Ted Opitz

[Pope John Paul II Day Act, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for bringing this important legislation before us today.

As the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor said, this is an international type of bill. It is not just a Canadian or a Polish or a Catholic bill. I would like to thank him for his comments because I really enjoyed what he had to say on communism.

I would also like to thank Mr. Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, a long-time former deputy city councillor, former deputy mayor and retired honorary navy captain, for his dedicated campaign to see the bill brought before Parliament. I would also like to thank Fathers Gil, Blazejak and Filas for their generous support and faith, and Ms. Danuta Gumienik and Mietek Lotakow for their dedication and assistance in making sure that the bill reached us here on the floor today.

The member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor also talked about the fall of communism and the ideas, and why John Paul II was such a threat to totalitarianism. It was because ideas are the enemy of tyrants. Mikhail Gorbachev went on to say one other thing, which is remarkable given that he was one of the main adversaries of John Paul and his mission to bring freedom and democracy to the earth. He said that Pope John Paul II's “devotion to his followers is a remarkable example to all of us”.

I fully support the bill and everything that it represents. In fact, I am the seconder of the bill and proud to be so. The bill is not just about Blessed John Paul II being Polish or Catholic, though there is no doubt special meaning for the Polish community, especially Canadians of Polish heritage and Catholics generally. It is truly about the inspiration that he left as his legacy to all peoples of all faiths in all lands in the world and in Canada.

Blessed John Paul stood for values that are shared by diverse peoples across this planet: justice, democracy and forgiveness. John Paul II held the value that all people are equal and should be free to practice whatever religion they choose, no matter where they are in this world. These values are not only Christian values, but they are shared by many religions around the world. For Canadians, he practised the values of freedom, democracy and human rights the world over and promoted that everywhere he went. He was not just solely focused on the Catholic church but was also influential, as we have already discussed, on the world stage building bridges between all faiths.

It was already remarked that when he visited Israel he addressed them as “my older brothers”. That was absolutely significant and historic.

He reached out to the Eastern Orthodox church and the Muslim faith. A goal he had was to form a coalition of faith. When he visited the Umayyad mosque, which was a former Christian church where John Paul the Baptist is believed to be interred, he made a speech calling for Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together. As he continued to visit mosques and places of worship of many faiths around the world, he did so in order to reach out for understanding and to build those bridges between those faiths.

One of his major accomplishments was inspiring a peaceful revolution in Europe that resulted in the downfall of communism on that continent, which began in his native Poland with the rise of the solidarity trade movement, and it was through those words “be not afraid”. Those were meaningful and impactful words. Those uplifting words resulted in human rights and freedom being brought to Poland and subsequently to now all former Iron Curtain countries that made up the Soviet bloc. He did this not with a sword or rifle but by using words and by using ideas, which, again, were the enemy of tyrants.

He did this simply because those who suffered through communism imagined the changes that they wished to see, which he promoted, and they did it by being not afraid. They dared to imagine and they dared to aspire. It inspired those who had lost hope that they would ever see political freedom in their lands, and they found hope through solidarity. History tells us what happened later on: communism fell.

John Paul II had close ties to Canada. He made separate visits here. He went to the Arctic in 1987, just that visit, because he had promised to go there and was not able to do it on a previous visit. He made a special attempt to do that and he succeeded. There is also a special meaning to the pope for me. There is actually only 20 days difference in age between my dad and the pope. In fact, my dad will be 93 on April 2.

The two of them had very similar histories in Poland. Both of them were 19 when the war began. My father, obviously, subsequently became a soldier, and John Paul followed his faith. That was important.

In 2002, the military did a very special thing for me. They allowed me, as part of a four-person military team, to assist with World Youth Day for almost an entire year, to help plan World Youth Day and bring 800,000 people to Canada.

This was a post 9/11 world. All the youth of the world came, and they were not just Catholic. They were of all different faiths. It was important to see the numbers of different faiths that came here.

As a Canadian solider at the time, with Polish immigrant parents, from the Parkdale area of Toronto and St. Casimir's Polish Catholic parish, this was a massive honour for me personally. It was a huge responsibility to get it right and ensure that the close to a million people from around the world who arrived here to celebrate with Pope John Paul II were able to do so safely and were able to celebrate with all the other youth of the world.

The atmosphere was absolutely electric. To have the honour of being so close to the Pope, as close, in fact, as I am to the member for Brampton West right now, was something that was inspiring. To be able to talk to him, to be able to hold his hand, to be able to have a conversation with him in Polish was something that was inspiring to me and to the kids he was able to inspire.

What the Pope often said was, “You are the salt”, and “You are the light”. He referred to the youth as being those. They reacted to that. “[D]o not be afraid” was something he repeated quite frequently on the stage.

What he said to them was:

You are young, and the Pope is old, 82 or 83 years of life is not the same as 22 or 23. But the Pope still fully identifies with your hopes and aspirations.... I have seen enough evidence to be unshakeably convinced that no difficulty, no fear is so great that it can completely suffocate the hope that springs eternal in the hearts of the young. You are our hope, the young are our hope.

It should be noted that the Canadian World Youth Day was the last one he attended. He was the originator of World Youth Day, which happens every year in Rome and about every four years in a different country around the world.

Having stood mere feet from His Holiness at that time, I could see his courage. I could see the incredible suffering in his eyes, because he was so pushed down by the serious illness he had.

It is important that all of the members know that he lived his life as he spoke it. He showed nothing but courage by sitting there, by suffering as he did, to make sure that he came to Toronto. To make sure that he came here and to make sure that he inspired those young people was absolutely monumental. I came away absolutely inspired, having met Papa.

The Pope was a brilliant man who reached out to millions of people beyond the borders of the church. By supporting this bill, we show all Canadians that we have not forgotten this great man and we honour those values he inspired in us all. He was a man who travelled with a staff in his hand and wore the shoes of a fisherman. He was a man who brought hope, peace and comfort to so many all around the world. He was a man who, with his words, through his deeds and with his faith, brought us all together with his message of hope.

He was a man who will be remembered long after the rest of us have been forgotten. He was a man who made this earth a more human place for us all.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to address something my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said, which was something I believe was mistaken, about the people of Atlantic Canada and the government. I would like to correct that.

This government values our great Canadians from Atlantic Canada. I served in the Canadian armed forces. I served with many great people from that region. To a man and women, they were hard-working, brave, honest and patriotic. There are no better Canadians. I stand for these great people of Atlantic Canada.

I would also like to point out that we have created 920,000 new jobs since the recession, and most of those are full-time.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to this motion from my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. A lot has been said about our government's employment insurance changes, and it is hard to see much that is actually accurate in the intentionally misleading and exaggerated claims of the opposition parties. My response will therefore focus on setting the record straight and on drawing attention to the difference between the myths and the facts with respect to the changes our government has made to EI.

The hon. member alleges that EI changes have been harmful rather than necessary and have either put EI out of reach of hard-working Canadians or have created undue financial hardship for many. These are myths that are simply not based on evidence. Yet these stories continue to spread, without a shred of fact. I can see why the opposition is attempting to use the politics of fear in a desperate attempt to win public support. I would say that it is misguided. Clearly, the opposition no longer holds itself to the high standards it professed in the last election.

I would like to bust a few of the myths. Job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians are our government's top priorities. We need everybody's skills and talents at work in our nation. There are skills and labour shortages across the country, from most rural parts of our great nation to the downtown urban cores. Does the opposition motion attempt to address this most pressing of economic challenges? Does this motion increase Canada's chances of growth and long-term prosperity? The answer is decidedly no. Instead, it feeds into five big myths about EI, and I am going to address each one of those right now.

Myth number one is that EI changes mean that people are going to lose their benefits. This is categorically false. No one who makes a reasonable effort to look for and accept a suitable job will be cut off of EI. The purpose of EI has always been, and will continue to be, to provide temporary income support while someone is looking for another job.

Regarding the requirement for claimants of EI regular and fishing benefits to look for work while collecting benefits, this is not new. What is new, however, is that the Government of Canada has put forward a series of measures to help unemployed Canadians transition back into the labour force more quickly. Whether claimants live in a big city or a small community, they now have access to information on locally available jobs on, as was pointed out by the hon. parliamentary secretary earlier, www.workingincanada.gc.ca. Some members were not familiar with that website. Hopefully they are now and will be able to access that and provide that information to their constituents. I hope they do.

We have also clarified what a claimant's responsibilities are while collecting EI. This was done through the new regulations that came into effect in early January. These definitions explain what constitutes suitable work and a reasonable job search. The fact is that EI will always be there for people who need it. All that is expected is what all hard-working Canadians expect of themselves, and that is to do their best to find jobs.

Myth number two is that EI changes mean that seasonal industries risk losing their trained workforces. That is false. If a seasonal business is a good employer, one that pays workers a fair wage, there is no reason the employees would not return to their jobs when the season resumes.

Let us also be clear that EI is not meant as an income supplement for those who choose not to look for work during the off-season, especially when work is available in their local area. Seasonal workers, like any other type of worker, are required to look for work when receiving EI. However, there is nothing in these changes that prevents people from returning to a previous employer should they choose to do so once a new season starts. The intent of the updated regulations is to help claimants transition back into the workforce by clearly stating how to look for suitable employment and when to broaden the search.

We are making sure that Canadians are always better off working than not. That is why these regulations ensure that suitable employment consists of opportunities that would result in a claimant being better off financially by working than by receiving only EI benefits.

What about the status of the extended EI benefit pilot project and its effect on seasonal work?

In their motion, NDP members are specifically calling for a renewal today of the extra five weeks pilot project. However, this pilot project was a temporary measure. It was aimed at providing five weeks of extra EI benefits to Canadians who were hardest hit during the worst years of the recession. The program was never meant to be permanent. It was introduced nationally by our government in 2008 and then subsequently renewed in 2010 as part of our economic action plan, which of course has helped raise 920,000 new jobs since the recession. Canada is in a period of economic recovery, and temporary supports like the extra five weeks pilot project were allowed to end because of the improvements we have seen in our economy.

Now to myth number three: Do EI changes mean having to accept work even when there is more than an hour commute or a drive up to 100 kilometres? This is a question that is often asked. However, this is false.

The common-sense changes we made are helping more Canadians to find a job as quickly as possible. The fact is that there are skills and labour shortages in many parts of the country, including areas of high unemployment. Our efforts are meant to help people find available jobs in their geographic areas and areas of expertise. Again, the www.workingincanada.gc.ca website is going to go a long way in assisting them to do that.

Commuting time is only one element that makes a job suitable. Other factors to take into account are personal circumstances, working conditions, the type of work, as well as the wages and hours of work. Of course, common sense will always prevail, and no one will be forced to take a job that is going to result in higher living costs and thus be financially worse off than they would be on EI.

While one hour is generally accepted as an appropriate commuting time, commuting time can be longer only in two very specific circumstances: if one has a pattern of travelling more than one hour in the past, which is quite possible and some may be used to that sort of thing; or if one lives in a community where it is not uncommon to travel such distances, such as large metropolitan areas. Let me be clear that the requirement regarding the commute refers to the time it takes to go from a claimant's home to the place of work and not to drive 100 kilometres. I cannot stress enough that personal circumstances will always be taken into consideration. There is a lot of flexibility and common sense built into this plan.

Myth number four: Do EI changes mean someone will be made worse off by accepting a low-paying job? Again, this is false, and here are the facts.

We are helping EI claimants get back into the job market and not penalizing them. Furthermore, the changes ensure that claimants accepting suitable employment will be better off working than receiving only EI. As I explained in my remarks, our changes are guided by common sense. There is a lot of flexibility. We will, of course, take into account a claimant's personal circumstances to determine whether a particular job is suitable or not.

If claimants live where there are few jobs available, there are still activities they can do to look for work. Simply saying that there is no work, but not looking for work, is not acceptable. At a minimum, those living in regions with limited employment opportunities can talk with former co-workers, friends and other community resources about job openings. That networking option is something people generally do as a standard operating procedure when looking for a job. They can look in newspapers or online for potential jobs. They can also use the enhanced job alerts up to twice daily for jobs available in the area for up-to-date information. Again, the website is www.workingincanada.gc.ca.

Should people be compelled to accept a job that would leave them worse off financially than being on EI? Well, no, that is not going to happen. EI is there to help support people while they are looking for a new job.

Myth number five: Do EI changes mean that there are new obligations for claimants? Once again, this is false.

Much has been made of claimants being obligated to search for suitable work. Let us look at the facts. These claimants have always been required to conduct a reasonable job search and accept any offer of suitable employment. That is not new.

The changes are about making those responsibilities clear for claimants. The regulations have been updated, and now there is a clear understanding of what constitutes suitable employment and a reasonable job search.

Let us set the record straight. The updated rules defining what constitutes suitable employment are based on the following. They are based on commuting time, working conditions, the type of work, compensation, hours of work and the claimant's personal situation. The type of work and compensation that a claimant will have to seek will vary based on his or her contribution to and use of the EI program and time spent on the claim.

In the face of groundless fearmongering, as witnessed in the motion, I have laid out the facts on the changes our government has made to EI. What we are doing with these changes is helping move Canada in the right direction, to continue on a path of success and prosperity for all. That is the absolute goal, success and prosperity for all. Nine hundred and twenty thousand new jobs, mostly full-time, have been created because our government remains focused on jobs and the economy, and Canadians are benefiting from that focus.

It is a fact that job creation and economic growth for every single Canadian looking for a job continues to be the number one priority of the government, and we are proud of the 920,000 new jobs. This is a G7-leading job growth statistic and is because of the strong economic leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, who I believe is now the longest serving finance minister in the G7 and in fact the best.

Our economic action plan is working and has shown tremendous results. Members do not have to listen to me; they can look at the world bodies, expert organizations like the IMF and others around the world who laud Canada for its approach and successes. Other countries are now modelling themselves on Canada because of our success in growing our economy and jobs and making sure that success and prosperity are equally distributed to all Canadians. We continue on that mission because it is important to do that. It is something that we as a government will remain focused on for all Canadians.

We have provided job seekers with better tools to help them with that task and it now means that Canadians are better connected than ever to the jobs that are available in their local areas, matching their skills. Unfortunately, the NDP continues to vote against measures that are helping Canadians by creating more jobs and economic growth.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development have been very clear. If Canadians are unable to find work, employment insurance will be there for them, just as it always has been. We have been clear that personal circumstances will be considered when it comes to determining what a reasonable job offer is.

Those are the facts. I urge all members to vote against this ill-informed motion and vote against the fearmongering.

I have heard today that it is better to remain on EI than to work at Tim Hortons, for example. I think that is rather insulting to that particular company because Tim Hortons is a venerable organization to Canadians. Many of us who travel abroad look forward to that Tim Hortons coffee when we come home. I know I do. Tim Hortons has the Timbits hockey program. It is great for the Canadian Forces deployed abroad. It is a tremendous organization. It is a well-suited organization for a lot of people.

Tim Hortons provides opportunities in many areas. For example, what can one learn at Tim Hortons? One can learn about restaurant supply systems, production, management development, retail and growth within the company. It is a very vibrant company.

As we heard today, the Minister of Finance said The Source stores are expanding in Canada and providing jobs. Retail is a very vibrant sector in our country. Walmart stores are coming. I heard someone snicker about the Walmart stores earlier, which is just unacceptable because that also is a tremendous organization that is growing and providing jobs. It has always provided jobs to seniors as well. That is tremendously laudable for the company to do that.

As I mentioned, McDonald's has a world-renowned management development system. People who started on the line flipping burgers have risen in the ranks of that company to manage local stores and groups of stores within that organization. It has been a tremendous boost for people just starting their careers, who may have been unskilled when they started but developed those skills as they worked their way up through that company.

The same is true of other chains, restaurants, retail jobs and all of the jobs that some in the opposition benches here deem to be “beneath them”. That is unfortunate because that speaks to the attitude of the NDP and the Liberals. It smacks of a do as I say, not as I do kind of attitude. That is not good enough for this government. This kind of misinformation and fearmongering does no service to Canadians.

In my own personal experience, I have bussed tables, waited on tables and been a short-order cook. I have built cars on the factory line. I have been a Bell telephone technician. I worked my way up. I started in the army and worked my way up from a private. I have driven a truck and delivered fruits and vegetables as well.

Nothing is beneath anybody who wants to work. That is called the dignity of work, the pride of work. That is what I always got out of it. I always felt proud that I worked my own way. I did not care how dirty my hands got. When I came home at the end of the day, at the end of my shift, I always felt good about myself. I felt pride in the fact that I earned my own dollar and that I contributed to the economy in my country by working. It does not matter what the job is. What matters is the pride and work ethic that individuals have, to seek that kind of dignity while they are working. It is important to keep that in mind.

The vast majority of Canadians think this way too. Members on the opposition benches are doing a lot of characterization of people being looked down on or taking a job that is beneath them. No job is beneath anybody in this country. Most Canadians get up every day and do the best job they can, be the best Canadian they can be. If they are looking for work, they are looking for work earnestly. The vast majority of people do a good job and contribute to this country. They aspire to that, and this government is going to help them do that.

One of the ways we are going to do that is with our job search website, which again is www.workingincanada.gc.ca. I am repeating that over and over because I am hoping it sinks in. I am hopeful that members on the opposition benches will catch up with those of us on the governing side and provide this information to their constituents. It is hugely important that they assist them in doing that.

In my riding, I help my constituents do that. I have been helping some of those people with high dropout rates. I have been steering some of those young adults to find jobs and working with the community college and other trade schools to find opportunities for them. We have been doing some job counselling and helping to develop opportunities for people.

It is hugely important for people to be able to find their way in life, to find those opportunities, to find a path and an interest in something about which they can be passionate. It is important for people to find a job and move on and develop themselves in life. That is something I definitely do in Etobicoke Centre. Unfortunately, sometimes members on the opposition benches consider looking for those kinds of opportunities a colossal waste of time. We on this side of the House do not do that. We believe that a Canadian who wants to find a job, a Canadian who wants to work, is a proud Canadian, a Canadian with a lot of dignity. We are going to push and work for that.

I certainly hope that members on that side of the House will start working with their own constituents that way and take a hands-on approach to helping them find a job rather than spreading rhetoric, fear, misunderstanding and misinformation in the House, which is something we do not want to do.

The government will never do what the Liberals did, and that is take billions, to the tune of $57 billion, out of the EI program. That is absolutely staggering and absolutely unacceptable.

I would just remind all hon. members to steer all their constituents who are looking for work to www.workingincanada.gc.ca.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, page 4 of the NDP platform costing document is very clear. The NDP leader's leadership campaign was very clear. The countless NDP MPs across the country are very clear. What are they clear about? The NDP is planning to raise over $20 billion in a job-killing carbon tax that would increase the cost of gas, groceries and electricity. I know that my constituents in Etobicoke Centre would not welcome that at all.

The NDP members can run but they cannot hide. At every turn our Conservative government will warn Canadians about the NDP's job-killing $20 billion carbon tax. Canadians already know that it is our Conservative government that is on their side.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, two days back and already the spinning begins.

Yesterday my NDP colleague from Scarborough Southwest said that his party will offer practical solutions. What he fails to mention is that the NDP solution is a new $21 billion job-killing carbon tax.

He says their solutions will be fair, but that is NDP code for “it will cost all Canadians dearly”. The NDP's job-killing carbon tax will raise the price of everything from gas to groceries to electricity. He said that their solution will build a more prosperous Canada, but that is code for “the NDP's $21 billion job-killing carbon tax will raise billions on the backs of hard-working Canadians”.

In fact, that is the entire purpose of the NDP plan and not some idea that has altruistic environmental goals. His leader said that he had proposed a system of carbon pricing that will produce billions. The NDP's job-killing carbon tax is simply bad for Canada. Our Conservative government will continue to stand up against this reckless and irresponsible job-killing policy.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is entirely appropriate because, at the end of the day, it safeguards honest, hardworking Canadians from foreign criminals who threaten their livelihood and lives.

The member is also on the immigration committee and had an opportunity to question the police witnesses, and yet no questions were put to those expert witnesses at that time.

The bill would do three things: it would make it easier, make it harder, and remove barriers. It would make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country. It would make it harder for those who may pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place. It would remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada and take advantage of all this country has to offer.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says everybody is seriously flawed when he asks a question. What is not seriously flawed that Clinton Gayle killed a police officer, and that is the bottom line.

I can cite other cases. Jackie Tran from Vietnam was charged with assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession, failure to comply with court orders, sentences ranging from $100 fine to two years less a day of imprisonment. Did he appeal? Absolutely. The removal order was given in April 2004 and he was finally removed in March 2010, nearly six years of delay while this guy was on the streets committing further crimes against innocent Canadians.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. I do not support the opposition's amendments and do not support the NDP and the Liberals attempt to try to prevent this important legislation from becoming law. I would like to thank the minister for his courage and conviction in ensuring that our immigration policy never puts Canadians at risk.

However, members do not have to take it from me why the bill is necessary. Countless organizations and experts support Bill C-43 and I know Canadians will as well.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform all members of the House of the important testimony we heard from Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, in hopes that the NDP and Liberals will listen to the experts, to our law enforcement officials, and stop playing games with the safety and security of Canadians and support the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

Mr. Stamatakis summed up the Canadian Police Association support for Bill C-43 when he stated:

Let me be absolutely clear. Canada as a nation is a stronger country because of immigrants who come here to enrich our communities through a shared culture. Police services across Canada, from Vancouver where I serve as a police constable to Halifax and all points in between, count among our members a number of first and second generation immigrants who serve their adopted country with honour and pride every day, and I'm one of them.

Unfortunately, there are those that come to Canada and choose not to respect and follow our laws. In fact, I was surprised to note, in preparing for my appearance today, that since 2007, according to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, there have been an average of 900 appeals of deportation orders filed per year by serious criminals, over 4,000 in total. Surely, we can agree that our communities would be safer, and our police would be helped by streamlining this process in removing these security concerns as quickly as possible.

Under the current regime, criminals who are currently serving a sentence of less than two years are eligible to file an appeal to the immigration appeal division. The CPA entirely supports the measures contained within this bill to reduce that time to sentences of less than six months. We also support the new measures that would make it more difficult for criminals,who have been sentenced outside of Canada to access the immigration appeal division.

These are not my words, but the words of the president of the Canadian Police Association. We are talking about police officers who are in the streets every day, who put their lives on the line to protect and support us, who have real life experience and they support Bill C-43.

Mr. Stamatakis then proceeded to tell us a story, which cannot be repeated enough, of the tragic death of Todd Baylis. Mr. Stamatakis told the story in a way that bears repeating. He said:

On the night of June 16, 1994, Toronto Police Service Constables Todd Baylis and Mike Leone were on foot patrol in a public housing complex on Trethewey Drive in west Toronto when they encountered Jamaican-born Clinton Gayle. Gayle was a 26-year-old veteran drug trafficker who had with him a fully loaded nine millimetre handgun and pockets filled with bags of crack cocaine. Clinton Gayle struck Constable Baylis and attempted to flee the scene. He was caught by the two young Toronto officers and a gun fight erupted. Tragically, Constable Baylis was shot in the head and killed in the line of duty, after only four years' service, leaving behind family, friends, and colleagues who continue to honour his sacrifice.

Unfortunately, this is one of the very real dangers that face our police personnel every day. What makes this case so particularly tragic and why I am here before you today is that this case was entirely preventable, if only the provisions within Bill C-43 were in effect then.

Clinton Gayle had been under a deportation order because of a number of criminal convictions he had on his record for various serious issues such as drugs, weapons, and assault. Despite these convictions, Clinton Gayle had used his time in prison to appeal his deportation order. At the conclusion of his sentence in 1992, he was allowed to go free by an immigration department official after posting a meagre $2,000 bail.

We now know that between 1990 and 1996, the government had made a number of efforts to deport Mr. Gayle, efforts that ultimately proved to be unsuccessful, and that red tape and abuse of the system by a known criminal is what led to the tragic murder of one of our colleagues, Constable Baylis, as well as serious injuries to his partner, Constable Leone.

Todd Baylis' story deserves repeating because it is important that we remember the consequences of having a broken system that puts criminals ahead of victims and law-abiding Canadians, that allows endless appeals for dangerous foreign criminals so they can remain in Canada and use that time to commit more crimes and create more unfortunate victims.

The most important part of Mr. Stamatakis' testimony is that he debunked the ridiculous claim made constantly by the NDP members and Liberals that criminals who has received a sentence of at least six months had not committed crimes that should be considered serious. For example, someone found growing six marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking is not a serious criminal. This is what the president of the Police Association had to say:

I think that in this country anybody who receives a custodial sentence of six months would have had to commit a serious crime.

As a front line officer, whether you're talking about a criminal act where innocent citizens in our country are being victimized by violence or other activities like that, or about a white-collar crime, where you have people who are losing life savings and having their entire lives destroyed, where there is a custodial sentence of a duration of six months, I think somebody has committed a serious crime, and I think 800 is too many....Drug trafficking is drug trafficking. We've had police officers who've been either seriously injured or killed on duty or in the line of duty by people who aren't even involved in criminal activity at the time.

I could not agree more with the Canadian Police Association.

What is especially telling, though, is that the NDP members did not ask the representative from the Police Association a single question, not a single one.

Here is a respected senior member of the police force whose organization represents over 50,000 front-line enforcement personnel from across Canada, serving in over 160 difference police services, including police officers from federal, provincial, municipal and first nations police organizations, with probably more expertise on the bill and the issues surrounding it than any other stakeholder the committee hears, yet the NDP members did not ask a single question.

It shows yet again that unfortunately the NDP will not listen to Canadians, will not listen to the experts and will continue to put the rights of criminals ahead of victims and of law abiding Canadians.

I urge the NDP members and the Liberals today to listen to organizations like the Canadian Police Association and stop using amendments to try to prevent the bill from becoming law. I implore the opposition to work with our Conservative government to ensure the speedy passage of the bill.

[Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, following question period today, you will have the honour of presenting 25 outstanding Canadians with Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee Medal. These 25 individuals have come from across the country. They were nominated by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs for this well-deserved and prestigious honour.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs is a non-partisan organization, implementing strategies to improve the quality of Jewish life in Canada and abroad, increase support for Israel and strengthen the Canada-Israel relationship.

I reviewed the accomplishments of these outstanding citizens and I can attest to the dedication and commitment they have to their communities, their province and their country. One common trait the recipients share is their long-standing dedication to volunteerism and devotion to their fellow citizens. They are an example for all citizens,and most deserving of this honour.

I ask all members of the House to join me in expressing our congratulations to the these distinguished recipients and our thanks for their continued service to Canada.

[National Defence, December 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our reserve members play an integral part in the missions that Canada asks the Canadian armed forces to take part in. As a former reserve commanding officer, I can tell the House that reservists must be treated fairly and equitably, and be provided the best care and support when they are injured serving Canada.

The ombudsman had recommended that the accidental dismemberment insurance plan be amended to ensure equity between regular and reserve force members. The minister committed to moving quickly on this issue.

Can he provide the House with an update on this very important matter?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for doing his homework. I know he is a lawyer and clearly an intelligent young fellow who has done the comparison and looked at the Queen's Regulations and Orders, which is quite a large document.

We have had three chief justices, Justices Dickson, Lamer and LeSage, all doing this work and concluding very similar things, which is the military justice system needs something transparent on which soldiers can rely. The independent reports of former chief justices Dickson in 1997, Lamer in 2003 and LeSage in 2012 said that the summary trial system was fair.

Could the member show me some examples in his research where he could point to the summary trial being constitutionally deficient in any way or fundamentally unfair? Did you see that in any of your research?