first Armenian Youth Federation to open in North America, in 1933, St. Catharines was the first location of a youth federation here in Canada.
    This weekend we celebrated at the Armenian Community Centre in St. Catharines, a facility that was rebuilt and rejuvenated by the help of the federal government. There was a large group there. The participants enjoyed themselves as adults looking back on when they were part of the youth movement. The Armenian youth are strong here in Canada, proud of their heritage and proud that they are Canadians in our country. We had a great evening.

[Translation]

Graduation Ceremony in Brossard—La Prairie

    Mr. Speaker, on Friday, I once again had the honour of attending the graduation ceremony at Antoine-Brossard High School and Lucille-Teasdale International School.
    It was an emotional evening, particularly when the diplomas were handed out and people watched the best-of video montage. It was touching to see how proud the students were of their accomplishments.
    I was so impressed with their academic perseverance, their achievements in sport and art, and their community involvement as volunteers.
    I would like to thank one teacher in particular, Éric Chassé, for supporting the students who took part in the “Create your Canada” contest, as well as all of the students who worked hard and participated in the contest. Congratulations to the winners, Raphaël Humpries, Victor Ivanov and Aryen Saaed.
    Lastly, I would like to congratulate all those who will soon complete another school year. That is really something to be proud of.

[English]

Trade with China

    Mr. Speaker, China is one of Canada's key trading partners, and the Chinese market is highly valued to our agricultural industry. Under our Minister of Agriculture's leadership, China has moved from being our fourth-largest export market to our second. In 2012, Canadian exports to China reached $5 billion.
    Here are some of the government's accomplishments in working closely with China. We have expanded our access for Canadian pork. We have reopened access, thus enabling Canadian beef to be served in China for the first time in almost a decade. We have developed new opportunities in China, for up to $500 million in sales for pulse crops. We have secured additional capacity for export of canola to China, a market worth over $1.9 billion.
    With our minister, our government has always appreciated the great relationship we have been able to build with our hon. counterparts in China. Be assured that our government will continue to strengthen trade, to increase Canadian exports, and to certainly protect all Canadians doing business abroad.

Distinguished Service Award

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate former Liberal senator Michael Kirby, who this afternoon is receiving the Distinguished Service Award from the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians.
    Mr. Kirby has had a distinguished career as a businessman, a public servant, a Liberal senator, and a strong advocate for mental health. As chair of the Senate social affairs committee, Mr. Kirby issued the first national report on mental health. One of the recommendations was for the creation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and in recognition of his leadership, Mr. Kirby was asked to be the first chair. Mr. Kirby is a tireless advocate who is dedicated to improving mental health care in Canada.
     This award is a well-deserved recognition for someone who represents the best of Canadian public service.

  (1415)  

70th Anniversary of D-Day

    Mr. Speaker, last week I was honoured to be one of the parliamentarians to accompany nearly 100 Canadian veterans as we returned to France for the 70th commemoration of the landings of D-Day and the wider Battle of Normandy. Over 14,000 Canadians served, and 5,000 paid the ultimate sacrifice.
    We visited hallowed ground like Juno Beach and the Abbaye D'Ardenne. I was inspired by the veterans I met, including Thomas Wheler, an RCAF Spitfire pilot, who spent part of the war as a prisoner of war, and Francis Goodon, an aboriginal veteran from Manitoba, who travelled to France with his son, also a veteran. He served in the Winnipeg Rifles and landed literally metres from where the Juno Beach Centre now stands.
    I was also happy to see hundreds of Canadian youth from across our country on Juno Beach for the 70th anniversary, including high schools like Clarington Central Secondary School and Clarke High School in my riding. That way, we showed that Canadian youth will indeed hold the torch high.
    Lest we forget.

[Translation]

Privacy

    Mr. Speaker, the past six months have shown what little regard the Conservatives have for privacy. They lost thousands of dollars and then refused to properly manage the fallout of that situation.
    For the position of privacy commissioner, the Conservatives chose someone who just weeks earlier was advising spy agencies. Seriously, Mr. Speaker.
    Under the guise of addressing cyberbullying, the Conservatives wrote legislation to make it easier to collect and share personal information without a warrant. Their governmental agencies request and receive private information from telecommunications companies as they wish. What is more, we just found out that they lost 2,000 census forms.
    The only information they truly protect is the information people are trying to get through the Access to Information Act. In those cases, the Conservatives prefer redactions to transparency.
    Canadians realize that they cannot trust the Conservatives to protect their privacy. While the Liberals are asleep at the wheel, only the NDP is keeping an eye on the situation and ensuring that Canadians' privacy is protected.

[English]

Canada-Australia Relations

    Mr. Speaker, today we have the honour to welcome Prime Minister Abbott to Ottawa. His visit represents an opportunity for our two countries to deepen and strengthen our bilateral relations. Canada and Australia have long stood shoulder to shoulder on a range of global issues. We do so today on issues such as Ukraine, the Middle East, and the engagement of the Asia-Pacific region. Our co-operation is also extended to international fora, such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the World Trade Organization, and the G20, which will be hosted by Australia this year.
    I would also like to commend Prime Minister Abbott's decision to repeal Australia's carbon tax, a tax that would raise the price of everyday goods and services, such as groceries, electricity, and gas. Our two countries will continue to work together to advance the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

[Translation]

Public Works and Government Services

    Mr. Speaker, the government has a report that recommends sole-sourcing the purchase of 65 F-35 jets. That seems like déjà vu. In 2012, the Auditor General's damning report derailed this same procurement process.
    Instead of once again hiding information, will the minister promise to table this report before the House adjourns? Also, can she tell us why the Conservatives are still refusing to move forward with a call for tenders?
    Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made concerning the replacement for the fleet of CF-18 fighter jets. A panel has reviewed the analyses carried out by the Canadian Forces, which were conducted in an efficient and very transparent manner.

  (1420)  

[English]

    Once we have made a decision, then we will make an announcement.
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are refusing to come clean with the public, while they are also selectively leaking details of the upcoming report on F-35s, but Canadians are not fooled. Conservatives refuse to even confirm when the report will be tabled. They refuse to confirm whether there will be a competition or if there are guarantees of Canadian jobs. In short, the Conservatives are doing what they have done all along: grossly mismanaging the F-35s.
    We have leaks from industry. We have leaks from government. If the report is good enough to leak, why will they not table it in the House today?
    Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, as part of our seven-point plan, the RCAF prepared an extensive analysis of the requirements of the options available. An impartial and independent panel of experts, outside true experts, have been reviewing those reports. Ministers are now reviewing those reports to make sure that all of the analysis is indeed impartial and rigorous. Once a decision is made, we will be announcing that and releasing the reports.

Justice

    Mr. Speaker, no one would confuse that for an actual answer to my question.
    Moving on to another issue where Conservatives have been putting politics ahead of competence, people are realizing that the Conservative government's new legislation on sex workers is deeply flawed and is likely unconstitutional. Instead of reducing the risk that women face, the bill risks entrenching extremely problematic aspects of the old legislation.
    Will the government do the sensible thing and submit this to the Supreme Court?
    Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that it is for the government to propose legislation, and it is for Parliament and all of its members to debate that legislation. Perhaps they do not want to.
    The Supreme Court's decision in Bedford was clear, raising concerns about the security and safety of women who find themselves in this inherently dangerous line of work. That decision has informed our bill. It protects the victims of prostitution by criminalizing the pimps and johns who fuel the demand for this dangerous activity, while putting in place measures that protect our communities, our children, and other vulnerable Canadians.
    Mr. Speaker, it is the minister's job to make sure that the laws that he files in the House are charter compliant and constitutional.

[Translation]

    The Supreme Court was clear in its unanimous ruling. The prostitution laws are unconstitutional because they endanger the safety and lives of those who are in this line of work.
    The government's response must respect the charter and the court's decision. Many experts have raised serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill C-36.
    If the minister thinks that his law will stand up in court, why does he not make his legal opinions public?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Bill C-36 is our government's response to the Bedford decision. In our view, it meets every test of the Supreme Court decision and will be upheld by the Supreme Court in accordance with Bedford. It is the role of the government to propose legislation, and it is the job of all parliamentarians to debate that legislation. We are looking forward to the debate here in Parliament later this week.
    Mr. Speaker, their track record in front of the Supreme Court is pretty pathetic so far.

[Translation]

    In an interview this weekend with MacLean's magazine, the Minister of Justice was unable to say whether prostitutes would be able to legally offer their services if this bill is passed. His law is so confusing that he himself does not even understand the ins and outs of it. This is a rather amateur response to a Supreme Court ruling.
    How many legal opinions does the minister have? Do any of them question the constitutionality of the bill?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36, like all legislation, is reviewed by Department of Justice officials in terms of its constitutionality. The bill certainly does meet the requirements of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Members will have an opportunity to debate the bill in the House later this week and later at the justice committee. It will become apparent to them that the bill addresses all of the issues raised by the Supreme Court and provides for those involved in sex work to do it safely.

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, last week began with Canadian economic growth sputtering down to a meagre 1.2%. At mid-week we heard of another trade deficit, this one of $640 million. Then, at week's end, the latest job numbers showed 29,000 full-time jobs lost and new jobs being only part-time.
    Canada urgently needs a growth agenda. The government could start by rolling back some of the $5.4 billion in higher EI premiums that the Conservatives themselves have imposed. Will they do that obvious thing?

  (1425)  

    Mr. Speaker, our government is on track to achieve a budgetary surplus. We have created more than one million jobs. Our debt is half that of the average of the G7, and we will continue to responsibly advocate for tax cuts for Canadian families and for hard-working Canadian workers. We will also be responsible, as we have promised, to freeze EI payments.

Infrastructure

    Mr. Speaker, that means no relief from higher Conservative payroll taxes.
    What about infrastructure? It is the most cost-effective way to drive jobs, growth, and productivity. For the next five years, the Building Canada fund has been eviscerated and 70% of all new Building Canada funding is delayed until after 2019. This year is already two months into the construction season, and applications still are not available. Municipalities now have to compete with universities for the same pool of Building Canada funds. Why has this program been cut, delayed, convoluted, and compromised?
    Mr. Speaker, we have taken the temporary program of the former government and made the gas tax fund permanent. We have made it permanent and we have doubled it. We have indexed it, and the municipalities already know that $32 billion is available for the next 10 years. The member does not speak about this part of the program.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, we are talking about this year. The minister can talk about the next 10 years all he wants, but our economy is struggling now and we need to create jobs.
    On June 1, 2013, when the minister announced the new Building Canada fund, he said, and I quote, "We will not miss a construction season.”
    Here we are one year later in the middle of construction season. How many contribution agreements has the minister signed? None, zero, aucun, nada, not a one. Municipalities and construction workers are still waiting. Can the minister explain to them why he broke his promise?
    I do not know whether the member travels by car much or whether he has seen how much construction is already happening on our roads. There is still $6 billion from the old program being used this year. The excise tax on gasoline is available. We are already open for doing business with the provinces. He is also forgetting that there are jurisdictions to contend with when the provincial and federal governments work together. We are here to support the program and we will deliver.

[English]

Public Works and Government Services

    Mr. Speaker, it has been almost eight years since the December 2006 memorandum of understanding on the F-35 that put Canada on track to sole-source the F-35 with no competition. It has been more than two years since the Conservatives' seven-point plan designed to paper over the loss of public trust, but after all this consternation and delay, it seems the government is poised to go ahead with a sole-sourced purchase with no guarantee for jobs and, again, no competition.
    Is the government planning to go back to square one with the same flawed decision?
    Mr. Speaker, that is just plain nonsense. We have put a pause on while we executed a seven-point plan to do an analysis of the options available to replace the outdated F-18s to make sure our men and women in uniform get the equipment they need to do the job we ask of them.
    The net result has been a series of reports that were prepared by the RCAF and vetted by a committee of independent experts, who examined them to make sure any decision we make is based on impartial and fair information.
    Mr. Speaker, sounds like déjà vu all over again to me.
    The minister might not comment here, but Conservative staff seem quite willing to brief anybody else on the supposed content of this report. Another report released today documents the problems that the single-engine F-35 faces in Canada. The perils of operating a single-engine aircraft in Canada's north are well known.
    Will the government take this into account, or is it hell-bent on continuing to ignore the problems and Canada's needs and move ahead on a sole-sourced procurement?

  (1430)  

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers, especially when the source of some of that information is rather dubious. In fact, some of it even comes from well-known ex-NDP candidates. That is their claim to expertise on this issue.
    We go for the facts. We are doing an impartial evaluation of the reports and the analysis done by the RCAF to make sure the decision we make is indeed based on fact and will provide the best equipment for men and women in uniform.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Auditor General sharply criticized the government's lack of transparency with regard to the F-35 procurement program. Parliament was not given any information about the cost, the risks associated with Lockheed Martin's aircraft, or even the projected industrial benefits for Canadian companies. Basically, we were asked to give Lockheed Martin billions of dollars without knowing what we would be getting in return.
    Why are the Conservatives refusing to table in the House the F-35 report they have in their possession?
    Mr. Speaker, as I just said, no decision has been made about replacing the CF-18 fleet.
    A group of experts has read the report and the analyses prepared by the Canadian Forces about all of the replacement options to ensure that the analyses are impartial and transparent.
    When the ministers make a decision, it will be announced, and the information will be distributed.
    Mr. Speaker, that is just as ridiculous the second time around as it was the first. The F-35 program has been through so many ups and downs that we cannot believe the government is about to make the same mistakes and sign the same blank cheque for Lockheed Martin.
    Before the Auditor General dealt a death blow to the previous untendered procurement program, the Conservatives were secretive about everything. They were not even able to provide the real acquisition cost of each jet. As it turns out, their accounting has become even more creative.
    Do they really think they can still buy 65 F-35s for $9 billion?
    Mr. Speaker, our goal is to provide the Canadian Forces with the equipment they need to do their job. That is why we have asked the Canadian Forces for reports and analyses concerning replacement of the CF-18 fleet.
    Once the ministers have read and analyzed the reports and recommendations, they will make a decision. Then we will announce the decision and release the reports.

Employment

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' refusal to launch a bidding process and make Lockheed Martin guarantee industrial spinoffs will do nothing to improve the employment situation.
    On Friday, we learned that the unemployment rate has ballooned to 7% and that 60,000 full-time jobs have disappeared over the past two years. I should also point out that it is the public sector, which the Conservatives have been attacking relentlessly, that has saved the Canadian economy from disaster.
    When will the Conservatives take employment seriously?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, our government has achieved more in terms of job creation than other G7 countries. We lost 600,000 jobs, compared to eight million in the United States; we have recovered that and added more than 400,000 more, to a net total of more than one million.
    We are doing better than most other countries. We are very proud of that performance, which is based on the sound fiscal policies of this government.
    Mr. Speaker, what the minister does not mention in his facts is that the Canadian population grew by 1.6 million people over that same amount of time. Conservative economic policies are not even keeping pace with population growth, and they boast about it.
    The reality check for this out-of-touch minister is that 7% are unemployed again in Canada. Almost 40% of those unemployed have given up looking for work altogether, and for young people the recession has never ended: unemployment rates remain the same.
    Can the Conservative minister offer just one new concrete idea for those unemployed Canadians on how things are going to get better?

  (1435)  

    Mr. Speaker, once again, the member opposite is misinformed. One of the reasons the unemployment rate went from 6.9% to 7% was that more people were entering into looking for jobs. It is the exact opposite of what the member opposite asserted.
    The fact is that we have an excellent job record. Individual months will vary, but the trend is clear. We are on the road to achieving our budgetary surplus. Our forecast for increased growth is continuing, and employment will continue to increase.
    Mr. Speaker, according to the finance minister, a higher unemployment rate is better for Canada's economy and losing 60,000 full-time jobs in just the last 60 days is somehow good news for Canadians.
    The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said that 95% of all jobs created last year were part-time jobs. Billions were given away by the government in corporate taxes without any strings attached or any known jobs created.
    If the minister is out of ideas, how about a commitment to reversing his decision to kill the one program that actually worked? Will he commit today to reverse his bad call on killing the small business hiring tax credit, yes or no?
    Mr. Speaker, it is rich for the NDP to be criticizing our government's record on job creation. New Democrats voted against every job-creating measure that our government has put forward, including freezing EI rates, providing certainty and flexibility to employers and employees, tax cuts for manufacturers to purchase new equipment and expand their operations, and $70 billion in stable and predictable job-creating infrastructure.
    The NDP would instead introduce crippling new taxes on Canadian businesses and put a carbon tax on everything.

Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP would like to commend Australia for ratifying the UN Arms Trade Treaty last week. Once enforced, the treaty will curb the illegal trade of arms. It will save lives.
    Only 10 more countries must ratify it before it becomes international law, but, sadly, Canada is refusing to even sign it. Will the Prime Minister follow the lead of the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Abbott? Will Canada actually sign and ratify the Arms Trade Treaty?
    Mr. Speaker, Canada already has one of the strongest export controls in the world. The ATT actually brings these countries to our export control standards.
    It is important that such treaties not affect lawful and responsible firearm owners or discourage the transfer of firearms for recreational uses, such as sport shooting and hunting.
    We will consult and we will act accordingly.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, we are starting to get fed up with the bogus excuses we keep hearing on this.
    The arms trade treaty will have no repercussions on gun owners in Canada. In fact, even the United States has signed the treaty. Once in place, the treaty will help save the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
    When will the Conservatives follow Australia's example? When will they finally sign and ratify this treaty?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, as I have just stated, Canada already has one of the strongest export controls in the world. This treaty actually brings countries up to our control standards.
    As I stated, we will consult, and when it is appropriate, we will make the decision.

[Translation]

Employment

    Mr. Speaker, the government is doing far too little to enforce the rules of the temporary foreign worker program. There are only four companies on its blacklist, and none of those four is related to a case of abuse. What is more, the minister rejected the suggestion of his counterpart in Alberta to include the provinces in enforcing the rules.
    Given the seriousness of the abuse problem, why are the Conservatives doing nothing?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, the member has it entirely backward. It was the Liberals that did nothing. They had no penalties. They had no blacklist. They had no enforcement. They created the general lower-skilled stream. This government created the blacklist.
    He is absolutely wrong, and I will give him the example of the Boathouse Restaurant in Fenelon Falls, Ontario, which was put on the blacklist because of an RCMP investigation into human trafficking and abuse of workers. It is on the blacklist because of that, and I just approved more non-compliant companies to be put on the blacklist last week.
    In terms of the provinces, I have written to them repeatedly to ask that they share information with us about abusive employers.

  (1440)  

    Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, you might remember there was no crisis.
    Last week in western Canada I heard evidence of rampant abuse of temporary foreign workers. I heard that some resource companies were saving millions by demanding horrendous working hours with unacceptable lodging. I heard that unscrupulous immigration consultants in the trucking industry were selling labour market opinions and allowing gross exploitation of workers, luring them with false promises of permanent residence. All of this is illegal.
     Why does the minister not lift a finger to address the incidents?
    Mr. Speaker, it would take a Liberal to understand abuse. After all, it was the Liberal government that created the stripper program. This is not just some kind of a talking point; this is a reality. The Liberals actually systematically issued, every year, hundreds of work permits for typically easily exploited women from developing countries to come to Canada in an industry with close linkages very frequently to organized crime. When there was a public outcry about it, the Liberals defended the program. That is the Liberal track record. It is indefensible.

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party stands firm in opposing the northern gateway pipeline. Rather than listen to the millions of British Columbians who were concerned about the risks of this project, the Prime Minister threatened and bullied them and then weakened environmental laws to clear the way.
    Last week the minister said that the project would only be approved if it was safe for the environment, but hundreds of scientists said that it was not safe, not on land and not on sea. Will the minister finally accept the science and reject this project?
    Mr. Speaker, the joint review panel has submitted its report with 200 more conditions. Projects, as we have said, will only be approved if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. We are carefully reviewing this report and a decision will be forthcoming.

[Translation]

Privacy

    Mr. Speaker, with each passing day we have another reason for not trusting Conservatives to protect Canadians' personal information.
    Today, La Presse revealed that more than 2,000 census forms were lost. Canadians provided this information believing that the government would safeguard it. Even though this happened in 2011, they still do not know where this information has gone.
    What is the government doing to protect the victims from identity theft in light of this new loss of personal information?
    Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that Bill S-4, which is before Parliament, protects the interests of Canadians online.

[English]

    I know my colleague has seen the bill because the member herself said about Bill S-4, “I welcome the proposals in this bill. This bill contains very positive developments for the privacy rights of Canadians.”
    Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, was supported by Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier. It is supported by Canadians all across the country who recognize the need to protect Canadians' privacy rights online. The member herself spoke favourably of the bill. I am disappointed to see her change of heart.
    Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate with answers like that it is clear the government does not take the fact that it is losing the personal information of Canadians seriously. It lost the tax records of Canadians. It lost the financial records of half a million graduates. Now it has lost thousands of census data on individual Canadians.
     No wonder the Prime Minister hand-picked a government insider, a man who has made his career at defending controversial government choices, as his Privacy Commissioner. Canadians need someone who will stand up for them.
    Therefore, I will ask a simple question. What steps will the Conservatives take to reach out to these Canadians whose information has been lost to ensure they will not become victims of identity theft or fraud?

  (1445)  

    Mr. Speaker, we have empowered the Privacy Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner's office. As I said, we have gone further in Bill S-4.
    The ethic behind the member's question is frankly a sound one. That is why we have acted as a government and moved forward both in the Copyright Modernization Act and in this Parliament with Bill S-4.
    The Privacy Commissioner has welcomed these changes. Because we recognize that as Canadians are migrating their businesses and their personal lives online, we want to ensure that Canadians are protected online and that the Privacy Commissioner's office is empowered to investigate abuses of Canadian citizens online. That is why we are taking action.

[Translation]

Agriculture and Agri-Food

    Mr. Speaker, according to the government's figures, the current grain transportation crisis is costing farmers $8 billion. The Conservatives' inaction has therefore resulted in significant losses for farmers, despite the repeated warnings that were issued about this problem last fall.
    Today, the government's long-awaited bill is being criticized because it does not address the issue of transportation corridors, even though the NDP suggested in the past that this problem needed to be corrected.
    How much more will farmers have to pay before the government takes action?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture showed tremendous leadership by tabling Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, to solve the serious grain transportation problems that were present in Canada. The bill was well received across Canada by stakeholders and right here in the House. It was a bill that was clear and unequivocal and it set ambitious but realistic goals.
     The latest figures show that our government's efforts to get grain moving are working.
    Mr. Speaker, the minister actually failed for months and farmers lost millions because of that failure.
    New documents released through access to information show that Conservatives ignored the grain transport warnings. They knew before, yet did not act. A railway company president actually wrote to the minister and said that there was a looming grain transportation crunch on the horizon and that he needed to do something. They ignored that too.
    However, the minister responded in the House of Commons with his self-promotion and platitudes and ignored the warning. Will the minister now admit that his failure to heed warnings contributed to billions of dollars that farmers have lost in this particular year?
    Mr. Speaker, let us look at Bill C-30. It was introduced into the House on an urgent basis and passed by the House on an urgent basis. It increases supply chain transparency, it strengthens contractual mechanisms between producers and shippers and it helps to ensure that the entire grain handling and transportation system is working at its capacity. It obligates the rail companies to move one million metric tonnes of grain a week.
     This system is working and it is serving our western Canadian grain farmers.

Public Safety

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast are mourning the loss of three RCMP members who were taken from us far too soon at the hands of a ruthless killer. All eyes have been glued to the tragedy in Moncton as it unfolded, showcasing the bravery and great work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.
    Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice please update the House on the government's reaction to the horrific events in Moncton?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for his previous service as a member of Canada's very own RCMP.

[Translation]

    Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of RCMP Constables Fabrice Gevaudan, David Ross and Douglas Larche, who gave their lives to protect Canadians.

[English]

    As the member of Parliament for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, I feel the relief, like other citizens, that finally this horrific accused has been brought to justice and will face the full brunt of the law.
    Battling against danger and imminent odds and pure evil, we saw the old adage that the RCMP always gets its man held true again. Thanks to the great actions of the RCMP, we remain Moncton strong.

  (1450)  

[Translation]

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, I did not think it was possible, but the Conservatives' legendary incompetence when it comes to protecting the environment has just reached new heights.
    This morning we learned that the Conservatives' response plan in the event of an oil spill relies on using chemicals banned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
    The Conservatives are about to green-light the northern gateway pipeline project, and their response plan in the event of an oil spill is to use chemicals that their own government has banned.
    Will the Conservatives finally admit that they are in no way prepared to move forward with this project?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, in 2013, the ministers announced that we would be moving ahead with the world-class tanker safety program. Indeed, we struck a panel. That panel came up with recommendations. We just recently announced our response to the recommendations.
     One of the key recommendations was the notion that one size does not fit all for response plans across the country. That is why we are putting different areas for different response plans and allowing for those response plans to include the use of chemical disbursements. However, here is the kicker: it is where it is a net benefit for the environment, and that is the means by which we will be allowing this to happen.
    Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of if northern gateway will lead to a massive oil spill on the west coast. It is a question of when. Even the B.C. government has said that a comprehensive oil spill response plan is needed before it will approve a pipeline permit.
    The Conservatives have no coherent oil spill response plan. How can the government expect Canadians to trust it or its project if the Conservatives cannot even come up with a basic plan?
    Mr. Speaker, that is categorically false. There are response plans in our country and many people take part in them, like the great Coast Guard Auxiliary, which worked very hard on both of our coasts in this matter.
    There is always room for improvement. That is exactly what we are doing. We are ensuring that the areas are ready for a response, that they have all the tools they need. We want to ensure three pillars: that we prevent oil spills from happening; that we respond to them very well if in case they do happen; and, at the day, that polluters will pay.
    Mr. Speaker, lack of preparation for an oil spill is just one of the ways the Conservatives have mismanaged this pipeline. Their lack of genuine consultation continues to cause them problems.
    Grand Chief Stewart Phillip was clear this weekend. If the Conservatives continue to plough ahead, they will once again find themselves in court.
    Will the Conservatives stop putting their oil lobbyist friends ahead of British Columbians and will they reject this proposal?
    Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government will thoroughly review the joint panel report and will continue to consult with aboriginal communities prior to making any decision.
    We are proud of the action we have taken to ensure Canada has a world-class regulatory framework and the means for the safest form of transportation of our energy products.
    Again, we have been clear. Projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.
    Mr. Speaker, to sum up, hundreds of scientists are calling on the Conservatives to reject—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria has the floor and members need to come to order.
    The hon. member for Victoria.
    Mr. Speaker, hundreds of scientists are calling on the Conservative government to reject the joint review panel report on gateway. First nation groups across the province are saying that more consultations are required. Most British Columbians, two-thirds, and most municipalities oppose this project. Now we learn the Conservatives do not even have a response plan for an oil spill.
    Obviously, this project must be rejected. What more will it take for the Conservatives to finally do the right thing?
    Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. Projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. We are proud of the action we have taken to ensure Canada has a world-class regulatory framework. We will continue to consult with aboriginal communities prior to making any decision on this project.
    Our government is currently reviewing the independent joint review panel report and will continue to consult prior to making decisions.

  (1455)  

    Mr. Speaker, we know the minister has trouble answering questions on the fly, but now she has had the entire weekend to think about my question from last week.
    The Prime Minister must be embarrassed by President Obama's initiative—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order, please. This is certainly taking up a lot of time from today's question period. I am going to ask members to ensure we do not run out of time and maybe miss some questions, and if they would quickly come to order and let the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood finishing asking his.
    Mr. Speaker, I know the minister must be embarrassed by President Obama's initiative to deal with the largest emitter. We know the minister has no such plan, now or in the future.
    When was the last time the minister met with the oil and gas industry, or will we get the same old cue card from last week?
    Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Liberals are really messed up on the environmental file. We actually welcome the move from the U.S.
    We took action on this sector two years ago, which means our regulations will come into effect sooner and our regulations are stricter. We also estimate that we will achieve a 46% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the coal sector by 2030 compared with 30% in the U.S.
    We also have one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world, with 77% of our electricity supply emitting no greenhouse gas emissions, compared with 33% in the U.S.
    Mr. Speaker, different day, same cue card.
    Recently, the government announced a national conservation plan, but like most Conservative gifts, this one has a catch. Rather than making the Canada government initiatives readily available to all Canadians, one has to go to the Conservative website, and if one hits the “donate now” button, one will have to release one's personal information.
    Well, my name is John Doe and I am from Scarborough—Guildwood, and I would like to know how the minister expects to fund this conservation plan, since she cannot fund her own Conservative plan.
    Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is ridiculous. Canadians across the country have applauded the announcement we made to launch the national conservation plan. It promotes our government's strong legacy of conservation work and includes new investments to secure ecologically sensitive lands and conserve marine and coastal areas. It helps to connect Canadians to nature in urban areas.
    This was a commitment we made in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, and I am proud to be part of a government that keeps its promises and listens to Canadians.

[Translation]

Citizenship and Immigration

    Mr. Speaker, Canadian refugee settlement groups are calling on the Conservative government to do its part in response to the humanitarian crisis we are seeing in Syria as a result of the civil war. The settlement groups, under the leadership of the Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance, wrote to the minister last week to confirm that they have the infrastructure and staff needed to welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees. They are calling for immediate action.
    When will the government respond to the call of the United Nations, which is trying to relocate 100,000 Syrian refugees?
    Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the response of the Government of Canada and Canada as a whole to the crisis in Syria. We are the fourth-largest financial donor, and Canada has already offered protection to more than 1,100 Syrians. We are especially proud of Quebec's contribution. Private sponsorship in Quebec has been particularly strong. Further to the visit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, with whom we discussed—
    The hon. member for Davenport.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, according to the UN, over 2.8 million Syrians are seeking refugee protection. The Canadian Immigration Settlement Sector Alliance has called on the government to take in more refugees. It says that Canada is uniquely positioned to do more and to accept more.
    Now, the minister has so far dragged his feet, but he has the opportunity to finally listen to experts, acknowledge that he has mishandled refugee protection, and agree to reassess Canada's role in Syrian aid.

  (1500)  

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians who have been following this crisis know that Canada has been at the forefront of the international response. We are the fourth-largest donor to the humanitarian response and other forms of response to meet the needs of those 2.7 million refugees.
     We are deeply concerned that this is the largest refugee crisis the world in now facing. That is why Canada has already offered protection to over 1,100 Syrians through our asylum system and our refugee resettlement programs.
    Further to the very productive recent visit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and dignitaries, we plan to do more. Canada continues to resettle one in ten refugees worldwide.

Veterans Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 6, Canadians paused to mark the 70th anniversary of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy. As a nation, we honoured those Canadians who bravely landed on the heavily defended shores of Normandy, and with great vision and perseverance, forever changed the course of history.
    Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs inform this House on how our government remembered this very important date?
    Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to return to the shores of France alongside our Prime Minister, Minister of Veterans Affairs, Minister of National Defence, and other parliamentarians to express our endless gratitude and to pledge that we will never forget those who served.
    It was a great privilege and humbling experience to stand alongside almost 100 veterans of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy on Juno Beach to honour those who served and to remember all those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
    Lest we forget.

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, Downsview Park is 77,572 acres of green space, boasting a lake, 60,000 trees, and walking paths, all between Keele, Sheppard, and Allen roads and Wilson Avenue. Put another way, Downsview Park is a one-of-a-kind jewel within Toronto. Despite this, I rise to sound the alarm on what appears to be a Canada Lands Company plan to transform Canada's largest urban park into a paradise for developers.
    Will the minister, today, commit that Downsview will remain green, and that the government will preserve Downsview Park green for our children and our grandchildren?
    Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes and values Downsview Park as an important community asset within the GTA. As we have indicated many times, there is no plan and no intention to sell the parkland at Downsview Park. We are going to keep that and make sure that it is available for the residents of the area.

[Translation]

Tourism

    Mr. Speaker, this week is Tourism Week in Canada.
    Unfortunately, instead of investing in promoting Canadian tourism, the minister would rather brag about cutting 20% of the Canadian Tourism Commission's budget, and the results are disastrous. The tourism industry is struggling to cope with the consequences of those cuts and the botched EI reform.
    During Tourism Week, will the minister fix his mistakes and invest in the tourism industry, which creates jobs across the country?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I have been wanting to rise in the House to answer questions about the tourism industry for a long time now.
    There is so much good news in Canada's tourism industry that the member has forgotten it. The annual Rendez-vous Canada event was held in Vancouver two weeks ago, and all the players in our tourism industry were in attendance. Tourism in Canada is alive and well and is an engine of economic growth for many small businesses in this industry. The government will continue to support them.

[English]

Democratic Reform

    Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Star has wrongly reported that the fair elections act will allow people to vote by having someone vouch for who they are. This is clearly a factual error, because the fair elections act ends identity vouching altogether.
    Can the Minister of State for Democratic Reform remind the House of the new requirement that every voter present a physical piece of ID before voting?
    Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Star's factual error was in stating that voters can, “....continue to prove their identity through the vouching system at the ballot box”. That is a clear factual error. In the next election, it will be impossible to have someone identify anyone through a form of vouching. Anyone who shows up without a physical piece of ID will not be permitted to vote.
    The good news is that Canadians overwhelmingly support our decision to require ID: 89% of Canadians believe that voters should have ID when they vote. We agree with them. It is fair. That is the fair elections act.

  (1505)  

[Translation]

Privacy

    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry's telecommunications bill will simply make it easier for companies and the government to intrude into the lives of ordinary people.
    Just imagine: companies will be allowed to share their clients' personal information with other organizations without a warrant and without having to inform the individual in question.
    Why are the Conservatives giving telecommunications companies carte blanche when it comes to surveillance? Why are they not protecting Canadians' personal information?
    Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. We are talking about Bill S-4.

[English]

    Again, if my colleague is opposed to the bill, she ought to tell her colleague who is responsible for telecommunications policy, her colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, who said, “We have been pushing for these measures and I am happy to see them introduced.... Overall, these are good first steps.”
    That was the NDP position when we tabled the bill, because the digital privacy act does exactly, in substance, what the NDP asks for us to do rhetorically, which is to protect the privacy of Canadians online and protect their transactions, so that when their information is violated or if their information has been stolen, they are immediately notified, and if they are not, there is punishment. The Privacy Commissioner is empowered.
    Bill S-4 goes a great way to protect Canadians online, and the NDP should know that.

[Translation]

Employment Insurance

    Mr. Speaker, for more than a year Service Canada has been picking on the workers at the Eastern Quebec Seafoods plant in Matane.
    After abruptly ending an agreement that had been in effect since 1996, a known and approved agreement, Ottawa is now treating these employees like fraudsters and has asked them to repay thousands of dollars in legitimate benefits. In a display of extreme obstinacy, the Employment Insurance Commission wants to appeal the decision of the Social Security Tribunal, which just ruled in favour of the workers.
    What is the government waiting for to intervene and ensure that this harassment of workers who have acted in good faith stops once and for all?
    Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with this particular file, but I will look into it and provide the honourable member with the facts.
    Mr. Speaker, the workers at the Eastern Quebec Seafoods plant deserve better than platitudes from the minister. They deserve that the government stop treating them with disdain. They have already had to defend themselves once against Service Canada's unreasonable demands, and they won their case before the Employment Insurance Board of Referees. They then had to defend themselves a second time on the same matter, and they just won their case before the Social Security Tribunal.
    How many more times will the honest workers of Matane have to defend themselves against Service Canada's bad faith before the minister takes real action and stops Service Canada from harassing them?
    Mr. Speaker, the professional public servants at Service Canada are not acting in bad faith. They are acting in good faith. The rules are there to support unemployed workers who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Clearly, cases can be appealed before the Social Security Tribunal.
    However, I will look into this particular case and share my findings with the hon. member.

[English]

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, two of Canada's greatest challenges are rising CO2 and growing poverty. The Conservative government has not addressed either one.
    Proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby, carbon fee and dividend would address both by setting a fee on carbon to curb our petrol addictions and putting that money straight back into the pockets of each and every Canadian.
    Will the Minister of Finance please consider carbon fee and dividend?
    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that our approach is working. Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals.
    What do the other parties want? They want a $20-billion carbon tax. Let us look at what this would do to hard-working Canadian families. This would be a tax on electricity, transportation, heating for their homes, clothes, groceries, and the list goes on. Canadians do not want more taxes. They do not want a $20-billion carbon tax.
    We are going to continue with our approach.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

  (1510)  

[English]

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

     The House resumed from June 5 consideration of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
    Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-31.
    Call in the members.

  (1525)  

    [And the bells having rung:]
    The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 6.

  (1530)  

    (The House divided on the Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 170)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brosseau
Caron
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Freeman
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Jacob
Julian
Kellway
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Rousseau
Saganash
Scott
Sellah
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Turmel

Total: -- 86

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bélanger
Bennett
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Casey
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Cotler
Crockatt
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dion
Dreeshen
Dubourg
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dykstra
Easter
Eyking
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Freeland
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
Hyer
James
Jones
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lamoureux
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Murray
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Seeback
Sgro
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
St-Denis
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Trudeau
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 177

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

[Translation]

    I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 6 defeated.

[English]

    The question is on Motion No. 4.

[Translation]

    A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 10 to 12.

  (1540)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 171)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Caron
Casey
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Freeland
Freeman
Garneau
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Rathgeber
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote

Total: -- 117

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 147

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.
    I therefore declare Motions Nos. 10 to 12 defeated.

[English]

    The next question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 8 and 9.

  (1545)  

[Translation]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 172)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Caron
Casey
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Fortin
Freeland
Freeman
Garneau
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Rathgeber
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote

Total: -- 118

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 147

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 5 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 8 and 9 defeated.

[English]

    The next question is on Motion No. 13. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 14 to 65.

  (1555)  

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

(Division No. 173)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brosseau
Caron
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Fortin
Freeman
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Julian
Kellway
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Rousseau
Saganash
Scott
Sellah
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Turmel

Total: -- 88

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bélanger
Bennett
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Casey
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Cotler
Crockatt
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dion
Dreeshen
Dubourg
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dykstra
Easter
Eyking
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Freeland
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Jones
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lamoureux
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Murray
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Seeback
Sgro
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
St-Denis
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Trudeau
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 177

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 13 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 14 to 65 defeated.

[Translation]

    The next question is on Motion No. 66. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 67 to 69.

  (1600)  

[English]

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

(Division No. 174)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brosseau
Caron
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Fortin
Freeman
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Julian
Kellway
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Rousseau
Saganash
Scott
Sellah
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Turmel

Total: -- 88

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Bélanger
Bennett
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Casey
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Cotler
Crockatt
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dion
Dreeshen
Dubourg
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dykstra
Easter
Eyking
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Freeland
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Jones
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lamoureux
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Murray
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Seeback
Sgro
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
St-Denis
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Trudeau
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 177

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 66 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 67 to 69 defeated.
    The next question is on Motion No. 70. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 71 to 83.

  (1610)  

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

(Division No. 175)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Caron
Casey
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Fortin
Freeland
Freeman
Garneau
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote

Total: -- 114

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 148

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 70 defeated. I further declare Motions Nos. 71 to 83 defeated.

[Translation]

    The question is on Motion No. 84. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 85 to 87.

  (1615)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 84, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 176)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Caron
Casey
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Fortin
Freeland
Freeman
Garneau
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote

Total: -- 116

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 148

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 84 defeated. Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 85 to 87 defeated.

[English]

    The question is on Motion No. 88.

  (1620)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 88, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 177)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Caron
Casey
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Fortin
Freeland
Freeman
Garneau
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote

Total: -- 116

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 148

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 88 defeated.
    The next question is on Motion No. 89. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 90 to 93.

  (1630)  

[Translation]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 89, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 178)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Caron
Casey
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Fortin
Freeland
Freeman
Garneau
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote

Total: -- 115

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 148

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 89 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 89 to 93 defeated.

[English]

    The question is on Motion No. 94. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 95 to 97.

  (1635)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 94, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 179)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Caron
Casey
Cash
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Fortin
Freeland
Freeman
Garneau
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote

Total: -- 115

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Falk
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trottier
Truppe
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 148

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare Motion No. 94 defeated. I further declare Motions Nos. 95 to 97 defeated.
    I return to the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands and Thunder Bay—Superior North, who did not get to vote. They need to indicate which way they wish to vote.

[Translation]

    The question is on Motion No. 98. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos.  99 and 100.

  (1645)  

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, we wish to vote in favour.

[Translation]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 98, which was negatived on the following division:
 

(Division No. 180)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)