//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersLaval—Les ÎlesInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow citizens and organizations in my riding, Laval—Les Îles, for their support and for placing their trust in me to represent them here over the past four years. I would like to say to community organizations, their employees and their volunteers that their determination, compassion and involvement have truly inspired me and pushed me to work even harder to help my fellow citizens achieve a better life day after day.I would like to thank my fellow citizens for their support. No matter who they are, I want them to know that I intend to keep fighting every day to build a better Canada for all of them. That is the promise I made four years ago, and I plan to keep it for the next four years.However, this time, I will be keeping that promise as part of a New Democratic government that will work for Canadians and their interests. I will be part of a government that truly represents them, a government that will give them a voice.We will be back here on October 20, together and ready to change the world.Laval—Les ÎlesStatements by MembersStellaAmblerMississauga SouthHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodCanada PostInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the government has a choice: it can tell Canada Post to go back to the drawing board.Mayor Coderre is furious. He described this as a unilateral decision by Canada Post and said that the consultation that was promised is nothing but hot air. The mayor of Laval even tried to work together with Canada Post, but to no avail. Over 500 municipalities are denouncing Canada Post's decision.Will the minister ever take responsibility and call for a moratorium?Canada Post CorporationOral questionsPostal servicesJeffWatsonEssexJeffWatsonEssex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodCanada PostInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1510)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the City of Laval wants a moratorium on the installation of community mailboxes.Residents are outraged by the lack of public consultation, and the mayor of Laval deplores the one-way communications from Canada Post. Over 200 municipalities have now spoken out against Canada Post's attitude.Will the government honour the City of Laval's request or will it plough ahead with the installation of community boxes?Canada Post CorporationCommunity mail boxesLavalOral questionsCandiceBergenHon.Portage—LisgarLisaRaittHon.Halton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersTougher Penalties for Child Predators ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1000)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to rise to finish the speech that I started on Wednesday about Bill C-26, which is back before us today. Previously, I was talking about how important it is to punish those who commit sexual abuse against children, and that is why we will vote in favour of Bill C-26.It is imperative that we eradicate this scourge. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to prevent these crimes from happening. As I said on Wednesday, even a single case of child abuse is one too many. We must therefore take a preventive approach, which Bill C-26 does not do.Since 2006, the Conservative government has taken steps to protect children, and we commend those measures. Among other things, they made it illegal to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence, strengthened the sex offender registry, increased the age at which a young person can legally consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years, put in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory, and made it illegal to use computers or other means of telecommunications to agree with or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. I was hoping that those measures could have been effective. However, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning the supplementary estimates, the Minister of Justice said that sexual offences against children have increased 6% over the past two years.That statistic is extremely troubling. It also shows that the government is taking a rather minimalist approach. One thing is clear: paying lip service is not enough. The lack of financial resources, in terms of both enforcing existing laws as well as preventing these crimes, makes any new legislation pointless.For instance, the NDP has always supported the circles of support and accountability program, or COSA. However, the government recently announced that it was cancelling funding provided by Correctional Service Canada. This is penny wise and pound foolish, since it will have a huge negative impact on this prevention plan and community services to victims, which are already operating on a very meagre budget of just $2.2 million. We also learned recently that, over a period of five years, the RCMP did not spend over $10 million that was earmarked for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre and other essential government projects to fight child pornography.The cuts, made in part as the RCMP's contribution to the deficit reduction action plan, were imposed even as the number of public reports of child abuse was increasing at an alarming rate.Tougher prison sentences and stricter measures are certainly effective ways of preventing repeat offences, but they do nothing to eliminate the problem in the long term if the necessary human and financial resources are not assigned to prevention programs and efforts to raise awareness among the public and the authorities about this absolutely appalling type of crime.As I said, we will support Bill C-26, since the NDP has always had a zero tolerance policy when it comes to any type of sex crime. That is another reason why we are disappointed that the bill did not go further and propose truly effective measures for protecting our children and tangible preventive measures to make our communities safer.In that sense, we are disappointed that Bill C-26 does not include any new funding or financial resources. Tougher prison sentences are a good start, but they are not enough. Our communities need resources to deal with the sexual abuse of our children, and Bill C-26 offers nothing new to that effect.The other thing we take issue with is this government's lack of co-operation and refusal to do non-partisan work on a bill that we all agree on. All of us, as parliamentarians, could have worked together on this bill and pulled together to eliminate this terrible problem of child sex abuse.(1005)Victims and the general public would have benefited from the government being more open-minded on such an important, non-partisan issue. The Conservatives ignored the recommendations of the associations, experts and professionals who testified in committee. It is sad and shameful to see the government turn such a serious and important issue into a partisan issue.Nevertheless, in closing, the NDP will support this government's Bill C-26 simply because we believe that the measures proposed in it are a good start.However, the NDP would have liked to take this further, particularly when it comes to prevention and allocating financial resources to the authorities and stakeholders in the field.We hope that in future, the government will take expert and stakeholder opinion into account in important legislation like this. This is not about winning an election. This is about the well-being of our children, and political partisanship should have no part in that.Budget cutsC-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationCrime preventionGovernment billsSex offendersThird reading and adoptionGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersTougher Penalties for Child Predators ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1010)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.As I said in my speech, it would be good for the government to invest in prevention, and for police officers and social workers to go into schools to help prevent these types of situations or, at the very least, to meet with people and find out whether a child has a problem. As I said on Wednesday, my own sister provides emergency foster care, and there are still far too many children who are abused by their own parents. This bill does nothing to prevent that.C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationCrime preventionGovernment billsInformation disseminationSex offendersThird reading and adoptionGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesPierreNantelLongueuil—Pierre-Boucher//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersTougher Penalties for Child Predators ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1010)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher is absolutely right, and my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges probably would have been as well. I am from a Laval neighbourhood of 10,000 people. When I was young, there were 10 murders in 20 years in the area. It was frightening. The City decided to invest in a local police station and there were no murders at all over the next 20 years.It it not just by putting people in prison that we make our streets safer. We need to invest in prevention, where it counts. Of course children who are abused will be glad if their abuser goes to prison for the rest of his life, but that does not change anything in the child's life. If something was really done to prevent the abuse from happening, these children would be able to lead much more normal lives.C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationCrime preventionGovernment billsPolice servicesSex offendersThird reading and adoptionPierreNantelLongueuil—Pierre-BoucherCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by Members50th Anniversary of LavalInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1110)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to mark the 50th anniversary of the city of Laval, the city where I was born and raised and worked, the city I currently have the good fortune of representing in the House of Commons. Laval is also the hometown of the next Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. member for Outremont and leader of the official opposition.This summer, more than ever, Laval will be the place to be. Laval's residents, its artistic and cultural diversity, its artists and its local merchants have helped the city to make its mark from the past to the present and become an example to follow. The people of Laval are supportive, committed, determined and welcoming, and over the past 50 years they have made Laval a prosperous city and a great place to live.I am extremely proud to represent my constituents in Canada's Parliament. It is with that same pride that I invite the members of the House to take part in the festivities that will be held in Laval all year long and to join me in saying, “Happy 50th. The future belongs to Laval”.AnniversaryLavalStatements by MembersPatPerkinsWhitby—OshawaKellyBlockSaskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAgricultureInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents. They are calling on the government to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, so that they can preserve and freely use their seeds.Grain industryPatentsPetition 412-5212Seed growingMatthewKellwayBeaches—East YorkTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersGreek Independence DayInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise in the House today, March 25, to celebrate Greek Independence Day. As founders of democracy, philosophy and theatre, the Greek people have, on many occasions throughout history, demonstrated resiliency, courage and the will to exist and to be.I am lucky to represent a riding, Laval—Les Îles, that is home to one of the largest Greek communities in Quebec. I am therefore pleased to invite not just the people of Laval, but all of my colleagues in the House, to participate in the celebrations that will be put on by the Hellenic Community of Greater Montreal this weekend. I am proud to say that I will be there.I would especially like to invite everyone to the parade that will take place this Sunday on Jean-Talon in Montreal. Every year, the parade showcases Greek culture, which is so vibrant in my community.Long live the Greeks in Laval, Quebec and Canada, and long live Greece.[Member spoke in Greek as follows:]Zito Y Ellada!Greek CanadiansGreek Independence DayLaval—Les ÎlesMontréalStatements by MembersMarkWarawaLangleyCostasMenegakisRichmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersTougher Penalties for Child Predators ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1725)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that we will be voting in favour of Bill C-26. Based on the questions raised since this morning, the other side is still undecided.As several of my colleagues mentioned this afternoon, the bill deals with the incarceration of sexual predators. We seem to be forgetting about the children. Children who have been abused are scarred for life. Clearly, incarcerating sexual predators is a good thing. However, the ideal solution would be to prevent sexual predation. As the member who spoke before me said, there is nothing in this bill to prevent sexual predators from committing the abuse. Of course they will not be able to do so once in prison, but there will be other sexual predators, because this type of abuse has always existed. We have to treat these people. I am in a good position to talk about the damage done to abused children. My sister provides emergency foster care for youth protection services. She fosters children who must be taken away from their families on an emergency basis. Quite often the children she cares for have been taken away from their family because they were sexually abused by their own parents. These children believe that they were taken away from their families because they did something wrong.This could all be avoided if, instead of introducing a bill to put sexual predators in jail, the government tried to prevent this type of abuse at the source.C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsChild sexual abuse and exploitationCrime preventionGovernment billsSex offendersThird reading and adoptionBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1315)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak today to a bill that addresses the concerns of many of my constituents in Laval—Les Îles, Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. Although this bill is a first step toward a true polluter pays regime for Canadian oil companies—which is what the NDP wants—this is something the government should have done a long time ago.The bill also amends the statutory liability regime for federally regulated pipelines in Canada. Bill C-46 includes absolute liability for all pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board. That means that oil companies will be liable for costs and damage, irrespective of fault, up to $1 billion for major pipelines, that is, pipelines with the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day. That is definitely an improvement over existing laws. However, there are significant improvements to be made to this bill and grey areas that we feel need to be clarified, as is always the case with this government.First of all, the bill before us does not include absolute liability, which I mentioned earlier, for natural gas companies and other operators of non-oil pipelines or for small oil pipeline companies. Under this bill, that will be determined by future regulations or by cabinet.I am honoured to be a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. My colleagues on the committee, including the members for Honoré-Mercier and Beauharnois—Salaberry, would be able to talk about how extremely slowly this government, like the Liberal governments before it, deals with certain regulations. The committee regularly scrutinizes regulations from 1980 and 1990. Believe it or not, we recently dealt with a regulation that has been pending since 1976. I am therefore very suspicious of this government's ability to manage a matter of such great importance and to act efficiently and quickly when it comes to regulations.The Conservative government has a reputation for being slow to respond to urgent situations, unless they are politically advantageous and can be used to appease its political base, as we have seen many times, including with Bill C-2 and more recently with Bill C-51. Since the Conservative base does not consider defending the environment to be sexy, this government has taken years to act—and it has not done nearly enough, if you ask us—in order to solve the problem of liability in the event of an oil spill if a pipeline breaks. Ian Miron, a lawyer with Ecojustice, sees the $1 billion liability limit as insufficient. According to him, no liability regime can truly be considered a polluter pays regime unless and until polluters are made absolutely liable for the full costs of environmental harm. While the $1 billion limit may be considered an important first step for some companies, just look at what happened in the case of the Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan. Cleanup costs can quickly add up to $1 billion in the case of a major spill, and that does not even include compensation for damage. The bill for the Enbridge spill in the Kalamazoo river is $1.2 billion. That does not include any damages or losses. In that type of case, we realize that the liability limit set at $1 billion is hardly enough and that the taxpayer will likely have to cover the rest of the bill yet again.It is therefore quite understandable why so many people from Laval in my riding and my colleagues in the region are so concerned about Enbridge wanting to go through the area. The consultation process is flawed and does not include any consultation or fulsome discussion with the public and various stakeholders. There is just as much concern over the idea that in the event of a spill, the companies' liability is limited.(1320)I already hear my colleagues opposite saying that we are anti-oil and anti-pipeline. That is pure rhetoric. The NDP wants responsible and sustainable development. There is no doubt that the natural resources we have in Canada are a real boon. The energy sector is an essential driver of our economy. However, our vision for enhancing these resources and creating wealth and prosperity must not come at the expense of the social and environmental sustainability of our economy. For far too long, the Liberals and the Conservatives have been telling Canadians that they must choose between the environment and the economy. That is not true. They do not have to choose.A new vision is needed for the future of our energy resources. The NDP has such a vision, and it is based on three key principles. The first is sustainability. We must ensure that polluters pay for the pollution they create instead of leaving those financial and environmental costs to future generations.The second is partnership. We must ensure that our communities, provinces and first nations all benefit from resource development and that we create value-added jobs for the middle class here in Canada.The third is long-term prosperity. We need real long-term prosperity, not just meaningless words from the Conservatives. We need prosperity to leverage Canada’s natural wealth to invest in modern, clean energy technology that will keep Canada on the cutting edge of energy development and ensure affordable rates into the future. Bill C-46 is a step in the right direction when it comes to companies' financial liability. It is important to note that the bill also has some serious shortcomings, which I mentioned earlier and which we truly hope that the government will consider and fix in committee, in the spirit of collegiality. One particular shortcoming is the exclusion of gas companies from the absolute liability process. These companies are absolved in the current version of the bill.However, it is even more important that in the future—at third reading, we hope—the bill include provisions that are nowhere to be found in this version of the bill. This includes, for example, the need for oil and gas companies to hold extensive consultations with communities, like my own community of Laval. This would ensure that the public can have its say and that the company that wants to put a pipeline through a particular area is accountable to the public in the region with respect to the security of the facilities and environmental standards.Unfortunately, under this government, the environmental assessment process has been literally gutted, as have so many other environmental regulations since 2011. We are still holding out hope that the Conservatives will finally listen to reason and that they will listen to the people who have concerns, as we are doing in the NDP.In conclusion, the bill before us today is an extremely important one. It is crucial for all of us, no matter the party, to do things the right way. Over the past four years, this government has rushed vitally important bills through the House, without meaningful debate and without being open to amendments that would improve bills or even address potential flaws.Unfortunately, Bill C-51 is very representative of this reality. Therefore, I hope that Bill C-46 will mark a new way of doing things for this government, because as parliamentarians we must work in the interest of those who elected us, not in the interest of those who contribute to the Conservatives' campaign fund. C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActC-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActC-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCivil liabilityEconomic prosperityEnbridge Inc.Environmental assessmentGovernment billsKalamazoo RiverLegislationOil and gasPipeline transportationPolluter-pay principlePublic consultationSecond readingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1325)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for his question.We know that oil reserves will run out one day. We must invest oil profits in new technologies. As we know, oil will not last forever.I went to Dubai about two years ago. New technologies are being developed even there. When I asked the people in Dubai why, even there, they were developing other technologies, they told me that they know the oil will not last forever and that now is the time to start looking for alternative solutions.C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActEcotechnologyGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationProfitsSecond readingSustainable developmentCraigScottToronto—DanforthFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.For more than a year we were both members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. While I was on that committee, the government made cuts to environmental assessments. Now they have added time limits. When someone asks for approval of a pipeline or similar project, there is a time limit and even if the environmental assessments are not complete, the government can decide that the time is up, whenever it likes.Of course, that worries me. Also, even though the members on the other side of the House tell us that pipelines are 99.99% safe, people will not be happy if the remaining 0.01% happens in their back yard.C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActEnvironmental assessmentGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationSecond readingFrançoisChoquetteDrummondPaulinaAyalaHonoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we in Laval know that a pipeline will be going to the riding of Honoré-Mercier, where I lived for several happy years.Everyone, including the mayors, is worried and wonders what will really happen. Are we adequately prepared in case of a spill? Neither this bill nor our current resources will be enough to respond to a spill.C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationPublic consultationSecond readingPaulinaAyalaHonoré-MercierAnne-MarieDayCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPipeline Safety ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her excellent speech.I wonder whether she knows why the Conservatives have been telling us for some time now that the pipelines are 99.99% safe, and why they are so resistant to increasing the liability to more than $1 billion if they are so sure it would never be used.C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations ActCivil liabilityGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationSecond readingAnne-MarieDayCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesAnne-MarieDayCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersConservative Party of CanadaInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1110)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, first of all, on this last day of the 2014 session, I would like to wish all the people in my riding of Laval—Les Îles a merry Christmas and a wonderful 2015 filled with happiness, love, health and prosperity.Second, I would also like to congratulate them for having put up with successive Liberal and Conservative governments in recent years that have not looked after them. We have seen the loss of quality jobs, record household debt, increased poverty, especially among children and seniors, cuts to public services and the complete abandonment of the middle class.Those are just a few of the difficulties that my constituents, like people in many other countries, have had to face with courage and strength of character.I hope that all my constituents will be able to hang on for another few months until fall 2015, when they will finally have a government that looks after them, their needs and their interests—an NDP government.Conservative Party of CanadaLiberal Party of CanadaStatements by MembersErinO'TooleDurhamColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodCanada PostInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, by allowing Canada Post to eliminate home delivery, the Conservatives have been willing accomplices. While the city of Laval has been talking about adapting its services to the needs of an aging population, Canada Post and the Conservatives are making things harder on seniors.Next year, the people of Chomedey, Îles-Laval, Laval-Ouest, Laval-sur-le-Lac, Sainte-Dorothée and Fabreville will lose their home delivery services. Why is the government cutting our public services?Budget cutsCanada Post CorporationDoor-to-door postal deliveryOral questionsJeffWatsonEssexJeffWatsonEssex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersRemembrance DayInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity that has been given to me today in the House to acknowledge the courage and bravery of our veterans.As Remembrance Day approaches this Tuesday, November 11, my thoughts go out to the members of the two legions in my riding of Laval—Les Îles: Branch 216 in Laval West and Branch 251 in Chomedey. Your service and the sacrifices made by you and your families will forever be etched in our collective memory. We are eternally grateful for what you did.I also want to commend those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our country and our rights. I honour their memory today. I am thinking especially of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who died tragically, as we all know.To you, your families and your friends, I say: lest we forget. Remembrance DayStatements by MembersVeteransJamesBezanSelkirk—InterlakeDavidYurdigaFort McMurray—Athabasca//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersEnergy Safety and Security ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1235)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He said that the $75 million for compensation has been increased to $1 billion because the compensation levels dated back to the 1970s. In his speech, he also said that the amount should be updated every 25 years. That said, the amount was updated for the 1990s. Does he not think it would be appropriate to update it again, given that this is 2014?C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other ActsCivil liabilityEnergy and fuelGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionErinO'TooleDurhamErinO'TooleDurham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRed Tape Reduction ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1630)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I learned a lot of things that we have not heard today.After listening to his speech, I get the feeling that my colleague is quite close to the SMEs in his riding and that he is well aware of their needs.I would like to know whether he thinks it is important to alleviate the administrative burden on SMEs. Will this bill achieve that goal?BureaucracyC-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businessesCompaniesGovernment billsSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookePierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessReducing the effects of urban heat islands ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for her wonderful speech.I lived in the riding of Honoré—Mercier for several years and so I know that heat islands cause real problems near refineries and highways.Does my colleague think that it would be a good idea for the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities to work together to resolve this problem as set out in her bill?C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of CanadiansFederal-provincial-territorial relationsPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingUrban heat islandsPaulinaAyalaHonoré-MercierPaulinaAyalaHonoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessReducing the effects of urban heat islands ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as hon. members can see, this is something that is very important to me.Can the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier tell us whether addressing the problem of heat islands would also help the provinces save money on health care?C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of CanadiansHealth care systemPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingUrban heat islandsPaulinaAyalaHonoré-MercierPaulinaAyalaHonoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessReducing the effects of urban heat islands ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-579, introduced by my colleague and friend, the excellent NDP member for Honoré-Mercier.Her bill would reduce the harmful effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians. The environment is an issue that I have been particularly interested in since I was elected in 2011. I work with a number of local organizations that promote and protect the environment, including the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval and the Association pour la protection du boisé Sainte-Dorothée. I find the issue of heat islands to be very worrisome, and as parliamentarians, we have to tackle this issue as quickly as possible for the good of the people.Let us begin with a definition of a heat island. According to Health Canada a heat island is an urban area that is hotter than nearby areas. Depending on the population density, the temperature can vary by up to 12°C from one neighbourhood to the next. These heat islands are directly caused by human activity in urban areas, whether it is urbanization, transportation, the pollution it causes, or the lack of vegetation. There is no doubt that heat islands have a direct effect on the health of Canadians.Montreal's public health authority noted that on hot days, the mortality rate was 20% higher than average for people who live in heat islands. It goes without saying that heat islands affect the health of Canadians because of higher temperatures, which create heat waves and increase air pollution.Between 1973 and 2003, nearly 8,000 people died in Canada alone because of heat waves, and many of these deaths occurred in heat islands. Therefore, this is a problem that we must tackle as parliamentarians, not just because it is a public health issue, but also because it is a wake up call about the disastrous consequences of the environmental decisions, or rather non-decisions, by successive Liberal and Conservative governments over the years.Although we have been aware of the existence and effects of heat islands for many years, no government—Liberal or Conservative—has bothered to address this issue. No national strategy has been put in place to reduce the effects of heat islands on the health of Canadians. The provincial, municipal and federal governments are not working together on this issue. We need some leadership here, as we do on many other issues. The NDP is the party that is showing leadership by addressing the urgent problems facing our society.I am proud of the leadership my colleague from Honoré-Mercier has shown on this crucial issue. I am also proud of the leadership shown by our leader, the leader of the official opposition and future Prime Minister of Canada, who has put environmental protection ahead of lobby groups' interests throughout his career. That is the kind of leadership Canadians deserve. As a result of this same leadership, we were able to hear from a number of experts on wetlands and urban agriculture when I was on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. They told us about the dangers of deforestation in urban areas and the negative effects of wetland destruction.I want to take this opportunity to say hello to Guy Garand and Marie-Christine Bellemare from the Conseil régional de l'environnement in my riding of Laval—Les Îles. They came to testify in committee to explain the direct causal links between wetland destruction in my region and the creation of heat islands.Heat is not the only consequence of heat islands. The effects can come in many forms, including higher smog levels in major urban centres and lower air quality, which can create breeding grounds for bacteria, mites and mould. These effects also increase demand for energy to cool indoor air and increase demand for and consumption of drinking water.(1355)We must act now because Canadians' health is at stake. Our children, grandchildren and seniors are among those most affected by heat islands.The Conservative government has washed its hands of the whole thing. It eliminated energy efficiency programs. It has done nothing to help major Canadian cities that have this problem share knowledge and take coordinated action. It is leaving municipalities to their own devices yet again. It has never taken action or implemented any kind of strategy to tackle this problem. The NDP does not pass the buck and hope that problems will magically solve themselves. The health of Canadians is a priority, and we want the current government to support Health Canada in its mission to reduce the harmful effects of heat islands. We want to support the provinces and municipalities in their efforts to locate and assess the hottest urban areas. We want to facilitate information sharing among the provinces and municipalities. We want to raise public awareness about the pressing problem of heat islands.We also believe that it is the federal government's role to support the work of organizations that are offering tangible, low-cost solutions for dealing with or reducing the effects of heat islands. One solution is planting trees, which also improves Canadians' quality of life.The federal government has an obligation to show leadership and coordinate all these efforts. The NDP is asking for leadership on this bill, among other things.I can already hear the members opposite saying that it will cost too much and that our heads are in the clouds. That is not true. According to a 2013 study by the Université de Sherbrooke, planting trees provides a return on investment that is 5.8 times higher than the cost of the trees themselves. The University of California, Berkeley, demonstrated that developing a strategy to counter the effects of heat islands reduces energy consumption by 3% to 5%. That is in addition to the money saved on emergency and health care services and on the cost of hospital stays when communities effectively address the problem of heat islands.To conclude, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier clearly shows that the successive Liberal and Conservative governments were faced with this challenge and, as usual, did nothing.Canadians will be able to count on real leadership by electing an NDP government in 2015.C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of CanadiansPrivate Members' BillsPublic healthSecond readingUrban heat islandsMarcGarneauHon.Westmount—Ville-MarieCostasMenegakisRichmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersVictims Bill of RightsInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1010)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her very fine speech.She says she more or less trusts the government when it comes to implementing this bill. This is 2014 and we know there is an election coming up in 2015.Does my colleague think this is essentially a ploy to make the Conservatives look good because they are trying to protect victims' rights, when in reality nothing will be done before the election?C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain ActsCanadian Victims Bill of RightsGovernment billsSecond readingVictims of crimeMarie-ClaudeMorinSaint-Hyacinthe—BagotMarie-ClaudeMorinSaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsMining IndustryInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1230)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by many of my constituents who are calling on the government to create a legal ombudsman mechanism for mining, to ensure that Canadian mining companies operating abroad are held accountable to local populations.Canadian companiesDeveloping countriesMining industryOmbudsmanPetition 412-3898Social responsibilityÈvePécletLa Pointe-de-l'ÎleMarie-ClaudeMorinSaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCombating Counterfeit Products ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (2115)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.I was very interested in the part of her speech where she said that in the town where she was born there were industries that have probably disappeared today. I was born in Laval. I still live there and there are many pharmaceutical companies.If we do not pass this bill, I am wondering if the same thing could happen and if the pharmaceutical companies in Laval will disappear.C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCounterfeitingGovernment billsPharmaceutical industryThird reading and adoptionHélèneLeBlancLaSalle—ÉmardHélèneLeBlancLaSalle—Émard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessDairy ProducersInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1815)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today and to support my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé and the cheese producers in Quebec and throughout the country by supporting Motion No. 496.This motion calls on the Conservative government to keep its promise to dairy and cheese producers of Quebec and Canada by revealing details without delay related to the compensation that will be paid under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union. It also calls on the government to provide an implementation period for the agreement for these producers and to put an end to the circumvention of tariff quotas and the misclassification of products at the border, while imposing the same production and processing requirements on products to be imported and committing to provide support for commercialization.On October 18, 2013, Canada and the European Union reached an agreement in principle on what is now known as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Seven months later, no final agreement has been announced. According to the terms of the agreement in principle, the European Union will have an additional tariff-free access for 16,000 tonnes of high-quality retail cheeses and another 1,700 tonnes of industrial cheeses.This announcement has of course caused a certain level of concern among Canadian dairy and cheese producers, who are publicly expressing their concerns about the economic and commercial repercussions of this agreement on their industry.The motion before us today seeks to mitigate the impact that CETA may have on the dairy and cheese industry and to support supply management in Canada, which helps us ensure fair and stable prices. It also calls on the government to keep its promise to provide financial compensation to the producers involved following the signature of the agreement in principle, and finally asks the government, seven months after the fact, to tell the House of Commons—formerly the most sacred place of Canadian democracy—the details of the agreement in principle.As we know, the NDP supports the supply management system in the egg, dairy and poultry sectors and for the agricultural industry. Under the agreement in principle with the European Union, the EU will have greater access to the Canadian cheese market. This undermines one of the very pillars of supply management, that is, import controls, and at the same time jeopardizes the system’s effectiveness for Canadian producers. This potential agreement represents a loss for Canada’s dairy producers by taking away part of their income to the benefit of the European industry.Canadians are aware that the economic development of many Canadian communities, as well as a number of jobs in this sector, would be jeopardized. The Conservatives promised to protect supply management, but the conclusion of the negotiations with the European Union has undermined the foundations of the supply management principle. This is one of the reasons why the government must tell Canadians, especially Canada's dairy and cheese producers, the details of this agreement, without delay.In this regard, it is important to mention the reason why the motion put forward by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is so important. The dairy and cheese industry is booming in Quebec and Canada. We have the right to be proud of the industry's growth in recent years and of the tremendous quality and diversity of its products.It is of the utmost importance that we continue to support this industry, not only for the reasons mentioned earlier, but also because the producers reinvest in their farms and support local businesses and suppliers, thereby contributing to the development of Canada's local, regional and national economies.It is also important to point out that the supply management principle that we are talking about here is not a subsidy. Dairy producers do not receive any government support, unlike what is seen in Europe, where 60% of the income of some producers is made up of government subsidies. As a result, our dairy producers begin with two strikes against them if they are placed on the same footing as their European competitors. This is why it is so important for our government to respect the principle of supply management to the letter.Furthermore, the uncertainty and secrecy surrounding this agreement in principle also affects investments in the Canadian cheese industry, because the people who want to invest are waiting to find out what impact the agreement will have on the industry. It is therefore crucial that the government reveal the terms of the agreement in principle as soon as possible, not just for the sake of transparency, but for the well-being of dairy and cheese producers in Quebec and Canada, in particular.(1820)That is what we are trying to make the government understand with Motion No. 496, which is being debated today in the House.Trade rules need to acknowledge the special and strategic role of agriculture and provide policy measures to promote stability in the food supply, leaving countries with enough flexibility to manage their own unforeseen circumstances through the availability of mechanisms for appropriate market regulation. In this case, the agreement jeopardizes the supply management principle currently in place, which allows Canadian producers to have growth in their industry. It is therefore vital, first of all, to reveal without delay the details of the compensation that will be paid to producers, because all of the stakeholders have asked for more details. The producers want assurances that the Conservative government will keep its promise so that they can then make business decisions.We are also calling on the government to provide for an implementation period for the agreement. Canadian dairy and cheese producers have called for measures in the agreement affecting their industry to be phased in over at least seven years.We are also calling for an end to the circumvention of tariff quotas and the misclassification of products at the border. The supply management system is built on three pillars; undermining one of them—circumvention of quotas—could potentially compromise the integrity of the system.It is necessary to impose the same production and processing requirements on imported products. Canadian standards are sometimes higher than those in Europe, making reciprocity important so that Canadian producers are not penalized. Lastly, the government must commit to provide support for commercialization. This agreement will penalize Canadian cheese producers. This is not news to anyone. It is therefore important that they receive government support so that they can promote their products in new markets. With this motion, the NDP is showing its firm and clear commitment to our dairy and cheese industry and to the existing and effective supply management system.Dairy Farmers of Canada agrees with our demands. I hope that the Conservative government cares just as much about the well-being of producers as we do. That is why I urge the government to support the motion moved by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade AgreementDairy industryFree tradeGovernment assistanceM-496Supply managementAlexAtamanenkoBritish Columbia Southern InteriorRuth EllenBrosseauBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1900)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her wonderful speech.People who do not want such a site in their neighbourhood think that way because they are misinformed. If people were better informed about the benefits of these sites, they would not be opposed to them. Does my colleague share my view?C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDrug use and abuseGovernment billsInformation disseminationSafe injection sitesSecond readingMarie-ClaudeMorinSaint-Hyacinthe—BagotMarie-ClaudeMorinSaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (2005)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.With every passing day, drugs are becoming an increasingly pressing problem in our big cities, which are less and less humane places. The bill before us today forces us to face what has become, under this Conservative government, an undeniable fact. This bill has an intensely ideological flavour, and completely disregards both fact and reality. This is nothing new in the wonderland inhabited by the Conservatives, who are increasingly out of touch with the needs of Canadians.Bill C-2 is nothing but a poorly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites. It became obvious some time ago that this government does not shy away from introducing legislation that flies in the face of recent decisions made by the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court of Canada, which the government seems to consider a threat to its ideology.In fact, in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that InSite provided essential services and had to remain open under the exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court also ruled that the charter authorized users to access InSite services, and that the provision of similar services should also be authorized under the same exemption.In addition, a number of studies published in the renowned New England Journal of Medicine, and the British Medical Journal, describe the benefits of the InSite supervised injection site. These are experts in the field, which is why the Conservatives surely will not listen to them.Over the past three years, it has become apparent that the Conservatives do not take kindly to opinionated scientists, particularly when the opinions of those scientists do not suit them or go against their ideology.The purpose of a government is not to muzzle scientists or members of the House of Commons and, yet, this has occurred a record number of times in Canadian history under the Conservative government. The government's responsibility is to take stock of the facts and to make the best decisions for Canadians.With Bill C-2, the government is once again falling into the embarrassing trap of grandstanding and ignoring facts that clearly prove that supervised injection facilities like InSite have a wide range of benefits for the general public. Indeed, just a few hours after Bill C-2 was introduced, the Conservatives made a big show of announcing their “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign, which was designed to rally grassroots support and to, once again, fuel the public's unfounded fears about safety. Let us take a few moments to think about this seriously. Are the Conservatives so keen on magical thinking that they believe that, if InSite closed, heroin use would automatically disappear in just a few hours? I hope that their cognitive reasoning is a little more advance than that, but I have my doubts.The reality is that, after the closure of supervised injection facilities, heroin use would not disappear but would once again be widespread in neighbourhoods and could, at that point, become a real danger for the general public. That is exactly the opposite of what the Conservatives are claiming. Let us forget the Conservatives' ideological inflexibility that results in exactly the opposite of what they claim, and talk about the real facts about InSite and the positive benefits of supervised injection facilities.The InSite project was set up as part of a public health initiative by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and a number of other community partners following a 12-fold increase in the number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. Over that seven-year period, the Vancouver area also saw a disturbing increase in the rate of blood-borne diseases, such as hepatitis A, B and C and HIV/AIDS, among injection drug users.In 2003, InSite secured an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with medical and scientific applications, in order to provide services and conduct research into the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities.In 2007, the Onsite Detox Centre was added at the same location. In 2008, InSite's exemption expired.(2010)The Minister of Health denied InSite's application to renew this exemption, a portent of the introduction of Bill C-2, which is before us today.The Minister of Health's decision triggered a series of court cases, following which the British Columbia Supreme Court found that InSite should be given a further exemption. The Conservative government appealed that decision, but lost. The British Columbia Court of Appeal also found that InSite should remain open.Finally, in 2011, The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated its clients' charter rights, was arbitrary, and was contrary to the purpose of the act, particularly with respect to public health and safety.The NDP feels that government decisions should be made with Canadians' best interests in mind and be based on fact rather than on an ideological stance. Evidence has shown that safe injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases and reduce deaths from overdoses. Evidence has also shown that they do not adversely affect public safety. In some cases, they actually promote it by reducing injection drug use in public and violence, as well as reducing the waste associated with drug use. These sites strike a balance between public health and public safety goals, while connecting the users of these sites with the health services and addiction treatment they need to escape the hell of drug use.In this case, the facts are clear and unequivocal. Between 1987 and 1993, before InSite was established, the number of overdose deaths in Vancouver increased from 16 to 200 deaths per year. Since InSite opened in 2003, the rate of overdose deaths in east Vancouver has fallen by 35%.I have some other facts for our Conservative friends who believe that InSite is dangerous and poses a threat to the public.Over one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addiction counselling or other support services. Those who use InSite services at least once a week are 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visit infrequently. There has been a significant drop in the number of discarded needles, injection-related waste materials, and people injecting themselves with drugs on the street. One year after InSite opened, 80% of respondents living or working in Vancouver's downtown east side supported InSite.A number of studies have examined the possible negative impact of InSite, but not one single study produced any evidence of harm to the community.The facts are clear. An initiative like InSite is a step in the right direction in terms of public health and public safety. In contrast to what the Conservatives claim, such an initiative gets drugs off our streets and moves them to supervised sites where people are attended to and strongly encouraged to explore the possibilities for drug treatment and social reintegration. That is why Bill C-2—which is based on wishful thinking rather than facts, as is often the case on the other side of this House—is simply unacceptable.C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDrug addiction treatmentDrug use and abuseGovernment billsPublic consultationPublic healthSafe injection sitesSafetySecond readingSupreme Court of CanadaDavidChristophersonHamilton CentrePierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (2015)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his excellent question.As we have seen, there are now fewer drugs on Vancouver streets thanks to this facility. We could not expect them to disappear completely, obviously.There is a park across from my home where I sometimes see young people at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. They are clearly not there to play ball. If they had access to an injection site, they would use that facility, if only when it is cold or raining outside. Then the next morning, when my grandchildren come for a visit, I would not need to go to the park with them to make sure everything is all right. They could go by themselves, without me worrying that they may be hurt by a syringe.C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDrug use and abuseGovernment billsSafe injection sitesSecond readingPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (2015)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.I do not know whether or not this is parliamentary language, but I think it is disgusting to use an issue like this to try to raise money. This completely poisons the debate. They are trying to make the public afraid of something that would be of benefit to them. I think it is absolutely disgusting that the Conservatives are acting this way with the public and they are trying to raise money for their election campaign based on lies.C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDrug use and abuseGovernment billsPolitical behaviourSafe injection sitesSecond readingGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesDjaouidaSellahSaint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (2020)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.Indeed, I find this undemocratic. I do not know why the Conservatives introduce bills knowing that they are unconstitutional, that they go against the charter and that they will be challenged in court. Canadians yet again will end up paying for the legal fees. I do not think this is a very good approach for a party that claims to be close to the public.C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDrug use and abuseGovernment billsPolitical behaviourSafe injection sitesSecond readingDjaouidaSellahSaint-Bruno—Saint-HubertPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersShootings in MonctonInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in the House to honour the memory of James Larche, Georges Gevaudan and Dave Ross, who were killed by a gunman last Wednesday evening as they were working to keep the people of Moncton safe. Three families were robbed of their loved ones in a cowardly act of senseless violence that shook the whole nation. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to express my deepest sympathies to all members of the RCMP, the people of Moncton, and especially the families and loved ones of the three victims. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and distress these people must be feeling.None of us here will ever forget the heroism of these three police officers, nor will Canadians across the country. Their dedication to protecting the community of Moncton will be an inspiration for years to come.My deepest sympathies go out to their family members and friends.Deaths and funeralsGevaudan, Fabrice GeorgesHomicideLarche, Douglas JamesMonctonNew BrunswickPolice officersRoss, DavidRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceShootings with firearmsStatements by MembersWorkplace fatalitiesRobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—MarquetteTillyO'Neill GordonMiramichi//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersLaval—Les ÎlesInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1110)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as this will be the last time I rise before the end of the session, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for their support and their significant involvement in political life.In the past few months alone, thousands of people have shared their disgust with the decision to end home mail delivery. They also support the NDP position to reduce ATM transaction fees and the NDP's environmental policies.I would like to thank all the people of Laval for their support, and I want to reassure them that I will continue to fight to protect their rights and defend their interests here in Ottawa. In closing, I would like to invite my constituents to meet with me at my office or at one of the events that will take place this summer in our lovely city, especially our national holiday, Canada Day, and some of the festivities in western Laval or the Greek and Armenian festivals. I look forward to seeing them there.LavalLaval—Les ÎlesStatements by MembersJamesBezanSelkirk—InterlakeJamesLunneyNanaimo—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersStrengthening Canadian Citizenship ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (2300)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on a great speech.Given the new powers that the minister would have if this bill were to pass, what are my colleague's thoughts on the following scenario? Two people come to the minister's office with identical cases, but one is a major Conservative Party backer and the other is a union boss, as they like to say. Would the two be treated the same way?C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCitizenship and identityDiscretionary powersGovernment billsPartisanshipSecond readingRobertAubinTrois-RivièresRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodInfrastructureInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Laval city council has unanimously adopted a motion calling for sporting, cultural, and recreational infrastructure projects to be eligible for funding under the Building Canada fund. Infrastructure projects of this nature are important to youth sport development and the cultural growth of our municipalities.The Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs displayed some creativity when it came time to finance the ice oval in Quebec City. Will he also heed the request of the City of Laval and provide funding for these infrastructure projects under the Building Canada fund?Building Canada FundCities and townsInfrastructureLavalOral questionsSports and recreationRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—MissionDenisLebelHon.Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersOffshore Health and Safety ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his excellent speech.Does he think that there will be fewer offshore accidents or none at all as a result of this bill?Atlantic CanadaC-5, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measuresGovernment billsOil and gasThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safetyPierreJacobBrome—MissisquoiPierreJacobBrome—Missisquoi//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersWorkers' Memorial DayInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today in the House, we mark the day of mourning for the hundreds of Canadians killed in the workplace. This memorial day has been designated in their honour. In 2012 alone, 211 Quebec workers lost their lives.Before the people of Laval—Les Îles did me the honour of electing me to represent them in Parliament, I was involved with the union representing City of Laval workers. At the time, a worker lost his life. Therefore, I have seen first-hand the grief of families that lose a loved one.We must work together to develop measures and solutions so that no more Canadians lose their lives when they are just trying to provide their families a roof over their heads and three meals a day.In a country like Canada, this situation is unacceptable, and we must take action on behalf of our workers, their families and all Canadians.National Day of MourningStatements by MembersWorkplace fatalitiesJoanCrockattCalgary CentreJohnCarmichaelDon Valley West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodCanada PostInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my constituents are worried about the cuts to Canada Post and I can understand why.In addition to ending home delivery, which will make things tough for seniors and people with limited mobility, the Conservatives are imposing a 37% tax on stamps, while the 23 senior managers at Canada Post put more than $20 million in their pockets.Can the minister tell us why she is cutting public services instead of the managers' pay?Budget cutsCanada Post CorporationDoor-to-door postal deliveryOral questionsPostage stampsAliceWongHon.RichmondLisaRaittHon.Halton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersGreek Independence DayInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on March 25, we celebrated the independence of the Hellenic Republic, Greece. As the member for Laval—Les Îles, I have the good fortune and honour of representing one of the largest Greek communities in Quebec and Canada.This week, I am proud to fly the Greek flag next to the Canadian flag at my Laval offices.[English]It is with great honour that I represent them and I want to thank each and every one of them for the outstanding contributions they are making to our community, not only in Laval but all across Quebec and the whole country.I take this opportunity to wish all Greeks a great Greek Independence Day.[Translation][Member spoke in Greek and provided the following translation:]Long live Greece. Long live Greeks in Canada.AnniversaryGreeceGreekGreek Independence DayLanguage other than official languageStatements by MembersMarkWarawaLangleyKellyBlockSaskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsGatineau ParkInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition regarding Gatineau Park. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to adopt legislation giving Gatineau Park the necessary legal protection to ensure its preservation for future generations. I have visited this park many times, and I truly hope that the government will take this seriously.Gatineau ParkGovernment landsNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesNature conservationPetition 412-2011PaulDewarOttawa CentreMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessProtecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1900)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be speaking to Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.The bill would revoke the privilege of a retirement pension or compensation allowance for former members of the Senate or House of Commons who are convicted of an offence under an act of Parliament that is punishable by a minimum of two years in prison. These types of sentences of two years or more mostly involve federal offences covered by the Criminal Code.Once the bill is passed, MPs or senators who have been found guilty of such an offence would be reimbursed their pension contributions plus interest, which is consistent with other applicable legislation.The NDP supports this bill because we believe that any bill that strengthens parliamentary ethics is a step in the right direction. However, it is clear that this bill is really just a Conservative charade to make us believe that they are not responsible for the Senate scandal and that they champion ethics.In reality, the Prime Minister—a man who appointed people like Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin to taxpayer-funded positions—is using this bill to try to make us believe that he has at least a vestige of ethics. Canadians know better and they will not forget this government's schemes.Liberal Party senators, those who are part of the non-Liberal caucus or rather independent Liberal senators with no caucus or something of that sort, should not get too excited yet. Canadians have not forgotten that they had no issues with Mac Harb even after he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, nor have they forgotten that the Liberals paid their deficit by drawing on workers' employment insurance contributions. Above all, nobody, particularly nobody in Quebec, has forgotten the sponsorship scandal. Quebeckers are fed up, and in case anyone is wondering, it is not because the Montreal Canadiens are winning the Stanley Cup. It is because Quebeckers believe in their motto “Je me souviens” or “I remember”.In short, although the bill is a step in the right direction, it is just a front and does not address the serious ethical problems caused by both the Conservative and Liberal parties. No legislation can do that. The problem is these parties' culture of entitlement. They think that they deserve to be in power no matter what they do and that they eventually will be again one day. They think they are entitled to their entitlements. That is an unhealthy way of thinking. The NDP is now giving Canadians a healthy option that works for them. The NDP knows that it is a privilege to represent Canadians, not a given right. The NDP works for Canadians, not for the lobbies.I am also proud to mention that the bill is basically copied from a bill introduced by the NDP government of Nova Scotia that received royal assent on May 10, 2013.I am pleased that the members opposite are finally using one of our ideas to draft ethics-related legislation. Perhaps they are starting to see the light, unless they are merely acting like a co-worker who steals other people's lunches and then puts a note on the fridge the next day warning people to stop stealing others' lunches. Given the government's history, I tend to think the latter is true.Let us now come back to the subject at hand. Clearly, the purpose of the bill is to show that the Conservative Party is angry about the ethical lapses of its senators, who were all personally appointed by the Prime Minister.(1905)The same is true for the Liberals, who magically made their senators disappear overnight and who will surely make them reappear when they need them.In fact, the party of the Mac Harbs and Raymond Lavignes still plays political games, assuming that Canadians are naive, when they are not. Canadians see through their games and, with each passing day, more and more Canadians come to trust the NDP. The only solution to the ethical problems of parliamentarians is to elect an NDP government and to abolish the Senate.Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, formerly run by the member for New Brunswick Southwest, believes that the lack of ethics in the House comes from the blue and the red parties. Let me quote what Director Gregory Thomas said:Canadians have just witnessed the spectacle of convicted fraudster, former Liberal Senator and MP Raymond Lavigne, collecting his $67,000 annual pension while sitting in jail for filing false Senate expense claims.We now have a former Liberal MP and Senator and a former Conservative Senator each facing criminal charges relating to their official duties, with more Senators under criminal investigation.Clearly, Senators and MPs need tougher anti-corruption penalties to combat the temptations politicians face.This quote, which could not be clearer, perfectly summarizes the constant and systemic ethical breaches of successive Liberal and Conservative governments for the past 20 years, from the sponsorship scandal to the current Senate scandal.This bill is a step in the right direction. That is why we in the NDP will support the bill at second reading. However, we cannot legislate the culture or the ethics of a party. That is the problem with this government and the third party.That is why we must send a message that Canadians need a government that respects them and that will work in their best interests rather than its own interests. In 2015, that is the government Canadians will have by voting for the NDP.Allegations of fraud and fraudC-518, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (withdrawal allowance)Criminal liabilityLavigne, RaymondParliamentariansPensions and pensionersPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingSenate and senatorsTermination of employmentKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessMandatory Disclosure of Drug Shortages ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1820)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak to Bill C-523, An Act to amend the Department of Health Act (disclosure of drug shortages). Before I begin, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her hard work and her excellent bill.This bill amends the Department of Health Act to oblige drug suppliers to advise the minister of any interruption or cessation of the production, distribution or importation of drugs. It also obliges the minister to prepare and implement an emergency response plan to address shortages of drugs.Drug shortages in Canada are a major public health problem and the federal government has a role to play in this. The drug shortage phenomenon is nothing new. This has been a recurring problem since the 1970s and there have been successive shortages under Liberal and Conservative governments without either taking action to solve this problem. Nonetheless, it is important to note that these shortages have increased in number and duration over the past few years.The crisis in 2012, caused by the temporary shutdown of the Sandoz plant, one of the largest manufacturers of injectable drugs for hospitals, clearly showed the scale of this issue. The NDP actually used an opposition day at the time, March 14, 2012, and secured unanimous passage of a motion to resolve the issue. However, as on so many occasions before and since with this government, we have seen a lack of leadership and of will.Just as with rail safety, air safety, the oil industry and the environment, this government has once again asked industry to regulate itself. We need only mention the many oil pipeline spills, the many railway accidents and the tainted meat scandal to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of industry self-regulation. In fact, the only effective aspect of industry self-regulation is the effectiveness with which former Conservative members of Parliament have obtained jobs in sectors for which the Conservative government is promoting self-regulation. That could be the topic of another debate all by itself.Let us return to the subject of the bill, drug shortages. Another reason why it is absolutely necessary to have legislation in this area, possibly the most important reason of all, is the safety of patients.Drug shortages put patients at risk; they also require doctors, pharmacists and nurses to do extra work and ultimately lead to additional costs for all of us. According to a survey by the Canadian Pharmacists Association, 91% of pharmacists stated that patients have been affected by drug shortages, either because of delays in treatment or because treatment was stopped, or because of the extra cost to purchase medication, extended hospital stays, procedures being delayed or cancelled, or because the original condition worsened. In some cases, the impact may be minimal overall. However, in a number of cases, shortages can be catastrophic because the cost associated with medication can skyrocket and become too expensive for individuals who need to be on the drug.Take a concrete case like epilepsy, where stopping medication sometimes has disastrous consequences. When someone stops taking antiepileptics or the medication is or must be changed suddenly, recurrent seizures can become more serious and longer than before. Prolonged attacks that last more than five minutes require emergency medical care and can even be fatal. How does that tie in to the debate? Between 2009 and 2012, we experienced shortages of at least five different antiepileptic drugs. Some of them were made by a single pharmaceutical company.(1825)These shortages have forced some people to use a different preparation, if available, or to switch medications without any transition, thus putting at risk the lives of all these people.A government must protect its citizens. What did the government do? Once again, it shirked its responsibilities and blamed the provinces, its second favourite target after the official opposition. Indeed, the government said that, in its opinion, the provinces were responsible for changing their procurement policies. However, that is not the opinion of the Quebec Minister of Health, Dr. Réjean Hébert, who unequivocally said the following, in the May 10, 2013, edition of L'actualité: It is also Health Canada's responsibility to manage drug shortages. If the federal government was doing a better job, there would be fewer drug shortages.It is high time that the federal government take responsibility. It can do so by voting for the bill we are debating today.First and foremost, we are asking the government to adopt a system for the mandatory disclosure of drug shortages, as called for by the vast majority of patient and health professional groups. Canadians and their health professionals are entitled to have access to information that is crucial for public health. That system is used in the United States, the European Union and New Zealand. France also adopted a system in the early 1990s and saw a significant drop in the number of shortages.We are also urging the government to stop being so confrontational with the provinces and territories. We are asking it to work with them and with stakeholders to find a solution that will decrease the number of shortages and reduce their impact on patients and on our health care system.According to statistics from the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec, the number of drug shortages rose from 33 in 2006 to 207 in 2010. That is unacceptable, dangerous and outrageous. It must be fixed right away. That is why we are asking everyone in the House to support the bill that was introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.I would like to conclude with a message for Canadians. The NDP believes that the health of Canadians is more important than profits for pharmaceutical companies. With this bill, we are taking the appropriate steps to ensure that Canadians will have access to the drugs they need, when they need them.When it comes time to vote on this bill, we hope that the Conservative government, for once, will also put the interests of Canadians ahead of those of pharmaceutical companies.C-523, An Act to amend the Department of Health Act (disclosure of drug shortages)C-523, An Act to amend the Department of Health Act (disclosure of drug shortages)Drug administration and dosageDrug supplyEpilepsyFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMandatory compliancePrivate Members' BillsRegulationSafetySecond readingChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueÉlaineMichaudPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsMarc MénardInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1525)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in the House today to present a petition with nearly 7,000 signatures gathered in just a few days. The petitioners are calling on the Canadian government to turn to Interpol in the case of the disappearance of one of my constituents. Marc Ménard went missing in Mexico in March 2013, and the Ménard family has had no news from the Mexican police authorities since May 2013.I want to thank all the petitioners and assure them and their families of my full support.Ménard, MarcMexicoMissing personsPetition 412-1477Petition 412-1478Petition 412-1479Petition 412-1480Petition 412-1481Petition 412-1482Petition 412-1483Petition 412-1484Petition 412-1485Petition 412-1486RyanClearySt. John's South—Mount PearlOliviaChowTrinity—Spadina//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersHoliday WishesInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1400)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my last member's statement for 2013 to wish all my constituents in Laval—Les Îles happy holidays and a happy 2014.Allow me to wish members and their loved ones peace, health, happiness and prosperity for the new year.Let us not forget that many of our constituents will continue to struggle with financial and health woes over the holidays.I ask members to spare a thought for them and to give generously during this month of December to our local community organizations such as Meals on Wheels, Moisson Laval, Agape, and the Saint Vincent de Paul Society, to name a few, since my time is limited.Let us stand together and continue to work hard on creating a society where no one is left behind. Together we can accomplish a lot. Merry Christmas and happy new year.Charitable donations and donorsChristmasLaval—Les ÎlesStatements by MembersDanAlbasOkanagan—CoquihallaJohnWestonWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessAn Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent OffendersInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1745)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to speak to the bill we have before us today, Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims).This bill is based for the most part on the recommendation made by the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime and seeks to pay special attention to the perspective of victims in the criminal justice process.Bill C-479 broadens the rights of victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It incorporates into law some of the elements that are already part of the current practice in parole hearings. Some of those elements are in fact consistent with the recommendations made by the former ombudsman in his special report.Under this bill, victims would have more opportunities to attend parole hearings, and offenders would have considerably less access to reviews.The NDP, however, is concerned that the bill adds five years to the interval between parole reviews for violent offenders. This goes against the ombudsman's previous recommendations that this extension apply only to dangerous offenders and those serving a life sentence.The people working with victims and those working with inmates agree that parole is an essential component of public safety. This change could prevent some offenders from having access to parole and, by extension, deny them the benefits of a supervised release in the community.This amendment therefore would lead to a situation where many violent offenders would reach the end of their sentence without having had access to supervised release. They would then be out in the community for the first time, fully free and without any supervision at the end of their sentence.On our side, we work tirelessly to improve the safety of the public. We believe that one way to achieve this goal is to implement a parole process that helps people reintegrate safely, and I emphasize the word “safely”, into the community to reduce victimization and the risk of reoffending.We also support the victims and their families, and we want to work with them to ensure that in addition to taking legislative action to help them, we also provide them with the services they need.Instead of focusing on the shortcomings of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as a whole, this is yet another Conservative piecemeal bill that actually does very little to ensure the safety of our communities.I will briefly run through the changes, or, more specifically, the amendments, proposed in Bill C-479: the parole review of offenders who are serving a sentence of at least two years for an offence involving violence; the attendance of victims and members of their family at parole review hearings; the consideration of victims’ statements by the National Parole Board when making a determination regarding the release of an offender; the manner of presentation of victims’ statements at a parole review hearing; the providing of information under consideration by the Board to a victim; the cancellation of a parole review hearing if an offender has repeatedly refused to attend, or waived his or her right to attend, previous hearings; the providing of transcripts of a parole review hearing to the victim and members of their family and the offender; and the notification of victims if an offender is to be released on temporary absence, parole or statutory release.We think that this bill has several good points. That is why we will support it at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.(1750)We also believe that it is appropriate for victims to attend parole board hearings, for example, when it is likely that the offender will return to live in the community where he committed the crime, or when a victim is asking for specific condition to be placed on the offender after release, such as a non-communication order. We also think that allowing victims to attend hearings via video conference or teleconference is a valid point in Bill C-479, especially for victims with mobility problems.We also want victims and their families to feel that they are really involved the process. However, we must also ensure that offenders have access to appropriate services, whether in the correctional system or the parole system, such as supervised release, so that recidivism rates fall after offenders have served their full sentences.We do see some weaknesses in Bill C-479, however, and it is important to point them out. For example, an offender who serves a sentence of less than five years might have only one chance at parole under Bill C-479. If his first application is denied, it is quite possible that he will serve his entire sentence without ever having been granted conditional release. This means that offenders will be released at the end of their sentences without any conditions, and more importantly, without the benefit of any rehabilitation or reintegration programs. It goes without saying that this poses a risk to public safety and that such a practice would likely result in higher recidivism rates and therefore an increase in the number of victims of crime.Society would be better served by the gradual, supervised release of offenders who pose a risk. Such release helps offenders reintegrate into society safely and with the supervision they need to facilitate their reintegration, thereby reducing the likelihood that they will commit other criminal acts. If the Conservative government is truly serious about helping victims and their families, it will provide them with services and reintegrate criminals into society in such a way as to prevent the risk of victimization and recidivism.In closing, the NDP's message to victims and their families is simple: we support greater victim involvement in the parole process. We also support many of the recommendations made by the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, as well as his criticisms of Bill C-479. We are working tirelessly on making our communities safer. Our plan goes beyond the Conservatives' simplistic ideology and really gets to the heart of the problem, rather than just scratching the surface. We want to help victims create a safer process that will reduce the risk of recidivism.We hope the government will be receptive to the suggestions we will be making in committee.C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims)Conditional releaseParole Board of CanadaParoled inmatePrivate Members' BillsRecidivistsSecond readingVictims of crimeViolent crimeWayneEasterHon.MalpequePeterVan LoanHon.York—Simcoe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersDrug-Free Prisons ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-12, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or the drug-free prisons act.The bill would add to the act a provision confirming that, when deciding whether someone is eligible for parole, the parole board may take into account the fact that the offender tested positive in a urinalysis or refused to provide a urine sample for a drug test. The new provision would give clear legal validity to a practice that we support and is already in place.Bill C-12's title is misleading. Indeed, apart from giving legal validity to urine tests, it does not offer any real strategy to make prisons drug free. Rather than providing a concrete solution, for example by investing in inmate rehabilitation, Bill C-12 simply enshrines in law what is already the current practice.The NDP has always supported measures aimed at making prisons safer. However, it is a shame to see that, in this bill as in so many other government bills, the Conservatives keep ignoring recommendations. In this specific case, they are ignoring recommendations from corrections staff and the Correctional Investigator that would really help curb violence, gang activity and drug use in the prison system.The fact is that the Conservatives are making prisons less safe, since they keep reducing investments in key corrections programs like drug addiction treatment, as well as increasing double-bunking, which leads to more prison violence.Our role as parliamentarians is to worry about the safety of our communities first, by promoting the reintegration of offenders and preparing them to become part of the community again by helping them become free from drugs and taking preventive measures to reduce the risk of recidivism.None of this is included in Bill C-12, and in my opinion this is a serious shortcoming. To be clear, the stakeholders agree that this bill will have virtually no impact on drug use in prison.Like so many other government bills, Bill C-12 is just a dog and pony show that plays well to the Conservative base, but offers no actual solution to the problems caused by drugs and gangs in prisons.However, we must give credit where credit is due. The Conservatives are excellent illusionists. They would make Criss Angel and David Copperfield green with envy. In today's episode, entitled Bill C-12, they are still trying to hide the emptiness of their bills by giving them misleading titles that play well to diehard Conservatives. However, behind this legislation there is a complete vacuum that only worsens the problems they want to address. In this case, Bill C-12 misses another important problem. Indeed, the Conservatives' misguided approach to public safety, which we also saw with Bill C-2, will significantly increase the collateral harm from addiction, instead of reducing it, as the bill claims to do. Any government with the least bit of sense, vision and compassion would invest, through Bill C-12, in programs providing support to offenders with drug problems. This may be hard to believe, but under this government, the budget allocated to the Correctional Service of Canada to be used for basic correctional programs, such as drug treatment, was reduced, while some treatment centres for inmates with mental health disorders were even closed.The ideological inconsistencies that guide the course of this government are frightening. As an example of such an inconsistency, note that the government passed legislation imposing mandatory minimums, while at the same time it closed numerous prisons.(1705)That leads to the very controversial and dubious policy of double-bunking, which inevitably results in a substantial increase in the number of violent incidents and puts prisoners' lives in danger. It also put the lives of the prison staff in danger.If the government really wants to address the issue of drug addiction in prison, instead of making a lot of noise and getting terrible results, it must allow Correctional Service of Canada to develop an intake assessment process that would allow CSC to correctly determine how many prisoners have addiction issues and offer adequate programs to offenders in need who want to get off drugs. Otherwise, without addiction treatment, education and an appropriate reintegration process on their release, prisoners run a high risk of returning to a life of crime and victimizing other individuals when they get out of prison.Clearly, the term “prevention” is not part of the Conservatives' vocabulary. That is too bad. The government claims to be tough on crime, but the best way to reduce crime in society is through prevention and awareness, not wishful thinking.Despite all the bill's flaws or, rather, its lack of content and solutions and its very limited scope, the NDP will support Bill C-12. The NDP is committed to supporting cost-effective measures that are designed to punish criminals and improve prison safety.Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of this government, which governs from an ideological standpoint instead of relying on facts and reality. As we can see with this bill and Bill C-2, where the government did not even bother to have someone try to explain their indefensible legislation, we need to move towards a corrections system that offers effective rehabilitation programs such as addiction treatment and support programs so that it is easier to reintegrate prisoners into society upon their release. That is the only way to lower the recidivism rate and really address the issue of repeat offenders.Even the Correctional Investigator has said—in not one report, but multiple ones—that it could have some unintended consequences on the correctional system if simplistic and narrow solutions are used to address the very complex problem of drug addiction in prison. He suggests taking meaningful action, such as conducting an initial assessment of detainees when they are integrated into correctional programs, in order to curb their drug addiction problem and give them better access to detox programs, which would help reduce drug consumption and gang activity in prison.Those are the kinds of proactive prevention measures the NDP believes are necessary to truly fix the problem of drug addiction in our prisons.In conclusion, we will support Bill C-12, since it essentially reinforces the legal significance of a practice that already exists in our prisons. However, we believe that Bill C-12 lacks teeth and substance. We believe that this kind of bill must include solutions to prevent drug addiction and treat drug addicts in our prisons if we truly want to help detainees reintegrate into society and not just find an easy way to please voters.C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release ActC-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActConditional releaseCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional investigatorsCrime rateCriminal rehabilitationDouble bunking in cellsDrug addiction treatmentGovernment billsSamples of bodily fluidsSecond readingMeganLeslieHalifaxDenisBlanchetteLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersDrug-Free Prisons ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1705)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his very good question.It is quite simple. It would be really effective to start by listening to the people on the ground. For years, correctional officers have recommended all kinds of ways to get violence and drugs out of our prisons. As usual, however, the Conservatives have done as they pleased. The government sees no need to listen to experts.C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release ActConditional releaseGovernment billsSecond readingDenisBlanchetteLouis-HébertRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Juan de Fuca//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersDrug-Free Prisons ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1710)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Now that I have joined my colleague on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I will do my best.The Conservatives believe in magical thinking. They think that everything will work itself out without any new money. I have no idea where that magical thinking comes from, but I know that it does not work. If the government wants to do something in connection with public safety or anything else, but does not give people the means to eliminate drugs and violence in prisons, it will not happen on its own. The government needs to provide real help. I do not know where the money will come from. Maybe the Conservatives want to privatize prisons, for all I know.C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release ActConditional releaseCorrectional facilitiesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsSecond readingRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Juan de FucaJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersDrug-Free Prisons ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1750)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his excellent speech. He spoke about the recommendations that were put forward to the Conservatives regarding this bill.Does my colleague know why the Conservatives did not take those expert recommendations into consideration when they wrote Bill C-12?C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release ActConditional releaseGovernment billsSecond readingPhilipTooneGaspésie—Îles-de-la-MadeleinePhilipTooneGaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1555)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my question is somewhat related to the question the member opposite just asked.Would my dear colleague rather not know whether her children can walk around and play in parks because there are needles? With a facility like InSite, needles would all be in the same location, and not in parks.C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDrug use and abuseGovernment billsSafe injection sitesSecond readingCharmaineBorgTerrebonne—BlainvilleCharmaineBorgTerrebonne—Blainville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to debate Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.The bill before us today brings into sharper focus what is happening under this Conservative government. This bill is driven solely by ideology and completely ignores the facts. That is nothing new for the Conservatives. Bill C-2 is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites.As we have seen routinely for some time, this government has no qualms about introducing bills that disregard recent rulings by the highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that InSite provided essential services and had to remain open under the exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Court also ruled that the charter authorized users to access InSite services and that the provision of similar services should also be authorized under the same exemption. In addition, a number of studies published in major scientific journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal, describe the benefits of the InSite supervised injection facility. We have noticed over the past few years that the Conservatives are not fond of scientists who express their opinions, particularly when those opinions are critical of the Conservatives or when they go against the Conservatives’ ideology. A government’s mission is not to muzzle scientists or to gag members of the House of Commons a record number of times. The government’s role is to take note of the facts and, on the basis of those facts, make the best decisions for Canadians. With Bill C-2, the government is again falling into the embarrassing trap of grandstanding and ignoring facts that clearly prove that supervised injection facilities like InSite have a wide range of benefits for the general public. Just a few hours after introducing Bill C-2, the Conservatives launched a campaign called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”, designed to rally grassroots support and, once again, to fuel the public’s unfounded fears about safety. I am really looking forward to hearing the arguments they make to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Let us just take a few moments to think about this seriously. Are the Conservatives really so keen on magical thinking that they believe that, if InSite were closed, heroin use would automatically disappear? I hope their cognitive reasoning is a little more advanced than that. The reality is that, after the closure of supervised injection facilities, heroin use would not disappear but would once again be widespread in neighbourhoods and could at that point become a real danger for the general public. This is the exact opposite of what the Conservatives are claiming. This is a fact. Let us forget the Conservatives’ ideological inflexibility that results in the exact opposite of what they claim, and talk about the facts, the real facts, about InSite and the positive benefits of supervised injection facilities. The InSite project was set up as part of a public health initiative by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and a number of other community partners following a 12-fold increase in the number of overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. Over that seven-year period, the Vancouver area also saw a disturbing increase in the rate of blood-borne diseases, such as hepatitis A, B and C and HIV/AIDS, among injection drug users. In 2003, InSite secured an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with medical and scientific applications, in order to provide services and conduct research into the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities. In 2007, the Onsite Detox Centre was added at the same location. In 2008, InSite's exemption expired. The Minister of Health denied its application for renewal, in a portent of the bill now before this House. (1525) The Minister of Health's decision triggered a series of court cases, following which the British Columbia Supreme Court found that InSite had to be given a further exemption. The Conservative government appealed that decision, but lost its appeal in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which also found that InSite should remain open. Finally, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Minister’s decision to close InSite violated its clients’ charter rights, was arbitrary, and was contrary to the very purpose of the Public Health and Safety Act. In the NDP, we believe that government decisions should be made in the best interests of the public, and not in accordance with an ideological stance. Evidence has shown that supervised injection sites are effective in reducing the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases and overdose-related deaths. It has also shown that such sites are not bad for public safety and that in many cases, on the contrary, they promote it by reducing drug injection in public places, the associated violence, and the waste materials that result from drug use. They also make it possible to strike a fair balance between public safety and public health and to connect users with the health care and drug treatment services they need in order to escape the hell of drug use. In this case, the facts are clear and unequivocal. Between 1987 and 1993, before InSite opened, the number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver rose from 16 to 200 a year. Since it opened, the number of overdose-related deaths in east Vancouver has fallen 35%. For our Conservative friends who believe that InSite is a dangerous place that poses a threat to the public, here are some more facts. Over a one-year period, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addiction counselling and other support services. People using InSite's services at least once a week are almost twice as likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visit only occasionally. There was a very significant drop in the number of discarded needles, injection-related waste materials and people injecting themselves with drugs, just in the year following the opening of InSite. It was found that 80% of respondents living or working in Vancouver's downtown east side support InSite. A number of studies have looked at the possible negative impact of InSite. Not one produced any evidence of harm to the community. The facts are clear. An initiative like InSite is a step in the right direction in terms of public health and public safety. In contrast to what the Conservatives claim, it gets drugs off our streets and moves them to supervised sites where people are attended to and strongly encouraged to explore the possibilities for drug treatment and social reintegration. That is why we will be voting against Bill C-2, which is based—as is all too often the case on the other side of the House—on magical thinking, rather than facts.C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActClosure of government operations and facilitiesCourt ordersDeaths and funeralsDrug use and abuseGovernment billsSafe injection sitesSafetySecond readingVancouverTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1530)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his excellent question.I come from an area where there are a lot of drug addicts and there is no facility like InSite. I see people from day to day, and it is clear just from looking at them that they have a lot of problems. I even know some people who died from an overdose. If there had been a place like InSite, they would probably still be alive today.C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDeaths and funeralsDrug use and abuseGovernment billsSafe injection sitesSecond readingFrançoisChoquetteDrummondLaurinLiuRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1530)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her question. I would have to look at my notes, because I do not have the exact figures. However, I agree that it is disgusting that the Conservatives are using this issue to raise money and that they launched a campaign with a title like “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. That is the exact opposite of what will happen. I live across from a park and I sometimes see people there at two in the morning. I do not need to go over there to know what teens and other people are doing at that hour. Contrary to what the Conservatives claim, I think that having a place like InSite in my neighbourhood would keep heroin out of my backyard.C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActConservative Party of CanadaDrug use and abuseFundraising and fundraisersGovernment billsSafe injection sitesSecond readingLaurinLiuRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Juan de Fuca//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRespect for Communities ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1530)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I will not say the name of his riding, since it is even more complicated than mine.As I was saying, that is a concern in my community. We would really like to have a place like InSite. Many people would be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which I have been a member of for a few months.Indeed, I know many people who would be willing to come and tell the committee how beneficial it would be to have a place like InSite in their community.C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActDrug use and abuseGovernment billsSafe injection sitesSecond readingRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Juan de FucaIreneMathyssenLondon—Fanshawe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersTackling Contraband Tobacco ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1910)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very fine speech. He told us that there had been many budget cuts. I would like him to go farther and tell us whether he thinks that in committee, the opposition will be able to convince the Conservatives to put in place the necessary funding to enforce this bill, which, after all, is a good bill, provided the necessary funding is forthcoming. Government billsS-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco)Second readingSenate billsTobacco traffickingRobertChisholmDartmouth—Cole HarbourRobertChisholmDartmouth—Cole Harbour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersTackling Contraband Tobacco ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (2045)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my daughter lives in Oka. When I go to visit her, I go past stands with signs saying “Illegal Cigarettes” in big letters.No one is arrested, because the police, due to the lack of resources, cannot arrest people who sell illegal cigarettes right now, even if they do have big signs.Does my colleague think that, without funding, this bill will do anything to change this state of affairs?Budget cutsGovernment billsPolice servicesS-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco)Second readingSenate billsTobacco traffickingChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodSeniorsInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in March I introduced a bill to help seniors who need to pay for funeral arrangements in advance. My bill allowed them to withdraw up to $2,500 without affecting the calculation of their guaranteed income supplement benefits.Instead of increasing the retirement age, will the Conservatives help the NDP find tangible solutions to help pensioners living in difficult circumstances? Will the Conservatives work with the NDP to pass Bill C-480 and reduce poverty among seniors?C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements)Deaths and funeralsGuaranteed Income SupplementOral questionsRegistered retirement savings plansTedMenziesHon.MacleodKellieLeitchSimcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessOld Age Security ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the Conservatives' approach to my bill, something struck me.The Conservative approach does not take into account the fact that every retiree who receives the guaranteed income supplement can already deduct $3,500. What is more, the Conservative approach does not take into account the fact that not all retirees are fortunate enough to have an RRSP. Finally, this approach assumes that all eligible retirees would prearrange their funerals in the first year.That is not what my bill is about at all, even though I would certainly like to be able to give our retirees $81 million. By the way, $81 million is only 1% of the total envelope.Unfortunately, my approach just seeks to correct a glaring injustice done to some of the least fortunate retirees. Let me explain. If tomorrow morning, every Canadian withdrew money from an RRSP in order to prearrange their funeral, only 9,000 of them would take a hit to their income in 2014. You heard right: out of 37 million Canadians, only 9,000 of the least fortunate would be penalized, according to official data from the Library of Parliament.To me that is unfair and unacceptable. This bill is about those 9,000 people, and that is where the $132,400 figure comes from.Why take two different approaches in the same bill? For the simple reason that we did not have the time or the opportunity to sit down together and take a close look at the purpose of my bill. That is why all of the parties in the House should at least have a chance to take a thorough look at my bill in committee.I am therefore asking all members of the House to give this bill a chance to go to committee for thorough study and debate. The committee is the only place where we can make amendments to align the two objectives in my bill and find a solution that makes everyone happy.As I have been saying since the beginning, I am open to amendments because my goal here is not to make political hay; it is to help Canadian seniors who really need help. Let us not forget that, as I have said, this bill targets a small number of people who unfortunately belong to one of the neediest groups in society. These are people who built our great country, who made it what it is today. They deserve all of our respect, and they especially deserve to have us find a solution to a problem that affects only the poorest seniors.As I said earlier, no other Canadians are penalized income-wise the year after they withdraw money from an RRSP to pay for a pre-arranged funeral. Only these nation-builders, who worked so hard their whole lives and managed to put some of their hard-earned money aside in their RRSPs, are penalized. If they want to help their families cope with the grieving process once they depart for a better world, they will be penalized.I am therefore asking all members of the House to set partisanship aside and support my bill so that we can work together to find a way to help our poorest seniors enjoy their well-deserved retirement a little bit more.In closing, I would like to thank all of the members who spoke to my bill. I appreciate that very much.C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements)Deaths and funeralsGuaranteed Income SupplementPrivate Members' BillsRegistered retirement savings plansSecond readingWayneMarstonHamilton East—Stoney CreekJoeComartinWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersSeniorsInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, last Friday, in this very chamber, we had the first hour of debate on my bill.This bill, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements), would help lift seniors out of poverty and provide peace of mind for their heirs. My NDP colleagues and I are very committed to this bill. It seems that our Liberal colleagues also support it.The cost of the measure in Bill C-480, which will provide real assistance for our seniors and their families, is $132,400 a year. As incredible as it may seem, the Conservative government has indicated that it will vote against the bill.It seems that an annual investment of less than an MP's or senator's salary in order to reduce poverty among Canadian seniors is too rich for the Conservatives.I invite the Prime Minister and his caucus to set partisanship aside for once and to work with us to reduce poverty among seniors. The most—C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements)Deaths and funeralsPovertySenior citizensStatements by MembersRickNorlockNorthumberland—Quinte WestAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersThe Conservative and Liberal Parties of CanadaInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1115)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, we witnessed a sad spectacle in the House. Once again, the Liberals and the Conservatives joined forces to recycle an old, ineffective Liberal bill that attacks people's basic rights. Bill S-7 will not keep Canadians safer. It uses fear as an excuse to impose excessive measures, such as detention without charge and secret interrogations.These measures conflict with Canadian values and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is strange. Many members of the old parties like to go on about the merits of the charter, but when the time comes to stand up for it, they just sit around doing nothing, and that is when they have the nerve to show up in the House to vote.Blue or red, they are all one and the same. They vote the same way on Bill S-7 and the trade agreement with China, and they will soon vote the same way on climate change. Canadians deserve better. The only progressive alternative for 2015 is the NDP. Conservative Party of CanadaLiberal Party of CanadaS-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information ActStatements by MembersTerrorism and terroristsPierrePoilievreNepean—CarletonGregRickfordKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessOld Age Security ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP)(1330)[Translation] moved that Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.Bill C-480. Second readingHe said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce my bill, Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements). I wish to thank my hon. colleague from Louis-Hébert for seconding it.Before I explain the details of this bill, I would first like to give a brief summary and explain where the idea for the bill came from.In 2011, a woman named Fotini Theodossiades came into my office and told me that her guaranteed income supplement payments had decreased, but no one ever told her why.After some of my staff did a little digging, we learned that her payments had been cut back because she had withdrawn some money from her RRSPs to pay for funeral arrangements in advance, so that everything would be taken care of when she passed away. What happened to her was totally unacceptable, although it was completely legal.Canadians who receive the guaranteed income supplement qualify for this program because they are unable to make ends meet with just their pension. Cutting the GIS payments of one of my constituents just because she had the misfortune of having to take money out of her RRSPs to pay for funeral arrangements in advance is really unacceptable.During the 2011 election campaign, our late leader, Jack Layton, made tackling poverty among Canadian seniors one of the main focuses of his platform.This bill will therefore ensure that recipients of the guaranteed income supplement who have RRSPs will be able to withdraw an amount of up to $2,500 in order to pay for funeral arrangements in advance. This amount would continue to be taxable. However, it would not be included in the calculation of the GIS for the following year. This will ensure that the GIS of these recipients will not decrease the year after they pay for their advance funeral arrangements, as is the case now.That is what gave me the idea for the bill before us today. This also shows how serious the NDP is about solving the problems that our constituents deal with every day. We are doing our best to resolve them.Some may say that $2,500 is not a lot of money, and that is true. However, I used the minimum amount so that my bill would not be rejected on the pretext that it was too expensive. I say “minimum amount” because, right now, according to Statistics Canada, the average cost of cremation is about $1,800. If we do the math, $2,500 minus taxes leaves enough for the minimum.I would now like to talk about some of the details of my bill. As I mentioned earlier, this bill would allow seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement to withdraw a taxable amount of up to $2,500 from their RRSPs in order to pay for funeral arrangements in advance. However, this amount of $2,500 would not be included in the calculation of the GIS for the following year, and so recipients would not receive lower GIS payments.In practical terms, Bill C-480 does a lot for seniors and their families. First, this bill gives seniors greater peace of mind and financial security by providing an additional incentive to help them pay for their funeral arrangements in advance.In addition to helping families absorb the cost, with the help of the $2,500 GIS exemption, it also gives them peace of mind and removes the burden of making funeral arrangements while grieving a loved one.Bill C-480 would also allow seniors receiving the GIS, who are the most financially vulnerable in our society, to be in a decent financial situation and to make ends meet each month. It is unbelievable that seniors such as Ms. Theodossiades could find themselves in a precarious financial situation simply because they want to save their children from the financial burden of funeral arrangements.The NDP is committed to fighting poverty among seniors. It was a cause championed by Jack Layton.(1335)Bill C-480 aims to do just that, and it will help make our seniors more financially stable.Richard Allaire, a community organizer in Laval who supports my bill, shared this thought with me. It is very relevant and, sadly, very true. He said that we always think about seniors in terms of their past and that this bill is the first one that has focused on building them a better future. That is exactly what I am trying to do with this bill, and that is what my NDP colleagues want as well.For the past few days, I have been hearing government members ask how much this would cost the government, which indicates that they have some interest in Bill C-480, but they are concerned about how much it might cost. I personally feel that no price is too high when it comes to our seniors. However, I have some good news for my colleagues.The Library of Parliament has determined that the cost to the government of this measure that will help scores of Canadians will be a mere $132,400 a year. In order to reduce the poverty of our seniors, the government would have to spend less than an MP's salary.On this side of the House, we believe that tackling seniors' poverty with an amount that is less than an average MP's salary is a no-brainer.During the election campaign, the NDP had a great slogan: “Working together”. This bill provides a perfect opportunity for all of us, no matter what our political affiliation, to prove to the Canadians who elected us that we can work together and address the pressing social problem of reducing seniors' poverty.To those who might point out that the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan already have a benefit that covers funeral costs, I would say this. In the case of the CPP, the benefit is only available to those who worked full-time for much of their lives. They have to meet certain criteria to be eligible. Seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement do so because they cannot make ends meet with their pension. The people who would benefit from Bill C-480 have little or no access to CPP benefits.Furthermore, the amount paid by the CPP can only be used to pay for funerals and not to prearrange funerals. In that regard, Janet Gray, a certified financial planner and elder planning counsellor, said that everyone wants to help financially vulnerable seniors and that Bill C-480 is a good way to do it. She adds that today's seniors, especially older ones, are less likely to have worked full time for most of their career. According to her, they may not qualify for CPP. She also says that the measure in Bill C-480 does not compete with existing measures. On the contrary, it is meant to complement CPP and the Quebec pension plan.The bill we have before us today seeks to send a strong message to our seniors and the Canadian public at large. Bill C-480 gives us an opportunity to deal in part with the serious problem of seniors' poverty.We have an opportunity to show the most financially vulnerable people in our country that Parliament is ready to help them. We have an opportunity to show all Canadians that we are prepared to work together to solve the problems facing them. We have an opportunity, in some small way, to put an end to people's cynical attitude toward politics and politicians, by showing that we can sometimes set aside partisanship and live up to the expectations of Canada and Canadians.(1340)Today we have an opportunity to take a step, a first step to make this country fairer for all.C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements)Deaths and funeralsGuaranteed Income SupplementPovertyPrivate Members' BillsRegistered retirement savings plansSecond readingSenior citizensBarryDevolinHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockKellieLeitchSimcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessOld Age Security ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my colleague got her numbers from, but mine came directly from the Library of Parliament and are based on Statistics Canada data.Approximately 11% of retired Canadians make funeral arrangements in advance, and 47% of them use their RRSPs to do so. According to figures published by Statistics Canada and to the Library's calculations, this would cost a total of $132,400 a year.C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements)Deaths and funeralsGuaranteed Income SupplementPrivate Members' BillsRegistered retirement savings plansSecond readingKellieLeitchSimcoe—GreyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessOld Age Security ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I set the amount at $2,500 because that is an amount I am comfortable with. I think that with $132,400 a year it will work. However, if some people want to propose amendments to increase the limit, I am have no problem with that. I am prepared to accept amendments. All I want is for our least fortunate seniors to be able to have a peaceful retirement.C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements)Deaths and funeralsGuaranteed Income SupplementPrivate Members' BillsRegistered retirement savings plansSecond readingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMikeSullivanYork South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessOld Age Security ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1345)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.This woman came to my office. Receiving even just a few dollars a month through the guaranteed income supplement makes all the difference. It makes all the difference between being able to buy a pint of milk or drinking nothing for a day or two. These people primarily do this for their children. They do not even do it for themselves; they do it to avoid problems for their children. I have lost my parents, but if they had had access to this and could have made funeral arrangements in advance, I think it would have made things easier on the whole family.C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements)Deaths and funeralsGuaranteed Income SupplementPrivate Members' BillsRegistered retirement savings plansSecond readingMikeSullivanYork South—WestonKellieLeitchSimcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion--Climate Change]InterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1625)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, to begin, as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I would like to congratulate the member for Halifax. On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to thank her for her tireless work and the passion she demonstrates—not only in committee, but also in the House and across the country—for environmental issues related to climate change .Just this morning, the committee was discussing this issue. All of the witnesses, even those proposed by the Conservatives, said they were concerned about climate change.Today, we are debating the question of climate change. The problem is that it is not a question, it is a reality recognized by scientists, politicians and everyone else on the international stage. That reality brought us the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and the UN convention to combat desertification.Only this government pulled out of two of the three accords, namely the Kyoto protocol and the UN convention to combat desertification. In addition, the government is on track to completely miss its Copenhagen targets for 2020 because it is living in denial.As recently as last year, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development warned the government. He said that it would be virtually impossible to achieve the Copenhagen targets by 2020. There is no denying that he was right. Greenhouse gas emissions rose in 2011 to 702 million tonnes. This comes as no surprise considering that, because of the government's existing policies, we will be 207 million tonnes short of the targets that we were supposed to achieve by 2020.How did the Conservative government react to these alarming statistics and conclusions? The Minister of the Environment appeared before the committee, but he was unable to provide any numbers for his so-called sector-by-sector approach. Worse still, he even questioned why my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry would have those numbers. This demonstrates the government's amateur approach to the issue. Unfortunately, that is not all.As recently as last week, the Minister of Natural Resources told the editorial board of Montreal's La Presse newspaper that “...people are not as worried as they were before about global warming of two degrees” and that “...our fears (on climate change) are exaggerated”.Are our fears exaggerated? Global warming of two degrees will cause irreversible damage to the planet's ecosystem and the global economy. The Conservatives should take an interest in the economy, but it seems they do not. We are already seeing the repercussions of that.In 2012, Don Forgeron of the Insurance Bureau of Canada said:Our weather patterns have changed. If we just look back over the last 30 years or so here in Canada, we see the trend is unequivocal. The number of severe weather events double every five to ten years. We've got to do something about it.I would like to give another example of the Conservatives' climate change denial. In its report entitled Paying the Price: the Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy indicated that the economic repercussions of climate change could reach $5 billion by 2020 and between $21 billion and $43 billion by 2050.What happened to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy? It no longer exists. The Conservatives gave it the axe in their latest omnibus bill. The round table's assessment was accurate, but clearly, it displeased the Conservatives.A government can try to hide alarming statistics, muzzle scientists and eliminate economic and environmental research organizations. However, there is one thing the government cannot do: hide the truth.(1630)The 10 hottest years on record occurred between 1998 and today. In fact, 10 of the past 15 years were the hottest in our history. That is not debatable. It is the truth. Climate change is happening now. The government needs to stop burying its head in the sand, or the oil sands, and take practical measures immediately.Niccolo Machiavelli wrote about the art of dividing and conquering. This government is wrong to exploit that principle by systemically pitting the economy against the environment. The government believes that increasing environmental protection and green measures is tantamount to slowing down the economy. Machiavelli's writings are from the 15th and 16th centuries. This government needs to understand that it is now the 21st century.It is wrong to spread this misinformation. The economy and the environment go hand in hand. Better environmental regulations and a greener economy go hand in hand. Such measures succeed, no matter what the Conservatives say.The best example is the study conducted by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy that I mentioned earlier. Tackling global warming head on by moving to a green economy, better protecting our natural resources and thereby helping our farmers and local economies will pay off.Moving to a greener economy will allow us to save $5 billion by 2020 and between $23 billion and $43 billion by 2050. It will also allow us to diversify our economy, develop it in a sustainable and responsible way, and in the end, address the problem of climate change by making Canada a greener and more prosperous country that will reclaim its place as a leader on the international stage.In conclusion, the NDP believes that this government must take urgent and immediate action to prevent the devastating effects of climate change by immediately committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that the average rise in global temperature is less than two degrees. Let us respect our international obligations and develop a greener economy based on sustainability.The NDP will continue to combat climate change and its devastating effects. As parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to build a better future for Canadians now and especially for our future generations. Let us act now.Canadian Climate Change Adaptation FundDesertificationGreenhouse gasesNatural disastersOpposition motionsScientific dataTar sandsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion--Climate Change]InterventionMr. François Pilon: (1635)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. Given that she is a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, she knows that the Conservatives are completely denying our environmental problems, and we see this in the reports they submit in committee. Many witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on the issue of health. Wetlands need better protections. A study on urban environments found that green spaces are needed within urban areas, because this has a direct impact on health, and therefore on the economy, because people get sick less.Canadian Climate Change Adaptation FundGreenhouse gasesOpposition motionsSustainable developmentKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke NorthAnne Minh-ThuQuachBeauharnois—Salaberry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion--Climate Change]InterventionMr. François Pilon: (1635)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for her question.She is also obviously a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. She is asking me for my reaction: I can tell her that I am not at all surprised. With the questions being asked in committee, we see that the Conservatives are putting the economy ahead of the environment. They do not see that the two go hand in hand. That is why they do not encourage green economies. However, fossil fuels will disappear one day. Even if that does not happen, other countries are no longer going to want them. We have to take a different approach. Why not do it now?Canadian Climate Change Adaptation FundGreenhouse gasesOpposition motionsSustainable developmentAnne Minh-ThuQuachBeauharnois—SalaberryBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion--Climate Change]InterventionMr. François Pilon: (1640)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is sort of as I was saying. On the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, many witnesses are telling us that it is worrisome. If we do not take immediate action, people will get sicker and sicker, which will be very costly for the health care system.A cardiologist even came to tell us about some of the effects. We think it is just a poor diet that causes heart problems, but the environment is a major factor, even more so than diet.Something really must be done immediately. Keep in mind that the next generation will be the first generation to have a shorter life expectancy than the one before it.Canadian Climate Change Adaptation FundGreenhouse gasesHealthOpposition motionsMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaJoyceMurrayVancouver Quadra//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodEmployment InsuranceInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for butchering employment insurance keeps saying that she is making changes to help the economy, for the greater good of the unemployed and to help families find work.That is very strange. She seems to be the only one to see the good in her reform. Workers, mayors, unions and even businesspeople are saying the exact opposite.Could the minister mean to say, “I want what is good for you and I want your goods as well”?Employment insuranceOral questionsLisaRaittHon.HaltonLisaRaittHon.Halton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersSeniorsInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I had the honour of introducing in the House my private member's bill, Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements). This bill would enable seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement to withdraw a taxable amount of up to $2,500 to pay for funeral arrangements in advance. This amount would not be included in the GIS calculation for the following year and would therefore not affect the income of our most financially vulnerable seniors, while lifting a burden off the shoulders of our seniors and their families.We in the NDP promised to reduce poverty among our seniors, and we are practising what we preach. I therefore invite all members of the House, from all political parties, to support my bill so that we can work together to reduce poverty among our seniors.C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements)Deaths and funeralsGuaranteed Income SupplementRegistered retirement savings plansSenior citizensStatements by MembersBlakeRichardsWild RoseChungsenLeungWillowdale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsOld Age Security ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP)(1525)[Translation]Bill C-480. Introduction and first readingmoved for leave to introduce Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements).He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my bill today in the House.I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for seconding my bill.This bill amends the Old Age Security Act to allow old age security and guaranteed income supplement recipients to withdraw a maximum of $2,500 from an RRSP in order to pay for funeral arrangements in advance.This sum will still be taxable, but it will be excluded from the calculation of income for the guaranteed income supplement for the following year.This will enable our seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement to remove a financial burden from their children while preventing their already modest income from being further diminished. In this way, they can maintain a certain quality of life.(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements)Deaths and funeralsGuaranteed Income SupplementIntroduction and First readingPrivate Members' BillsRegistered retirement savings plansDavidSweetAncaster—Dundas—Flamborough—WestdalePierreJacobBrome—Missisquoi//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHousingInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I also am pleased to table a petition calling on the government to establish a national housing strategy.National Housing StrategyPetition 411-3004Social housingFrançoisChoquetteDrummondElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1150)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, because of bad Conservative policies, only four lakes in Quebec are now protected.I would reply to my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has even said that he would not go everywhere and into every café to consult people. He believes that consultation with representatives is enough.Can the minister tell us who in Sorel finds it acceptable that Lac Saint-Pierre is no longer protected, even though it is home to the largest archipelago in the St. Lawrence and the largest heronry in North America?Environmental protectionInland watersOral questionsProvince of QuebecStevenBlaneyHon.Lévis—BellechasseDenisLebelHon.Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsDevelopment and PeaceInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1010)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition calling on the government to restore funding to the Development and Peace organization at 2011 levels. Budget cutsCanadian Catholic Organization for Development and PeaceInternational development and aidPetition 411-2371KirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke NorthRathikaSitsabaiesanScarborough—Rouge River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsExperimental Lakes AreaInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1010)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to present a petition on behalf of citizens of Ontario who are calling on the government to reverse its decision to put an end to the experimental lakes program, because it is an invaluable resource for research in Canada.Budget cutsExperimental Lakes AreaFresh waterPetition 411-2309Scientific research and scientistsWater qualityRosaneDoré LefebvreAlfred-PellanMeganLeslieHalifax//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodFood SafetyInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have some nerve. The minister claimed that no tainted meat made its way onto grocery store shelves. We now know that was absolutely not true. At the height of the contamination crisis, the minister said that his priority was to deliver meat to the U.S.Why did the Conservatives choose rhetoric over public safety? Why did they not act sooner?AlbertaBeefE. coliFood safetyOral questionsProduct recallsXL Foods Inc.PierreLemieuxGlengarry—Prescott—RussellPierreLemieuxGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessTransboundary Waters Protection ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1150)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views regarding the bill before us, Bill C-383, introduced by the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.This bill has to do with our water resources, and as a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I have a special interest in this issue. I am therefore pleased to be able to add my two cents to the debate.With just one exception, Bill C-383 is identical to Bill C-26, which was introduced by the government in 2010 following its promise to bring in legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian water basins.On the positive side, the bill before us today addresses a large gap that existed in the previous bill and was pointed out by the Canadian Water Issues Council, specifically, that Bill C-26 did not address the most plausible threat to Canadian waters: the threat of transfers from a water basin that is neither a boundary nor transboundary water body from Canada into the United States. This bill would amend the International River Improvements Act to prohibit the issuing of permits for projects that link non-boundary waters to an international river when the purpose of said projects is to increase the annual flow towards the United States. This important change would prohibit the issuing of a permit to build, operate or maintain a canal or pipeline transporting Canadian water to an international river. Although Bill C-383 does have some strengths and represents a step in the right direction, it is obvious that it does not prohibit all bulk water exports. Consequently, because water is considered a commodity, NAFTA has long been a threat to Canada's sovereignty over water resources.To counter this threat, in June 2007 the New Democratic Party introduced a motion sponsored by the hard-working and extraordinary member for Burnaby—New Westminster asking the government to initiate talks with its U.S. and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA. This motion was adopted by the House, but the government has not followed up with these countries.In 2010, the government introduced Bill C-26, which was mentioned earlier. The bill did not progress past first reading.In 2011, our brilliant colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster raised the issue again with a new motion for a national water strategy. I hope that Bill C-383 comes to fruition, unlike Bill C-26 and the motions of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I hope that this time the government will take Bill C-383 seriously and implement it. BordersBulk waterC-26, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements ActC-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements ActCanada-United States relationsPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersMunicipal InfrastructureInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1400)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, for several months now, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, a growing number of Canadian mayors have been calling for a new agreement with Ottawa in relation to federal infrastructure programs. I even asked a question regarding this matter last spring. The response I received at the time, as is too often the case with this government, had nothing to do with my question. So I will try again. In the city of Laval, for example, which is represented by me and three of my NDP colleagues, water treatment infrastructure needs to be improved. Furthermore, many other water filtration projects that are much cleaner and more environmentally friendly are waiting for funding for the current program to be renewed so that they can be developed on a larger scale.I therefore urge the government to listen to our mayors and invest more in our communities instead of leaving them to fend for themselves.Cities and townsGovernment assistanceInfrastructureStatements by MembersWater treatmentLarryMillerBruce—Grey—Owen SoundPierrePoilievreNepean—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessAsbestosInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1805)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to support my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and his motion on the government's responsibility for the current state of the asbestos industry in Canada.A huge debate has been raging over the past few years on the use of asbestos, particularly in Quebec, focusing specifically on the use of chrysotile asbestos, an ore that is proven to be carcinogenic.Chrysotile is a fibrous, non-flammable mineral that is flexible and resistant to most chemicals and has high tensile strength. This unique combination of characteristics has for decades made it a choice component for lightweight reinforced cement products, friction materials, and high-temperature seals and gaskets, to name just a few. Chrysotile accounts for a huge share, 94%, of the world asbestos market.Chrysotile has been recognized as a carcinogen for more than three decades now and there are approximately 30 countries in the world that have banned its use, including France in 1997.In 2011, under this government, when the UN Environment Programme wanted to add chrysotile to the list of 39 chemicals whose industrial use is hazardous, better known as the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances, the program came up against the refusal by the four major chrysotile producers and exporters: Russia, Kyrgyzstan, India and, of course, Canada. Canada's refusal was ascribed to the fact that this government supported the export of chrysotile to developing countries. As exporting countries are not required to provide information about the toxicity or safe handling of this hazardous material, this government decided to shift the burden of asbestos exposure to the developing countries. This all happened while this very government was using millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers—and guess why—to remove asbestos from public places such as the Parliament buildings and the Prime Minister's residence. This provided another great opportunity for this government to promote Canada's image abroad. While the government has been dithering, dawdling and procrastinating on this issue, here are some of the solutions that NDP MPs would like to see. First of all, we demand that this government support the addition of chrysotile to the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances. When asbestos is on the list, Canada will be forced to warn asbestos importing countries about its dangers to human health. Second, we demand that the government stop providing financial assistance to the asbestos industry. Under this government, Canada has sponsored and paid for an impressive 160 trade missions to 60 countries to promote asbestos. If the government had only put the same effort into the manufacturing sector and into maintaining our social programs, Canada's economy would be a lot stronger today. Finally, we hope this government will set up an industrial restructuring plan for asbestos workers. We want the government to put just as much effort into economic diversification and into redeploying former asbestos workers as it put into promoting asbestos throughout the world. Our regions and our workers are affected and they deserve the same amount of money as the government has invested in promoting asbestos over the past few years, in Canada and abroad. Workers in Canada and Quebec should not have to bear the brunt of this government's callousness. The NDP's position is supported by the vast majority of people, in addition to being supported by many Canadian professionals, including healthcare professionals and the Canadian Cancer Society, to name just a few. Recently, the World Health Organization, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Cancer Society stated that asbestos should be banned in all its forms, as chrysotile is a class A carcinogen.(1810) Finally, Quebec's Premier recently pledged to cancel the $58 million loan guarantee that was meant to revive mining operations in the Jeffrey mine, thereby bringing an end to asbestos mining operations in Quebec. If Canada wants to continue being a leader on the international stage, we must put international interests before domestic political considerations. We no longer use asbestos in our buildings, and it is not any safer to use it in buildings in other countries. Asbestos is just as carcinogenic in the walls of buildings in developing countries as it is in our own. The World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization have agreed that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. It is incumbent on the Conservative government to stop tarnishing our international reputation. It must demand that asbestos be added to the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances immediately. In conclusion, as far back as 2006, internal documents revealed that Health Canada officials agreed that the department’s preferred position would be to add asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention list, as this would be consistent with controlled use. Six years later, this recommendation has not yet been followed by the Conservatives. It is high time that this government do the right thing and call asbestos a dangerous substance, for our health and for everyone's health.AsbestosAsbestos safetyCareer Transition Assistance initiativesChrysotileDeveloping countriesEconomic diversificationExportsM-381Mining industryRotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International TradeGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestJacquesGourdeLotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsInternational CooperationInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1010)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of voters in my riding calling on the government to fulfill its international responsibilities by ensuring that Canada: contributes to foreign development; gives priority to funding NGOs that support Canadians whose funding was slashed by CIDA; and, finally, in the spirit of international solidarity, restores in full the funding for Development and Peace for the next five years.Budget cutsCanadian Catholic Organization for Development and PeaceInternational development and aidPetition 411-1823RonCannanHon.Kelowna—Lake CountryRodBruinoogeWinnipeg South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic TransitInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1535)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition today supporting my colleague's bill on a national public transit strategy.National Transit StrategyPetition 411-1686Public transitTransportationMylèneFreemanArgenteuil—Papineau—MirabelAnne-MarieDayCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIncreasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, first of all, to wish all members from all political parties a warm welcome back for the fall 2012 session.More importantly, I rise here today to speak to Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. This bill proposes changes to the provisions of section 737 of the Criminal Code on victim surcharges. The change would double the amount offenders must pay when they receive their sentence, while, more importantly, making the surcharge mandatory for all offenders.First of all, it is important to explain exactly what a victim surcharge is. It is an additional sanction imposed when an offender who has been found guilty is sentenced. The surcharge is collected and kept by provincial and territorial governments and serves to fund programs and services for victims of crime in the province or territory where the crime was committed. Bill C-37 proposes to double the amount of the victim surcharge from 15% to 30% of any fine imposed on the offender. The amount would also double for offenders who are not fined. Therefore, the surcharge for an offence punishable by summary conviction would increase from $50 to $100, and for an offence punishable by indictment, from $100 to $200.Bill C-37 also eliminates the possibility of having a court waive the surcharge if the offender proves that it causes, or would cause, undue hardship. However, judges would have the option, or the discretion, to order the payment of a higher surcharge if they believed it was warranted under the circumstances and if the offender had the means to pay the victim surcharge.In cases where offenders are unable to pay the surcharge, under Bill C-37 they may be able to participate in a provincial fine option program, where such programs exist. This type of program would allow offenders to pay off their fines by earning credits for work done in the province or territory where the criminal offence was committed. That is a summary of Bill C-37.Now, what is the NDP position on this bill? As you certainly are aware, the NDP supported several of the recommendations of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, especially the recommendation that gave rise to Bill C-37. We obviously support better funding for programs for victims of crime.However, we have some reservations. Some minor changes are needed to improve this bill. That is why we are supporting the bill in order to be able to discuss these amendments in committee.What are these changes? We mainly have concerns about reducing the discretion of judges to the point that they would no longer be able to decide if payment of a victim surcharge would constitute undue hardship. We are strong supporters of the discretion of the Canadian judiciary and we believe that their autonomy is being curtailed by this bill.The other major reservation concerns the fine option program mentioned earlier in my speech. Eliminating the paragraph on “undue hardship” and introducing a provision to double the amount of the surcharge will inevitably result in more offenders using the program in question.(1510)There are no objections to this in the provinces where this type of program exists. However, in the provinces where this type of program does not exist, this would create a much more complicated situation. There would be an imbalance that would prevent the provisions of the bill from being equal across the country.We think that we should discuss solutions, programs and appropriate measures in committee to create some uniformity, which would make this bill applicable with the same measures, same justifications and, in particular, same rules across the country, instead of having to proceed on a case by case basis.A number of Canadian organizations agree with us and we believe that hearing from them in committee or, at the very least, bringing their opinions into the debate, would only benefit the bill. Among the organizations that have expressed concerns is the Elizabeth Fry Society, which is concerned about the effect of additional surcharges on low-income Aboriginals, who will certainly not have the means to pay them. There is also the John Howard Society, which is not bothered by the monetary penalties, but which is concerned that with this system, the surcharges will be disproportionate to the crimes committed.In conclusion, we will support this bill at second reading, so that it can be examined more carefully in committee. However, Bill C-37 needs a number of adjustments in order to be complete. A number of people have questions, so we urge our colleagues to act in good faith when the bill gets to committee and, especially, for once, to listen to Canadians.C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal CodeCriminal liabilityFirst NationsGovernment billsHarmonization of standardsInuitJudicial discretionLow incomeMétisOffendersPenaltiesPovertyProvincial jurisdictionSecond readingVictim surchargeVictims of crimeDianeFinleyHon.Haldimand—NorfolkCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIncreasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, if we take away the discretionary power of judges, surely the most disadvantaged will be the hardest hit, especially aboriginals because they very often do not have programs in their communities. In addition to having to pay the surcharge, which the judge cannot reduce, they will not be able to do community work. In the end, they will be the ones to pay the price. Where will they find the money? I have no idea.C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal CodeCriminal liabilityFirst NationsGovernment billsJudicial discretionLow incomeOffendersSecond readingVictim surchargeVictims of crimeCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRaymondCôtéBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIncreasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as I said before, for the individuals who must pay a fine when they do not have the means, imposing a surcharge is almost like criminalizing them, in some situations. Where will they find the money? We know very well that some of them will have to turn to petty theft to pay the fine.C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal CodeCriminal liabilityGovernment billsSecond readingVictim surchargeVictims of crimeRaymondCôtéBeauport—LimoilouAnne Minh-ThuQuachBeauharnois—Salaberry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersIncreasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for her question.In committee, territories or provinces where these programs do not exist could be discussed. The federal government could perhaps create the programs or give the provinces and territories money to create these programs. However, it would be up to them to decide how to proceed. What is important is that this be standardized across Canada.C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal CodeCriminal liabilityGovernment billsHarmonization of standardsProvincial jurisdictionSecond readingVictim surchargeVictims of crimeAnne Minh-ThuQuachBeauharnois—SalaberryKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1205)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we learned today that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will make cuts to facilities working to protect the environment. They will be closing the brand-new, $2 million Mont-Joli laboratory. A laboratory in Sydney, British Columbia, will also be closed, along with the Experimental Lakes Area station, resulting in the loss of valuable expertise.Why are the Conservatives spending millions of dollars to destroy new facilities dedicated to improving the environment?Budget cutsC-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresClosure of government operations and facilitiesDepartment of Fisheries and OceansEnvironmental contaminationExperimental Lakes AreaGovernment billsOral questionsScience facilitiesScientific research and scientistsPaulCalandraOak Ridges—MarkhamKeithAshfieldHon.Fredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersThe BudgetInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, in the course of my duties, I had the opportunity to visit two western Canadian provinces. Even there, people were appalled by the Conservatives' mammoth Bill C-38.Last week in my riding, people were even angrier. This bill amends or repeals laws that directly impact my Laval—Les Îles constituents: old age security, cuts to environmental agencies and changes to the Employment Insurance Act, to name but a few.My constituents are furious. Day after day, they tell me that, when the next general election comes around in 2015, they will elect a government that listens to workers, Canadian families and all Canadians. In October 2015, they will elect an NDP government because we are fit to govern.Budget 2012 (March 29, 2012)C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measuresStatements by MembersHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodInfrastructureInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the FCM is meeting in Saskatoon today to talk about the challenges that municipalities will face over the coming years. Cities are all facing the same problems. All of them, including Laval and Montreal, will have to find ways to fund infrastructure for the long term. Last fall, the Conservatives promised to introduce new funding programs, but now they have nothing to say about it.When will they start addressing the needs of municipalities?Cities and townsGovernment assistanceInfrastructureOral questionsRandyKampPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—MissionPierrePoilievreNepean—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1525)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition signed by my constituents, who are urging the Conservative government to take immediate action and show leadership on the climate change issue.Climate change and global warmingPetition 411-0921RonCannanHon.Kelowna—Lake CountryElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his fine speech.Knowing that the Conservative Party has abolished the firearms registry, is my colleague not concerned that certain store owners might be tempted to keep a gun on their premises at all times, even if we vote in favour of this bill?C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons)Citizen's arrestConvenience storesFirearmsGovernment billsProperty crimeRight to bear armsThird reading and adoptionBruceStantonSimcoe NorthJeanRousseauCompton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersAveos WorkersInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on Parliament Hill, a number of my NDP colleagues and I showed our support for Aveos workers, many of whom live in my riding of Laval—Les Îles.I find it absolutely appalling that the Conservative government forced Air Canada employees back to work, claiming that the economy was at risk, and then, one week later, did not even lift a finger when 2,300 people in the Air Canada fold lost their jobs. Does this mean that the Conservatives think that the jobs lost by Canadian families are not important enough to the economy?This is another example of the government's total lack of respect for Canadian families. Only the NDP has the interests of Canadians at heart. Do we have to buy sleeping bags or go hunting with the Minister of Industry in order for our workers to keep their jobs?Aircraft overhaul facilitiesAirlinesAveos Fleet Performance Inc.Layoffs and job lossesPlant closuresStatements by MembersKevinSorensonCrowfootJoyceBatemanWinnipeg South Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1400)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, Le Devoir reported that, in the Laval region alone, developers have been given permission to fill 25 of the region's last remaining wetlands.I am very worried about this continuing trend. When he was a minister in the Quebec government, the member for Outremont fought, with the determination for which he is known, against the destruction of wetlands and even ordered that a building site be restored to a wetland in my riding of Laval—Les Îles. Last May, Quebeckers voted en masse for a party that stands up for the environment and Quebeckers' values. I intend to work hard to draw attention to the wetlands issue during the conservation study that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has just begun.Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party will work hard to protect Quebec's natural areas and green spaces and to improve co-operation between the federal and provincial governments on the environment and sustainable development.Habitat conservationLavalStatements by MembersWetlandsSusanTruppeLondon North CentreStephenWoodworthKitchener Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersDeath of Three Quebeckers in CubaInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, February 25, three residents of Sainte-Dorothée, in my riding of Laval—Les Îles, lost their lives in a tragic accident in Cuba.Maikel Mendoza Prieto, 29, Francis Tremblay, 26, and David Tartre, 27, died when their vehicle collided with a truck that was pushed into their path when it was struck by another truck. The only survivor of the accident was Ginette Sénécal, who was celebrating her 50th birthday that day.I invite my NDP colleagues and all members of the House to join me in extending our sincere condolences to Ms. Sénécal and the families of the three victims. Take heart; our thoughts and prayers are with you in these difficult times. Canadians in foreign countriesCubaDeaths and funeralsStatements by MembersEdKomarnickiSouris—Moose MountainMauriceVellacottSaskatoon—Wanuskewin//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite said that he did not want to help the provinces create a new firearms registry because it was already too costly and ineffective. However, they are well aware that Quebec wants to do it anyway.Given that they are so close to the people and they do not want people spending money, why do they not want to transfer the data to Quebec to ensure that we Quebeckers, who care about people, are able to create our own firearms registry?C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms ActDocument shredding and destructionFirearms registryGovernment billsProvince of QuebecReport stageRestricted firearmsRichardHarrisCariboo—Prince GeorgeRichardHarrisCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodL'infrastructureInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this government is making excuses to go back on its promise to help fund a new arena in Laval. It knew full well in 2009, when it signed that agreement, that the 7,000 seat arena might accommodate a professional hockey team. Now the government is claiming that the project goes against its principles.Are its principles less solid than the Champlain Bridge? Can the minister explain this about-face?InfrastructureLavalOral questionsSport and recreation facilitiesJulianFantinoHon.VaughanDenisLebelHon.Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersPovertyInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to wish the people of Laval—Les Îles a happy holiday season. Second, I also wish that all parliamentarians would come together and resolve to make this country a better place for our children. We are part of the same institution that, in 1989, promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.It is now 2011, and some 640,000 children are still living below the poverty line. Two of every five food bank users are children. We must also recognize that this government has never made the fight against poverty a top priority in any of its budgets and that the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow. For the happiness of our children, let us show some humanity and do everything we can to eliminate child poverty in Canada. I wish everyone a happy holiday season.Child povertyStatements by MembersJacquesGourdeLotbinière—Chutes-de-la-ChaudièreKerry-Lynne D.FindlayHon.Delta—Richmond East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1005)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.This bill would limit the terms of senators appointed after October 14, 2008, to a maximum of nine years. Furthermore, under this bill, the provinces and territories would have the opportunity to hold elections, at their own expense, to determine the names that would be given to the Prime Minister for consideration. The problem is that the Prime Minister would not be required to choose senators from this list. This is yet another wonderful example of a waste of public money by our friends on the other side of the House.What is more, if a nominee is not appointed to the Senate by the sixth anniversary of that person's election, a new election would be necessary, resulting in even more public money being wasted. It is fun to spend someone else's money, is it not?What we are proposing on this side of the House is clear. Our party wants to abolish the Senate, which is a position we have always held. We are calling on the government to hold a referendum asking the Canadian public whether they are in favour of abolishing the Senate.In addition, when this bill was introduced for the first time in June 2011, the Conservative senators clearly said that they would oppose all attempts by the federal government to limit their terms. And they are the ones who have the last word, as always.The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, and the Premier of Nova Scotia have publicly expressed their support for abolishing the Senate. The Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, has said that the Senate, as an institution, no longer serves any useful purpose within our Confederation. The Government of Quebec has deemed this bill to be unconstitutional. In fact, it has stated that it will go to court if the provinces are not consulted before Bill C-7 is passed. Clearly, passing this bill without consulting the provinces would once again demonstrate the federal government's willingness to impose its views on the provinces, as it has so often done in the past few months.Now, why are we in favour of abolishing the Senate rather than reforming it? First, there has not been an upper chamber in any of the provinces since 1968 and their legislative systems have not crumbled as a result. On the contrary, all the provinces are operating very well without a senate.Second, the idea to reform the Senate is not a new one. Since 1900, there have been no fewer than 13 attempts to reform the Canadian Senate, with a brilliant success rate of 0 out of 13. And no wonder, since the Senate always has the last word.Third, Canadians' interest in this issue is growing. In fact, according to a survey conducted by Angus Reid in July 2011, 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum about the future of the Senate. The same survey found that 36% of Canadians are in favour of completely abolishing the Senate, which is a sharp jump of 25% as compared to 2010. We therefore feel that Canadians must be consulted on this issue since the Senate is their democratic institution and, as a result, they are the ones who have the right to decide what will happen to the upper chamber.This bill has some serious shortcomings in terms of legitimacy. First, according to the provisions of the bill, senators will still not be accountable to Canadians. (1010)The fact that senators will only be granted one nine-year term means that they will never have to answer to the public for decisions made during their term. In addition, they will have the right to a pension when they leave the Senate, paid for, of course, by the taxpayers.Second, passing this bill would create a strange situation in the upper chamber. Certain senators would be elected and others not, so how would the unelected senators justify their legitimacy and actions to their elected colleagues?Third, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, the government has not consulted the provincial governments about the provisions in this bill. Neither has it consulted the public, and only 39% of people voted for the Conservatives on May 2. Despite all this, those on the other side of the House are once again dumping the cost and responsibility on the provincial governments and taking all the credit.Finally, since the Senate would have roughly the same powers as the House of Commons, an elected Senate would have more legitimacy in terms of tabling bills or opposing House bills. That could paralyze the political system, as is the case in the United States, where the House of Representatives and the Senate are often locked in a power struggle that completely paralyzes the American government.That summarizes a few of the arguments proving that Senate reform, as proposed by the Conservatives, is problematic and that the solution is to abolish the Senate.To conclude, we have seen over the course of the past few minutes how passing Bill C-7 would create a significant number of problems in our political system, and these problems could easily be eliminated by abolishing Canada's Senate. I invite the hon. members to join with me and the members of the official opposition and vote against Bill C-7.Abolition of SenateAccountabilityBritish ColumbiaC-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsConstitutionalityEconomic wasteElection of SenateGovernment billsNew Democratic PartyNova ScotiaOntarioPensions and pensionersPolitical powerPrime MinisterProvince of QuebecProvinces, territories, statesPublic consultationPublic opinion pollsReferendaSecond readingSelection processSenate and senatorsSenate reformTenure of SenatorsUnited States of AmericaTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreClaudeGravelleNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1015)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt for the question.Clearly, reforming the Senate was likely one of the Conservatives' election promises. For months now, they have been harping on about how they want to keep their promises. However, as it stands, this Senate reform allows the government to change nothing. Tomorrow morning, it could choose not to appoint someone who was elected and give all the Senate appointments to its buddies, as it does now. This changes absolutely nothing, if that is what the Prime Minister wants to do.C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsElection of SenateGovernment billsPolitical appointmentsPrime MinisterSecond readingSelection processSenate reformTenure of SenatorsClaudeGravelleNickel BeltBradButtMississauga—Streetsville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1015)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, the first thing we need to do is hold a referendum to see what Canadians think.If we do not want to reopen the Constitution, we can simply stop appointing senators. That way, the Senate would gradually disappear on its own, without our having to reopen the Constitution.Abolition of SenateC-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsConstitutionElection of SenateGovernment billsReferendaSecond readingSelection processTenure of SenatorsBradButtMississauga—StreetsvilleJonathanTremblayMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1015)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.It has been clear since our return in September that the government wants to limit our interventions in order to make the public less and less aware of what goes on here. That is truly its intention.C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsElection of SenateGovernment billsPublic consultationSecond readingSelection processTenure of SenatorsJonathanTremblayMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-NordTedHsuKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1020)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.Indeed, under normal circumstances that is how it should be, but we know that during the last Parliament, the Conservatives used that to pass bills here and then once the bills got to the Senate, they just lingered there until the election.There are so many things in limbo in the Senate right now that it has really become ineffective.Abolition of SenateC-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsCultural diversityElection of SenateGovernment billsProvince of QuebecRegional diversitySecond readingSelection processSenate and senatorsTenure of SenatorsTedHsuKingston and the IslandsDenisBlanchetteLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersSenate Reform ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1115)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a little about the costs associated with this reform. I would like him to speak to one aspect in particular.In this bill, the costs of electing future senators are going to be foisted onto the provinces. Except that, even once they are elected, these people have no guarantee they will someday be appointed to the Senate. Does my colleague think the provinces will want to get involved in investing money in electing senators without being sure they are going to be appointed someday?C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limitsCostsElection of SenateGovernment billsProvinces, territories, statesSecond readingSelection processTenure of SenatorsJonathanTremblayMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-NordJonathanTremblayMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMarketing Freedom for Grain Farmers ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1705)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak against Bill C-18, which would dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. This bill is a direct attack on family farmers and is a direct affront to the very principle of democracy. On September 12, nearly 60% of Canadian farmers voted in favour of maintaining the Canadian Wheat Board. However, the Conservatives refuse to hold a plebiscite on dismantling the board. The government plans to destroy the single desk against the wishes of Canadian farmers. This would not be the first time that the Conservatives claimed to have received a strong mandate from Canadians with only 40% support.The Canadian Wheat Board is not funded by Canadian taxpayers. So why are the Conservatives rushing to destroy this organization? The answer is simple. If the Canadian Wheat Board no longer holds the balance of power when negotiating with its economic partners, Canadian farmers will be left on their own, will no longer have any bargaining power and will be forced to sell their wheat and barley at lower prices. That will have disastrous effects.First of all, Canadian producers will be forced to sell their products at lower prices. Lower selling prices also means lower profit margins. And God knows that during a recession and tough economic times, farmers who are already working in a sector that requires very large financial investments did not need another blow like this.Furthermore, the Canadian Wheat Board's bargaining power has enabled Canada to maintain some independence for Canadian farmers and the Canadian agri-food industry with respect to the major world players. With the dismantling of the board, this independence will disappear and big American grain companies will be free to move their operations to Canada, which will gradually kill the economic independence of Canada's agri-food industry.I have heard the Conservatives say that we are trying to scare farmers and that the expected effects are false. Well, I have a little surprise, my friends. By way of comparison, let us look at what happened in Australia after a board similar to the Canadian Wheat Board was dismantled.Before the Australian Wheat Board was dismantled, Australian wheat could command $99 per tonne over American wheat. After the Australian Wheat Board was dismantled, things went awry. In fact, in December 2008, the price of Australian wheat dropped to $27 per tonne below U.S. wheat. In just three years, the 40,000 farmers who were members of the Australian Wheat Board all became customers of Cargill, one of the world's largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately owned and based in the United States. Once again, it seems as though this government is clearing the way for large American corporations to the economic disadvantage of its own people and voters. Once again, the Conservatives are putting the interests of the private sector ahead of the public interest of Canadians.Now, here is what we are proposing for Canadian farmers.We believe in respecting democracy. As a result, we believe that any decision about the Wheat Board must be made by the farmers, since they are the ones who manage this organization. Since 62% of farmers voted against dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board, we believe that the government should respect that decision or, at the very least, hold an official government plebiscite on the issue and, as a result, withdraw its bill.What do members of the Canadian Wheat Board think of the possible dismantling of their organization? While the Conservatives claim that farmers are overjoyed at this prospect, Allen Orberg, a farmer and chair of the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, thinks that this government does not have a plan. In his opinion, the government has done no analysis and its approach is based solely on its blind commitment to marketing freedom. He added that the government's reckless approach will throw Canada's grain industry into disarray, jeopardize a $5 billion a year export sector and shift money from the pockets of Canadian farmers into the hands of American corporations. (1710)What economic impact will this dismantling have on the overall Canadian population? First, Canada risks losing the money brought in through board premiums, which can represent between $200 million and $500 million per year. Second, as I said earlier, being a farmer today means considerable investment, be it in machinery or basic farm upkeep. Dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board will have a domino effect. By selling their product at a lower price, the farmers' profit margin will decrease. Less profit also means less money to pack back loans. That means that, at the end of the day, it is the Canadian taxpayers who will pay because the government will have to increase subsidies for farmers so that they can survive and make a living.Dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board means that farmers will see their revenues drop considerably. The government will then have to pick the pockets of Canadian taxpayers to fix the disaster it will have created.To conclude, I implore the government to rethink its decision, to realize that it is going down the wrong path and to understand that it is putting farmers and the Canadian economy at risk. Therefore, it should withdraw Bill C-18.C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain ActsCanadian Wheat BoardFarming and farmersGovernanceGovernment billsGrain and grain growingSecond readingTedMenziesHon.MacleodLynneYelichHon.Blackstrap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMarketing Freedom for Grain Farmers ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.We are not saying they are not entitled to the same rights as others. Since the beginning we have been asking the government to put it to a vote. It is very simple. The government is saying that the Wheat Board was created without anyone asking for opinions and that it will be dismantled without anyone asking for opinions. The government should not repeat past mistakes.C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain ActsCanadian Wheat BoardFarming and farmersGovernanceGovernment billsGrain and grain growingSecond readingLynneYelichHon.BlackstrapWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMarketing Freedom for Grain Farmers ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. We all know full well that with that type of market the Americans, who have the purchasing power, will come buy our grain and it is truly the Americans who will benefit, not our farmers here in Canada.C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain ActsCanadian Wheat BoardFarming and farmersGovernanceGovernment billsGrain and grain growingSecond readingWayneEasterHon.MalpequeJimHillyerLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMarketing Freedom for Grain Farmers ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1720)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that is a very odd question because I do not believe that in all those things the hon. member listed, there is a law saying that before the Wheat Board is dismantled or before we do anything with regard to same sex marriage, there should be a referendum. However, in the rules that governed the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board, it clearly states that a referendum has to be held before it can be dismantled.C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain ActsCanadian Wheat BoardFarming and farmersGovernanceGovernment billsGrain and grain growingSecond readingJimHillyerLethbridgeBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersBinational Health WeekInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the exceptional work of the organizers of the 11th Binational Health Week in Montreal.This event is one of the largest mobilization efforts of federal and provincial government agencies, community-based organizations and volunteers in North America.Through this effort, the consulates general of Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Peru invite people from their countries to contribute positively to their communities and improve their health.I want to congratulate all those who make this positive initiative possible, and I encourage them to continue their amazing contribution to Quebec and Canadian society.AmericasBinational Health WeekHealthPhysical activity and fitnessStatements by MembersGregKerrWest NovaBrianJeanFort McMurray—Athabasca//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1150)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is time for this government to agree to study hydraulic fracturing. The problem, however, is that this practice is already taking place. Communities have good reason to be worried about the chemicals being used and the groundwater being contaminated. Will the minister respect the government's mandate, which is to regulate this practice, instead of simply waiting until new studies are published?AquifersEnvironmental contaminationGroundwaterHydraulic fracturingOral questionsRegulationShale gasRickDykstraSt. CatharinesMichelleRempelHon.Calgary Centre-North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPreventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1235)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today because Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains a number of elements that truly bother me.One of those elements is the clause allowing for the detention of a permanent resident or foreign national simply on the basis of reasonable grounds to suspect—and I would like to emphasize the word “suspect”—that the person is inadmissible because of their involvement in serious or organized crime. That could lead to major problems and to various abuses of the system.First, any refugees arriving here without having been granted status from Citizenship and Immigration Canada—and goodness knows there are plenty of delays—will mandatorily be detained when they arrive. That flies in the face of numerous international conventions signed by Canada, including the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which states the following in subsection 31(1):The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.Bill C-4 directly contravenes this article of the convention signed by Canada.Second, these changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will give too much discretionary power to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. These changes will allow the minister to proceed with arbitrary detentions. As I mentioned earlier, the government will be able to detain refugees on the simple pretext that they are suspected, but not accused, of criminal activities. There is an important distinction between the two. The government could detain, without valid proof, any refugee who looks suspicious to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. This could obviously lead to serious abuses.Arbitrary detention also runs counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to the Supreme Court of Canada which struck down arbitrary mandatory detention without review of security certificates. Once again, this amendment directly contravenes many international treaties signed by Canada.The government says that this bill will reduce human trafficking. That is a noble cause and no one opposes the principle. However, the NDP opposes Bill C-4 because these changes concentrate far too much power in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. Furthermore, the bill penalizes all refugees who arrive in Canada, but takes no action against the traffickers.What the NDP would like to do is directly punish the criminals, the traffickers, also called human smugglers. Bill C-4, as currently worded, punishes legitimate refugees and the people who try to help them. The process set out in this bill is vague, arbitrary and clearly discriminatory.In closing, the current government is actively destroying Canada's fine international reputation, which includes being a country that welcomes immigrants. This must stop.C-4, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security ActForeign personsGovernment billsHuman smugglingIllegal migrantsMass arrivalsRefugee statusSecond readingBobRaeHon.Toronto CentreGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPreventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (1240)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.Whether it is the number of refugees or anything else, nothing justifies such a bill. All it does is punish refugees, people who are already suffering. This bill does nothing constructive. It should target the smugglers, not the refugees. C-4, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security ActForeign personsGovernment billsHuman smugglingIllegal migrantsMass arrivalsRefugee statusSecond readingGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesDenisBlanchetteLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (2110)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to wish all Quebeckers a happy national holiday, in particular the people of the riding of Laval—Les Îles, with whom I would really have liked to celebrate tonight, but since the government has prohibited this—we know what is going on, we understand—it will not be possible. They will understand the reason for my absence.The government decided to extend the work of the House without regard for Quebec MPs or their constituents. It preferred to interfere in the negotiations between the postal workers and Canada Post, by forcing the workers back to work under unacceptable conditions, rather than allowing us to go and celebrate with our constituents. I am here tonight in order to stand up for the workers of Canada Post who are fighting in good faith to obtain sound working conditions and a negotiated collective agreement. They are faced with the possibility of seeing the government impose salaries that are lower than those that were offered by the employer. I am also here to stand up for all workers who could be facing the same fate because of a government that has no values and does not want to amend its bill.Before continuing, I would like to specify that unlike Canada Post, which has locked out its employees and deprived the public of an essential service, postal workers never took Canadians hostage. The rotating strikes they held delayed postal delivery by one day at the most. Their goal was to force Canada Post to negotiate. But the employer's reaction was to close the door to negotiation, impose a lockout on its employees and interrupt all mail delivery.This is a manoeuvre that is putting the most vulnerable people in a difficult if not precarious situation. In spite of the lockout and the threat of legislation imposing a return to work with lower salaries than those proposed by Canada Post, postal workers are continuing to provide mail delivery in my riding. Pension cheques, social assistance cheques and child benefit cheques have been delivered so as to limit the damages. The postal workers are not doing this for money, but out of respect for Canadians who may well depend on those benefits for their subsistence.I said “respect”, a word that seems to mean nothing to the Conservative government. Government interference and the prospect of special legislation to force postal employees back to work leave the door wide open for the employer, which realizes it no longer has to negotiate in good faith and can hand its dirty work over to the government.The message to workers is clear: accept the offer of the employer, which is taking away the gains that employees have been able to achieve, not by forcing Canada Post's hand but by bargaining. Today, the government, on whom these workers should be able to rely to stand up and protect them, will impose an even worse settlement on them than Canada Post's offer. It is important to point out that Canada Post is not on the verge of bankruptcy, far from it. It generated nearly $300 million in profits in 2009, and yet it is claiming that it cannot provide its employees with sound working conditions or new employees with fair wages. That is a tough pill to swallow when the corporation pays its CEO almost $500,000, not to mention a performance bonus of more than $150,000, which would climb even higher under this bill. I am certain, by the way, that he still collected his paycheque during the lockout.Canada Post is a profitable, reliable and indispensable postal service, and contrary to what pro-privatization forces would have us believe, no alternative involving the private sector could ever be adequate.(4515)In addition, the Canadian public does not agree with privatizing a low-cost, high-quality postal service.I wonder what the government—which is supposed to serve the public and respect its will—does not understand about that.Finally, I am concerned about the precedent that will be set by this interference. Who will pay the price next time? Unionized workers have every right to expect their contract to be respected. They have every right to expect their employer to negotiate fairly, justly and in good faith. By introducing this bill, the government is opening the door to a dangerous practice that would allow employers to gut worker's rights with the blessing of the House of Commons, or at least one side of the House of Commons.The Canadian government must set an example in terms of equality, safety and respect for workers. This should be a country that makes its citizens proud and not a land that turns the clock back on the gains made by taxpayers for benefit of company CEOs who already profit from the current system.Happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to all French Canadians.Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsIncome and wagesPostal servicesPrivatizationProfitsSecond readingWorking hours, terms and conditionsRobertAubinTrois-RivièresJulianFantinoHon.Vaughan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (4520)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we are working for all workers across Canada. We are not just doing this for the postal workers. And we are doing this because we thought that the government on the other side would act in good faith, take the wage clause out and take the lock off the door.Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsPostal servicesSecond readingJulianFantinoHon.VaughanRathikaSitsabaiesanScarborough—Rouge River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (2120)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.As I said earlier, we are here to ensure that people can negotiate collective agreements, not have ones that are imposed by the government. All we are asking is that the government take the wage clause out and take the lock off the door.Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationCollective agreementsGovernment billsNegotiations and negotiatorsPostal servicesSecond readingRathikaSitsabaiesanScarborough—Rouge RiverLaurieHawnHon.Edmonton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersRestoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActInterventionMr. François Pilon: (2120)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comment from the hon. member opposite.Back-to-work legislationC-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal servicesCanada Post CorporationGovernment billsPostal servicesSecond readingLaurieHawnHon.Edmonton CentreAlexandrineLatendresseLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71439FrançoisPilonFrançois-PilonLaval—Les ÎlesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PilonFrançois_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersVisasInterventionMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of my first speech in the House to thank all the people in Laval—Les Îles who voted for me and all the volunteers who worked for me, and to congratulate all my colleagues on their election. Let me add that I am proud to be part of the great NDP family and that I will do everything I can to help families in my riding.I rise in the House of Commons today to tell the Conservative government that it is high time to relax the laws on obtaining visitor visas. In my riding, as in many others in Canada, families cannot come together for weddings or funerals of loved ones because of the challenges involved in getting a visitor visa. Election of 2011Laval—Les ÎlesPassports and visasStatements by MembersDavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsJohnWestonWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE