OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 020 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, November 20, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 20, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 020 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 020 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 020 (Version officielle) 147 020 20 11 2013 2013/11/20 14:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Members (1400) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, led by the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Christmas Season in Oxford Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to spread some Christmas cheer. This past weekend I had the privilege of participating in Santa Claus parades across my riding of Oxford.

There were many creative floats from organizations, businesses, churches, and schools that provided non-stop excitement and entertainment for the crowd. I would like to congratulate everyone involved for a job well done. Christmas is also the season of giving. At this year's parades, the residents of Oxford really pulled together and embraced the spirit of giving to support local food and toy banks. The donations collected will help individuals and families in need to celebrate the holiday festivities with loved ones. I am proud to represent a group of communities that know the importance of giving.

This holiday season, let us all remember those in need and give generously. In conclusion, I would like to wish all a joyous, safe, and happy holiday season.

[ Translation ] Universal Children's Day Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus, I have the honour to talk about Universal Children's Day. History has demonstrated just how important children are in our lives, and we have come a long way since the days when children had practically no rights. On November 20, 1959, the United Nations adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and today we are celebrating the 54th anniversary of that declaration as well as the 24th anniversary of the signing of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by 191 countries.

Respecting the rights of the child is a collective responsibility. Keep in mind that even a child's right to food is not guaranteed everywhere in the world; it is not even guaranteed everywhere in our own country. Children have the right to live in a healthy and safe environment, and it is up to us to make that happen. It is our responsibility to ensure their rights are respected. Adults across the country, let us take the time today to tell our children that we love them and to ensure that the rights of children everywhere are respected.

Speak up when you see a child being mistreated; yell when that same child is a victim of violence, abuse, trafficking or forced labour. Everyone has the right to their childhood.

(1405) [ English ] Iran Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it was 1980. Saddam was the threat. Israel was pleading for the world to take action. Iraq was building high-grade nuclear reactors, scouring the world for sources of uranium ore and attempting to obtain hot cells capable of producing plutonium. In 1990, the world responded to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and Desert Storm unfolded. Courtesy of Iraq, 39 Scud missiles rained down on the region. If just one of those Scud missiles had been nuclear-armed, the world would be a different place. Today, Iran is the nuclear threat.

Crippling economic sanctions are having an effect. Israel is once again pleading with the nations not to accept anything less than a complete and verifiable dismantling of nuclear capability. Tough diplomacy and rigorous enforcement have a slim prospect of success. Anything less than complete capitulation ensures catastrophe. The nations must remain vigilant and resolute on this matter. The cost of failure is conflict that may be impossible to contain.

[ Translation ] Universal Children's Day Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Universal Children's Day is a time to celebrate life and young people. We feel confident about the future because our nation's children can hope for a life without violence or hate. Despite all of our dreams and ideals, however, we have to face the reality of the lives that have been shattered by a lack of education and resources. Some children in our cities and towns do not have enough to eat. In our country of law and order, children are left defenceless.

Here in this Parliament, all to often, we accept the unacceptable. We must commit to developing structures for early childhood education and child care in order to give all Canadians a chance to be part of society, rather than excluding some from our so-called civilized world. We must stand by children in Canada and around the world.

Veterans Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on Remembrance Day, I had the honour of being in Hong Kong to commemorate the hundreds of Canadians who gave their lives in the defence of freedom. [ English ] As a veteran myself, having served in our Canadian Armed Forces for 20 years, I have reflected upon the service that we provide to our veterans. As a member of government, I am glad that we as Conservatives have provided our veterans with an increase of nearly $5 billion in funding since 2006. That is more money and services in the hands of our veterans.

Our military personnel are well trained and hard-working. They serve our country and they deserve our support. Recently the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that our veterans can receive up to $75,000 for college, university, or skilled trades certification programs. Our most seriously injured veterans receive a minimum of $62,000 per year in total financial compensation to assist their recovery. [ Translation ] We will not stop there. Our veterans defended us and we will offer our support to them when they need it.

[ English ] Trans Day of Remembrance Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize November 20, the Trans Day of Remembrance. . People in communities across Canada and around the world will gather today to remember victims of transphobic violence and to dedicate themselves to working to end discrimination against transgender, transsexual, and gender-variant people. Last year, more than 238 trans people were murdered, and countless more were victims of violence and discrimination.

Once again on this Trans Day Remembrance, many of us will look back, shake our heads, and ask ourselves how such violence and discrimination could possibly still be the reality for so many people, but today we must also look forward and ask how we can make things better. Canada needs to act now to protect the rights, freedom, and safety of trans Canadians. We need to join the Northwest Territories, Ontario, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, which have already legislated, and soon that list will include Newfoundland and P.E.I.

New Democrats were happy to see the passage of Bill C-279 in the House of Commons on March 20, 2013, but Canadians are still waiting. We call on the Senate to act promptly and pass this legislation immediately to ensure equal rights for all— The Speaker : The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

(1410) Legalization of Marijuana Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the City of Salmon Arm in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap received funding from the municipal infrastructure improvement fund to replace the 30-year-old boiler at the local indoor pool. The new boiler is more energy efficient and less costly to maintain. Last Saturday evening, I took seven of my 10 grandchildren to the pool. It was great to watch all the children enjoy the wholesome fun this wonderful facility provides.

As I watched everyone, I thought that providing resources to communities for these types of activities for children and families is a priority of good government. Then the thought came to me: why would any political party want to legalize marijuana, which would only destroy children's lives and families? Is it not the duty of government to protect the health and safety of its citizens? I said a little prayer while I stood at the poolside. I petitioned that our grandchildren would never live under a government that would legalize marijuana.

Filipino Association Fundraiser Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with all those affected by the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan. With the passing of one storm, an estimated 13 million people were impacted across the Philippines, including over four million displaced and more than 4,000 who lost their lives, but so many other lives have been disrupted as well. Many Canadians had to wait days to find out about their friends and family.

Our government has been quick to respond, but the real story of compassion is found in communities across Canada. Yesterday morning something remarkable happened in southwest Saskatchewan. Our local Filipino association, under the leadership of Emilio Completo, held a fundraiser. The response was outstanding. Local people donated $21,458, all to be matched by our federal government's contribution. Emilio and 50 volunteers did the work. The people responded. Emilio asks that I pass on his sincere thanks to the people of Swift Current and to all of southwestern Saskatchewan for their amazing generosity.

Parliamentarian of the Year Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the member of Parliament for Sackville—Eastern Shore , who last night was named Parliamentarian of the Year. To pay proper respect to his unique brand of politics, I will now abandon my notes and speak as he does, from the heart. This member has, from his earliest days, paid great respect to the people who elected him to speak on their behalf, and has mentored an entire generation of New Democrat MPs in paying attention always to the local politics, even while at the federal level.

He has also earned respect and friends on both sides of the aisle, constantly advocating that while we can be tough in politics, we can be good to one another, and it can be, from time to time, even a little bit fun. I and many New Democrats and all those who support us across the country are proud of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore . We brought him a little closer to the front bench today; I know it does not make him feel too comfortable, but as soon as this tribute is over, I know he will want to return to the comfort and safety of the last row of Parliament.

He has constantly shown us that politics is important, politics is always local, and politics should be done with respect, particularly when fighting for Canada's veterans.

[ Translation ] Mylène Paquette Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about Mylène Paquette, a young woman from Montreal who just finished rowing solo across the North Atlantic from west to east. Ms. Paquette is a source of inspiration and a model of perseverance. She rowed her small craft over 5,000 km between Halifax and the shores of Brittany in the span of 130 days. She tackled daily challenges and persevered. She never let natural or physical obstacles discourage her from achieving her dream.

Mylène Paquette is certainly a courageous woman who confronts danger and achieves her goals. We would like to wish her a warm welcome back to terra firma with her loved ones. We hope she will impart the life lessons she learned on her journey. Anyone looking for more information on Mylène Paquette's extraordinary adventure can go to www.mylenepaquette.com. On behalf of my colleagues, congratulations, Ms. Paquette.

[ English ] Girls' Education in Afghanistan Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to share that on November 1, Calgarian Janice Eisenhauer, volunteer executive director of Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, was awarded the Lewis Perinbam Award for international development. The award recognizes her tireless volunteer efforts for 15 years in supporting access to education for women and girls in Afghanistan. Canadians are rightly proud of this work to raise awareness of human rights and the importance of education as a pathway to peace in Afghanistan.

This year the organization launched a new fundraising campaign, the lantern fund, based on an Afghan proverb that a teacher is the candle that burns to enlighten others. Experience has shown that when we invest in the education of female students, we contribute to the development of an entire society. The goal is to raise $2 million over five years to sustain teacher training programs in rural Afghan communities. Today, on the UN day of the child, I call on the government to commit to supporting this peace-building initiative through improved quality of public education for Afghan children.

(1415) National Child Day Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today marks the celebration of the Universal Children's Day and Canada's 20th annual National Child Day. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the protection and welfare needs of Canadian children who are most vulnerable are a priority for our government. Yesterday the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs responsible for Consular and the Minister of Justice launched the new vulnerable children's consular unit.

This new unit includes an increased number of specialized case management officers and specialized policy advisers who will provide better support in cases like child welfare, abduction, and forced marriage. The vulnerable children's consular unit will help resolve these difficult and complex cases more quickly, it will help prevent them, and it will improve interdepartmental and federal-provincial collaboration.

We are proud of Canada's leadership status in international children's issues, and this is just another way that our Conservative government is moving forward to protect and support Canadian children and parents.

Conservative Party of Canada Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as the RCMP closes in on the former chief of staff to the Conservative Prime Minister and prepares to lay criminal charges, most senior Conservatives are only now trying to distance themselves from their old friend Nigel Wright. When this scandal first broke and Nigel Wright allegedly resigned, Conservatives were lining up to praise him. The Minister of Industry said: Nigel Wright is a great Canadian. Canada is stronger because of his service as Chief of Staff to our Prime Minister.

The Minister of Public Safety lamented: Saddened by the departure of an honest and loyal public servant. Thank you Nigel for your service to our nation. The Minister of Democratic Reform also mourned the loss of Mr. Wright. He said: Saddened to hear of Nigel Wright's departure. He is an honourable man, and great Canadian. When Canadians first learned about Nigel Wright's secret $90,000 payment to Senator Duffy, applaud as they might, they are now outraged by the corruption in the PMO— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country .

Iran Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has impressed some people around the world by showing a willingness to talk and simply not being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The world is hopeful that President Rouhani might usher in a new

chapter of respect for human rights in Iran. However, since he came into office in August, there have been at least 125 executions carried out in Iran by the clerical regime, adding to Iran's abysmal human rights record. I note that a Canadian-led resolution on the human rights situation in Iran passed the third committee at the United Nations yesterday. This year, 46 countries joined Canada to co-sponsor this important resolution. This resolution sends a clear message to the Iranian regime. While the world is hopeful for improvement in human rights, the international community will not be fooled by Rouhani's charm offensive. Deeds matter far more than words.

Conservative Party of Canada Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Rob Ford scandal is not just troubling; it is driving up borrowing costs and damaging Toronto's economy. Recently, Conservatives were saying he was “...a great mayor...doing a wonderful job”. The Prime Minister himself recently appeared at a press conference with Mayor Ford. Yesterday, some non-Toronto Conservatives, perhaps with their own ambitions in mind, started distancing themselves. The Minister of Employment and Social Development even demanded that the PM's fishing buddy resign.

Not only is his caucus divided on Rob Ford, but his explanations for the Senate scandal are quickly unravelling. The PM claimed his office was not being investigated, but today police accused his former top aide, Nigel Wright, of breaking the law. The PM claimed he found out in May about a “secret agreement”, but today we find out his staff briefed him last February. While Conservatives make up stories to explain their scandals and cover-ups, people know they can trust the NDP to defend taxpayers, and all Conservative— The Speaker : The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

(1420) Member for Scarborough—Agincourt Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has improved financial benefits and programs for Canadian veterans right across the board. Since 2011, the minister, on the advice of veterans, stakeholders, and advisory groups, has implemented 160 recommendations, yet some in this place disagree with that practice and feel veterans cannot be trusted with their own finances.

They have commented, and I quote, “...that's like hanging a case of beer in front of a drunk....They...go and spend it, either trying to buy a house...a fast car or spending it on booze or addiction”. Do members know who said that? It was the Liberal Party of Canada, the same party that brought us the decade of darkness. I call on the leader of the Liberal Party to fire his spokesman immediately for his disrespect and, quite frankly, ignorant and uninformed comments.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, is there anything the Prime Minister wants to change about what he has said concerning the Senate expense scandal? [ English ] Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear. As soon as I learned of this matter on May 15, we made that matter public. We have taken appropriate actions against Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy who now, as the RCMP confirmed, are the individuals under investigation on this matter. Hon.

Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear. The Prime Minister just said that he did not know until May 15, but unfortunately for him, on May 14, Nigel Wright wrote that the Prime Minister in fact did know that he, Wright, had “personally assisted Duffy”. Is that true? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. It is right in the documents about what Mr. Wright told the RCMP. He said he told me that Senator Duffy had agreed to repay the money.

He told me that he did not inform me of his personal decision to pay that money himself. When I learned of that, I took the appropriate action. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps trying to hold onto a detail. We are talking about the whole scheme that took place in his office. On February 22, Nigel Wright wrote, “I do want to speak to the PM before everything is considered final...”. An hour later he wrote, “We are good to go from the PM...”. What did the Prime Minister approve during that hour? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this is answered right in the RCMP documents. They say that Nigel Wright said the Prime Minister was aware on February 22 that Senator Duffy had agreed to repay the money. I later learned on May 15 that was not true, and let me tell members what the conclusion of the RCMP is on this. After months of interviews and review of documents, the investigator says he is not aware of any evidence that the Prime Minister was involved in the repayment or reimbursement of money to Senator Duffy or his lawyer. The RCMP could not be clearer on this. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, “We are good to go”. Good to go with what? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, good to go with Mr. Duffy repaying his own expenses, as he has acknowledged I told him to personally, as he told everybody he had done, including the Canadian public; and when we found that was not true, we took the appropriate action, and he has been appropriately sanctioned by the Senate.

(1425) Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on May 28, when the Prime Minister was first questioned about the deal with Mike Duffy, he said that he never gave “any” instruction to his staff on how to handle the Duffy scandal, but we now know from court documents that Nigel Wright went to the Prime Minister for approval of the deal. Why did the Prime Minister say something to Parliament that he knew was not true? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear, I was told that Mr.

Duffy was going to repay the money himself, something he announced on national television for everybody. That story proved not to be true. When I learned that it was not true from Mr. Wright, on May 15, we took the appropriate action, and that is why Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy are now under investigation. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve leaders who tell the truth. The RCMP revealed this morning that the Prime Minister 's Office was guilty of corruption and that the government had been covering it up for months.

Does the Prime Minister still believe that he bears no responsibility for the corruption in his own office? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, what the RCMP has confirmed in its documents today is that two individuals, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright, are under investigation for their actions in this matter and it has also confirmed that this Prime Minister has been telling exactly the truth. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, for months, Canadians across the country have had doubts about what this government has been telling them.

Today, we learned that the Prime Minister did in fact mislead the House. Canadians expect better from their leaders. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility and agree to testify under oath? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP confirmed two things today. First, it confirmed that Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy are under investigation in this matter. Second, it found that the Prime Minister told the whole truth in this matter. [ English ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, when the member for Edmonton—St.

Albert said that the Conservative caucus had become what it once mocked, non-answers like that were what he meant. Two weeks ago everyone in the Conservative caucus could have stood up for Canadians and, instead, chose to stand up to help their leader cover up this scandal. When will the Prime Minister finally put his country ahead of his party and tell Canadians the truth? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it was only a few sitting days ago that the Senate was asked to pronounce judgment on senators who had behaved inappropriately.

Conservative senators voted to sanction to those members. Liberal senators, of course, voted not to do that, voted to protect those senators, which is very consistent with the kind of Communist dictatorship that the member so admires. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright said that he went to see the Prime Minister to get his approval. It is written in black and white in the documents the RCMP filed in court. Is the Prime Minister trying to tell us that Nigel Wright is a liar?

(1430) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is written in black and white that Mr. Wright said that Mr. Duffy was going to repay his own expenses. It was not until later that he decided not to. When I learned of that, I immediately took the appropriate action. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Actually, Mr. Speaker, in those documents what Nigel Wright does in fact say is that the Prime Minister knew that he had “personally assisted Mike Duffy with repaying his expenses”.

Did the Prime Minister ask Nigel Wright what personal assistance he had given to Mike Duffy, yes or no? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the RCMP interviewed Mr. Wright on this question, and he was extremely clear. He said that he did not tell the Prime Minister of his eventual personal decision to pay the $90,000 to Senator Duffy. It could not be clearer from Mr. Wright or from the RCMP. The hon. member should accept it. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps trying to hang his hat on the detail of the form of that personal assistance. He keeps avoiding the clear question as to whether or not he knew that Nigel Wright had personally assisted Mike Duffy. Could he tell Canadians what he knew? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is in black and white that I did not know. The RCMP confirms it. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition , it did not take it 17 years to figure that out. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, was the Prime Minister aware of the original plan to pay back Mike Duffy's expenses using Conservative Party money or not? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, my position has been that Mr. Duffy had to pay back his own expenses. When I learned that that was not what he had done, I took the appropriate action. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Senator Irving Gerstein have said that the Conservative Party never agreed to repay any of Mike Duffy's expenses.

However, on February 22, Nigel Wright wrote that he had “the go-ahead from Gerstein to tell Mike Duffy” that “there will be an arrangement to keep him whole on the repayment to cover it”. Is the Prime Minister saying that Nigel Wright was lying about that too? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that Mr. Wright repaid Mr. Duffy's expenses, although the two of them let it be known, to the contrary, that it was Mr. Duffy himself who had repaid his expenses. That was obviously not the appropriate thing to do.

That is why those two individuals have been sanctioned and are under further investigation. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister acknowledged that his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, was under investigation. The RCMP says that it believes the Prime Minister 's chief of staff committed bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Who else in his office knew? Who else was involved? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to cite the RCMP, he would note that it is these two individuals who are under investigation for what was an improper payment, I think something Mr. Wright himself admits. That is the appropriate thing, that those who undertook these actions be held responsible and accountable. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, actually, the question was, “Who else was involved?

Who else knew?” June 5, the Prime Minister said in the House that it was no one but Nigel Wright; October 24, the Prime Minister said in the House that a few people knew; in these documents, 12 people are aware of it. That is the real question. Who else was involved? Who else knew?

(1435) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the record is very clear. From all documents, the sole responsibility for these actions rests with Mr. Wright and with Mr. Duffy. That is why these two individuals are under investigation. Mr. Wright has accepted his responsibility and co-operated fully. That is not the case for Mr. Duffy. We will ensure that we provide all co-operation and assistance to ensure that those who are responsible are held accountable. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, on November 7 the Prime Minister claimed that his office was not under investigation. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that his office was not under investigation to the best of his knowledge. In the 80 pages of court documents released today, the RCMP listed 12 top Conservative officials whose emails were being investigated. That list includes half a dozen staff from the Prime Minister 's Office. How many in the Prime Minister 's Office have been under investigation? How many have to be under investigation before the Prime Minister admits that his office is indeed under criminal investigation?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the documents make clear there are two individuals who are under investigation, Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy, as has been said from the outset of this affair. Let me say specifically, what the RCMP says about the PMO. The RCMP investigator reports that he had “clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation the RCMP requested”. That is exactly what we have done. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is nice reading.

It just has nothing to do with the question. [ Translation ] Senator Gerstein was asked to pay for Duffy's fraudulent expenses. He was then asked to talk to Deloitte to try to manipulate the audit process. Who ordered him to do everything in his power to fudge the results of the audit? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP clearly said that Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy are the ones under investigation here. We obviously expect the RCMP to continue its work and we will provide assistance to ensure that these individuals are held accountable. [ English ] Hon.

Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, according to RCMP affidavits, Senator Irving Gerstein, the Conservative Party money man, planned to use donors' money, illegally, to pay off Mike Duffy. He even picked up the phone to call Deloitte's to have it back off on audit, and he was not even a member of the audit committee. Therefore, why is Senator Irving Gerstein a member of the Conservative caucus? In fact, why is he even a senator at all? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what is very clear from the documents that have been put into the courts is that this, again, is between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy. What is also very clear is that the Prime Minister , as stated by the RCMP, had given clear orders to provide complete co-operation and assistance with this investigation, in contrast to the Liberals, who always protect the status quo. We always stand up for taxpayers and the Prime Minister is, again, showing the type of leadership that Canadians have come to depend on: open and honest government.

That is what they can always rely upon from Conservatives. [ Translation ] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, under oath, a member of the RCMP told a judge that several crimes were committed in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. The RCMP also confirmed that Nigel Wright engaged in corruption in his official capacity as chief of staff and that Mr. Wright waited for the Prime Minister 's approval before carrying out his plan. Is the Prime Minister waiting for the RCMP to break down the front door of 24 Sussex before he tells Canadians the truth? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what the RCMP has said confirms that the Prime Minister did not know about this. That is something the Prime Minister has been saying for months. Those members refuse to listen. Had the Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. The RCMP says that it has absolutely no evidence that shows the Prime Minister knew. Also, the Prime Minister has been saying, right from the beginning, that we would co-operate and assist the investigation in any way possible.

Those were the orders given by the Prime Minister to his office, and the RCMP has confirmed that is what has happened. An open, accountable, transparent government is what Canadians want. That is what they get from the Prime Minister day in and day out.

(1440) Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians realize the seriousness of this situation. An RCMP officer swore an affidavit before a judge stating that three crimes took place in the Prime Minister's Office. The RCMP swears that Nigel Wright acted corruptly in his official duties as the Prime Minister 's chief of staff, but only after explicitly getting the Prime Minister's go-ahead. Therefore, what is the Prime Minister waiting for? For the RCMP to kick down the door at 24 Sussex Drive before telling Canadians the truth? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what the RCMP said was that the Prime Minister immediately ordered his PMO to co-operate and to assist with the investigation, and that is what it did. What it also said was that the Prime Minister did not know anything about this. What the Prime Minister has said is that had he known, he would have in no way endorsed this. The Liberals know nothing about accountability. They have a leader who praises dictatorships. His main priority is the legalization of marijuana.

As for the member for Medicine Hat 's outstanding question— Mr. LaVar Payne : Where's the $40 million? Mr. Paul Calandra : Where is the 40 million bucks? Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. I think just one member at a time needs to answer questions. The hon. member for Halifax. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister explain how it was possible for him to claim last May that he had no knowledge of the legal agreement with Mike Duffy, when PMO emails released by the police show that Nigel Wright got authorization for the deal in February? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House on a number of occasions, Senator Duffy approached the Prime Minister , and the Prime Minister said to him, “Repay any expenses that you did not incur.” It has been quite obvious. Since February, he was told that. He then went on TV and told people he had paid and had taken a mortgage out on his home. That was wrong. The RCMP confirmed that this Prime Minister did not know about the arrangement.

Had the Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. Nigel Wright has to accept the consequences of what he has done. Senator Duffy should accept the consequences of what he has done, and the NDP and Liberals should stop defending the status quo. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer to the question, so let us try again. Documents from February 22 of this year say, “We are good to go from the PM once Ben has his confirmation from Payne”. This was about the Prime Minister 's lawyer negotiating with Mike Duffy's lawyer.

What did the Prime Minister say to Nigel Wright on February 22 that gave him the go-ahead? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what he said, not only to Senator Duffy but to all of caucus, was, “Repay the expenses that you did not incur”. It is a very simple instruction. If they have an expense they did not incur, they had better repay it, or they are not going to get the support of this caucus. We did not tell Senator Duffy to go on TV and lie to people about how he had repaid those expenses. He made that decision on his own.

Nigel Wright made the decision on his own. These two people are under investigation. What is very clear is this: Had this Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such an action. The RCMP confirmed that, and the RCMP confirmed that this Prime Minister is assisting in every way possible. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on February 22, Nigel Wright sent an email to Benjamin Perrin and other individuals at the Prime Minister's Office.

In this email regarding the agreement to repay Duffy's illegal claims, Nigel Wright wrote, “I now have the go-ahead on point 3, with a couple stipulations”. Who gave approval to Nigel Wright? Was it the Prime Minister ? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, the Prime Minister not only told Senator Duffy but all of caucus, including MPs and senators, that if they had any inappropriate expenses, they had to repay those expenses.

It has been very clear for months that this is the standard this Prime Minister has expected. What is also very clear is that the Prime Minister did not know. That is in these documents. What is also very clear is that the Prime Minister ordered his office to co-operate and to assist in any way possible. That is real leadership. Members can contrast that to the leader of the NDP, who waited 17 years and could not figure out if he got a bribe, yes or no. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, but it does not answer the question.

Wright had approval with a couple stipulations. I would like to quote what Nigel Wright said about one of these stipulations: I would like to understand who if anyone Sen. Duffy ever intends to inform about point 3.... I assume that I know the answer, but I would like it to be explicit. For its part, the Party would not inform anyone. Was the Prime Minister aware of the third point of this repayment agreement? (1445) [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again, on February 13, Senator Duffy approached the Prime Minister , and he told Senator Duffy to repay any inappropriate expenses. That is what he was told. Senator Duffy then went on TV and told a different story. We know that was not true. We also know that the Prime Minister did not know. It was confirmed by RCMP documents that he did not know. Had he known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme.

What is also very important is the leadership this Prime Minister has shown in helping and assisting in the investigation and in making sure that the RCMP have access to whatever they need on this investigation. That is real leadership, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition , who waited 17 years.

Justice Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, online intimidation has been a factor in the tragic suicides of several Canadian teenagers. Our hearts and prayers go out to the families of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons, Todd Loik, and all of those who have been tragically affected by cyberbullying. Our government has been clear that there is a point where bullying goes beyond just bullying and becomes criminal behaviour. One of the most egregious forms of cyberbullying is the posting of intimate images of people against their will.

Can the Prime Minister please update this House on the action our government will take to protect Canadians from online crime? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and her interest in this issue. [ Translation ] Too many young lives have been lost in Canada as a result of bullying, and more recently as a result of cyberbullying. [ English ] I have met with victims of these families, and we have pledged to take action. Today our government will be tabling legislation on these specific matters.

Let me just say, I think we all understand here that nothing we do can bring back the precious lives that have been lost, but hopefully the actions we are taking today will do some things to change things in the future and will also provide these families with some sense that their concerns are taken seriously and some sense of justice for their daughters.

[ Translation ] Ethics Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Senator Gerstein was asked to pay Mr. Duffy's fraudulent expenses. Then he was asked to talk to Deloitte to meddle with the audit report that the firm was preparing. We want to know who ordered him to do everything in his power to manipulate Deloitte's findings. Who was it? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, had the Prime Minister known anything about this, he would have in no way endorsed this scheme. The RCMP confirmed that the Prime Minister did not know. The RCMP have also stated that the Prime Minister has ordered his office to be co-operative and to assist in any way possible. When we talk about honesty in government, this is a member who ran as a federalist but continues to support separatist causes in this country. When we talk about being open and honest, he should maybe be open and honest with constituents. Is he a federalist, or is he separatist?

That would be a good starting point. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we learned about the Prime Minister 's peculiar math. All of a sudden, one person can turn into a few people, even 12 people. That is a rather interesting calculation. Irving Gerstein clearly tried to manipulate the results of an audit of Conservative senators' expenses. Mr. Gerstein is the director of fundraising for the Conservative Party. Why is this fraudster, this manipulator, still on the public payroll? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I know. Only this member can tell us who the fundraising chair for Québec solidaire is, because he has made 29 separate donations to them. What this is about is Senator Duffy incurring expenses that he was not entitled to. He needed to pay those back. At the same time, he went on TV and told Canadians that he did that. That was wrong. We know that Nigel Wright did that. That was also wrong. Nigel Wright has accepted sole and full responsibility.

The additional information we have today confirms that the Prime Minister's Office has been open and honest and has provided any assistance needed and that the Prime Minister did not know, and had he, he would have never approved such--

(1450) The Speaker : The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, documents released by the RCMP today show us that Senator Gerstein was brought in for discussions with Deloitte about paying back Mike Duffy's expenses. I guess the cover-up theory was that they would pay back the expenses, and they would make the audit go away. When the Prime Minister was briefed about this deal on February 22, was he informed that Senator Gerstein had been brought in for the discussions with Deloitte about Mike Duffy's audit? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, on February 13, the Prime Minister told not only MPs but senators, “If you have expenses that you did not incur, you should repay those expenses”. He said that on a number of occasions in the House. I have said that on a number of occasions. That is the standard that we expect on this side of the House. I think that is the standard all Canadians expect. We also learned on May 15 that the story Senator Duffy had told about repaying those expenses on his own was not true.

That is why, of course, the Prime Minister has stated that had he known, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. Also, he has shown leadership in making sure that his office provides any assistance necessary on this matter. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I noticed in his little run through the calendar, he jumped over the date of February 22, when he was briefed on this. What we also learned from the RCMP file is that Privy Council employee Chris Montgomery objected to this scheme, and he warned that the senators were actually compromising themselves.

However, the scheme went on, and Mr. Montgomery was soon gone. Who moved Chris Montgomery out of the way and instructed Senator Gerstein and Senator Tkachuk to whitewash an audit into the potential misspending by Mike Duffy? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what is clear in the documents we received today is that the Prime Minister ordered his office to co-operate and to assist in any way possible. However, having this member talk about ethics is very strange.

Let me quote something: “This was the first hint of what the Commission considers to be inappropriate involvement by a Member of Parliament in the electoral distribution process”. Who is that talking about? It is the member for Timmins—James Bay . Maybe in a supplementary question we will talk about the other member of the NDP who also was implicated in trying to gerrymander their ridings. Then maybe we could talk about the 17 years it took the Leader of the Opposition to disclose the bribe he— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Wascana. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the RCMP believe there was a broad-based conspiracy within and beyond the Prime Minister's Office to cover up Mike Duffy's situation. The police believe that conspiracy involved the commission of criminal offences. The players were all the Prime Minister 's senior entourage: Wright and Duffy, Perrin and Woodcock, Rogers, Novak, van Hemmen, Hamilton and Byrne, Gerstein, LeBreton, Tkachuk, Stewart-Olsen. Now we know the PCO was involved too. Despite their denials, a paper trail is on their computers. Who told the Privy Council Office to lie to this House? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously, he did not read any part of the report, because this is what it says: “...the PMO, advised my office that he had clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation the RCMP requested”. That is what is actually in the report.

It also goes on to say, “I am not aware of any evidence that the Prime Minister was involved in the repayment or reimbursement of money to Senator Duffy or his lawyer.” He can get up in this House and make all kinds of accusations, but the facts are what the facts are. When it comes to showing leadership, it is this Prime Minister who shows it every day. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told us that after he ordered Duffy, on February 13, to repay his expenses, he, the Prime Minister, heard nothing further until May 15, but from the RCMP documents today, that cannot be true.

There was at least one later briefing by Wright, and maybe others. At least in broad terms, the Prime Minister knew Wright had some personal role. This was the Prime Minister's Office: his staff, his lawyers, his most trusted inner circle. Would any CEO in the private sector keep his job if so much got screwed up on his watch? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, this is a member who was a minister in a government that took $40 million. I do not remember him losing his job.

Members can contrast that to the leadership of this Prime Minister , who, when he found out on May 15, ordered the Prime Minister's Office to co-operate and assist the RCMP in this investigation. That is real leadership. That is the type of leadership they get from this Prime Minister day in and day out. That is why Canadians keep rewarding this side of the House with electoral victories, because they know they can trust us to put their needs first.

(1455) Housing Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today a rally for affordable housing was held on Parliament Hill, and no Conservative even bothered to show up. While the Liberals were in power they eliminated funding for affordable housing, until NDP leader Jack Layton forced them to start investing again. Now the Conservatives are threatening to end affordable housing agreements, putting 200,000 more families at risk. When will the Conservatives do the right thing, restore long-term funding, and commit to addressing this housing crisis? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in point in fact, all the NDP does on housing is attend protests. This government actually provides housing to people who need it. Every year, we provide support for nearly 600,000 individuals and families with subsidized housing. CMHC provided mortgage subsidies for long-term 25- to 50-year agreements. With housing first, what we are actually doing, instead of funding advocacy and political work, is actually giving people the shelter they need with action, not just talk. [ Translation ] Ms.

Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that does not seem to be sufficient. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Food Banks Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities all agree that the federal government needs to address the housing crisis. In Montreal, the cost of housing has increased by 40% in 10 years. This is unsustainable for Canadian families. Will the minister commit to provide long-term funding to solve the housing crisis? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, all the NDP members ever do about housing is attend protests. The government is working to provide housing for Canadians in need. That is why, every year, we provide support for almost 600,000 Canadians and their families through subsidized housing. With our new housing first program, we are ensuring that resources are reserved for families who need housing, not funding political work.

[ English ] Public Safety Hon. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne made it very clear that our government will remain committed to protecting public safety and that we will take targeted action to increase the safety of the transportation of dangerous goods. This has become an increasing concern, particularly in my riding because of recent derailments. Can the Minister of Transport tell the House what additional measures our government is taking to further enhance the safety of the transportation of dangerous goods? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank the hon. member for his direct work in the derailment that did happen in Gainford, Alberta. He was there for his constituents and he served the public very well in that matter. I am very pleased today to speak of the fact that we have issued a protective directive in order to ensure that Canadian municipalities have the information they need in order to provide appropriate emergency planning, training, and information to first responders in communities where the transportation of dangerous goods happens.

I think it is an excellent communication between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the railway companies, and of course, ourselves. We should be very proud moving forward.

Transportation Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government is aware that the contract for the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service expires at the end of March. I hope the government is aware of how critical this transportation link is. It is so important to the economy of Prince Edward Island and Pictou County in Nova Scotia. Can the minister indicate to the House when a new contract will be signed? Will the contract maintain the service at its present level. Will the contract be for five years or more? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, of course the government is aware of its importance, and that is exactly why the Minister of Fisheries announced in June of last year our commitment of $13 million for this ferry to ensure that it continued to serve the needs of the community in Prince Edward Island. We are very proud of the work we do with our eastern ferries to ensure that we have good service and good transportation links across this country, and we will continue to work with the communities.

(1500) Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, who ordered the whitewashing of the Deloitte audit into Senate expenses? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I know this is troubling for the leader of the NDP because of the contrast to his waiting 17 years to talk about the fact that he was offered a bribe. He sees the trouble now that Quebec is going through because of his delay in speaking about that.

When he contrasts himself to the Prime Minister who, as soon as he found out, took immediate action, opened up his office and ordered them to co-operate and assist the RCMP, I know he must be embarrassed because there is no way he can compare to the Prime Minister when it comes to open, accountable, reliable government. The Prime Minister shows that leadership every single day.

Immigration Mr. Ed Holder (London West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for London West, I was terribly saddened to hear of the tragic events surrounding the Walji family. It was a shock to our whole community. Some media reports and even opposition politicians have implied that the immigration system has somehow failed the Walji family. Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please advise the House on what measures were taken to help the Walji family? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada, and I hope on behalf of all members of this place, I would like to extend condolences to the Walji family's friends and loved ones. Although this matter is still under investigation, let me assure the House that this family was offered several opportunities to become permanent residents. They were offered a pathway to permanent residence and that path was not taken.

On this side of the House, we are engaged in mourning the tragic loss of this family and we will not engage, like some in the opposition, in politicizing cases of this sort, as the member for London—Fanshawe has done, for example. We encourage everyone to join us in mourning this tragic loss of life.

The Environment Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on October 31, a tailings pond dike at the former Obed Mountain coal mine near Hinton, Alberta, failed, releasing one billion litres of toxic coal slurry into the Athabasca River. The resulting toxic plume is travelling north and is expected to cross into the Northwest Territories within two weeks. As protection of transboundary and northern waterways is a federal jurisdiction, what is Environment Canada doing to protect northern Canadians from this toxic spill? Mr.

Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada is supporting the province and providing assistance as required. Environment Canada's enforcement officers are looking into the situation, and our government will continue to take action against those who break our environmental laws.

[ Translation ] Securities Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, the chief executives of leading Quebec companies—such as COGECO, Québecor, Couche-Tard, Metro and Jean Coutu—are again condemning the federal government, which wants to establish a national securities commission. These entrepreneurs say that this move will result in the loss of influence and expertise, distance capital from Quebec companies, kill jobs and weaken Montreal's economy. The worst thing is that the federal government is attacking a system that works very well.

Why is the federal government so bent on stripping Montreal of its financial expertise and hindering the development of Quebec companies? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only developed country in the world without a single securities regulator. That is why we have been working with the provinces and the territories to establish a single securities regulator for some time. We are pleased to have recently announced the establishment of a co-operative regulator with Ontario and British Columbia.

This regulator will promote jobs and growth by better protecting investors, enhancing Canada's financial services sector, supporting efficient capital markets, and managing systemic risk. I strongly encourage all provinces and territories to join in this participation as well.

Points of Order Afghan Veterans Monument Points of Order Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, regarding the comments I made during the debate last night in the House, I would like to correct the record. Canadian veterans can be confident that their military service record and any active Veterans Affairs files are available to veterans.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1505) [ English ] Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) Bill C-13. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary Delegations Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the visit of the defence and security committee, Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, Washington, D.C., and Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A., February 1 to 5, 2012; the meeting of the standing committee, Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, in Ljubljana, Slovenia, March 31, 2012; the joint visit of the 79th Rose-Roth seminar and the Mediterranean and Middle East special group, Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, Marseille, France, May 11 to 13, 2012; the joint meeting of the defence and security committee, economics and security committee, and the joint political committee and the economics and security committee, Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, Brussels, Belgium, and Paris, France, February 24 to 28, 2013; the subcommittee on east-west economic co-operation and convergence, Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, Marakesh, Morocco, April 3 to 5, 2013; the meeting of the standing committee and the secretaries of delegation, Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, Copenhagen, Denmark, March 22 to 24, 2013; and finally, the 2013 spring session, Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, Luxembourg, May 17 to 20, 2013.

Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation in a number of events: first, the 2013 annual meeting of the Western Governors’ Association that was held in Park City, Utah, United States of America, from June 28 to 30, 2013; the 68th annual meeting of the Council of States Governments, Midwestern Legislative Conference, held in St.

Paul, Minnesota, United States of America, from July 14 to 17, 2013; the 2013 annual meeting of the National Governors Association that was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from August 1 to 4, 2013; and last, the annual legislative summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures that was held in Atlanta, Georgia, from August 12 to 15, 2013.

Committees of the House Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in relation to supplementary estimates B, 2013-14.

Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from Kim Thomas of Cochrane, Alberta, in my riding, whose 17-year-old son Brandon was tragically killed by a drunk driver. The petitioner, in honour of her son's memory, has taken it upon herself to collect over 1,000 signatures of individuals looking for tougher impaired driving laws in this country and calling upon the government to seek tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

The petitioners are also asking for the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.

(1510) Animal Welfare Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of thousands of Canadians who are concerned about cruelty to animals. They note that animals are capable of feeling pain and that those who abuse animals should face conviction and significant penalties. The petitioners call upon the government to stop being soft on crime against animals, to amend the Criminal Code to recognize animals as beings that can feel pain, and to close the loopholes that allow abusers to escape penalties.

Motor Vehicle Safety Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have another petition. It calls upon the government to mandate side guards on all trucks in order to save pedestrians' and cyclists' lives, as well as to save fuel. The petitioners note that another cyclist died under the back wheels of a truck without side guards. This accident occurred in my riding of Trinity—Spadina.

Pensions Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition. It calls on the government to keep the eligibility for old age security at 65 years, not 67 years, and to enhance the pension system through the guaranteed income supplement program so that all seniors can be lifted out of poverty.

Canada Post Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the last petition I would like to present on behalf of my constituents calls on the federal government to instruct Canada Post to halt its plan to downsize and downgrade public post offices and to consult with the public and others to improve the Canadian Postal Service Charter by developing a better process for making changes. The Speaker : I see several members rising to present petitions, so perhaps we can keep our summaries as brief as possible. I will just remind members that it is our tradition not to actually read the petition, but to summarize it.

Genetically Modified Organisms Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table two petitions from constituents in my riding of Guelph who are concerned about the negative impact of genetically modified organisms on all aspects of the Canadian agricultural sector. Their concerns range from possible irreversible genetic contamination to the rights of individual farmers to be able to save their own seed and the long-term health implications of GMOs. The petitioners request an immediate moratorium on the licensing and release of new GMOs. They also request an independent review of existing GMOs that have already been released on the market.

Sambro Island Lighthouse Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by over 2,000 citizens from across Nova Scotia asking that the federal government continue funding the Sambro Island lighthouse. This lighthouse is the oldest in the Americas. It was built in the late 1700s. It continues to stand as a gateway to Halifax Harbour and to Sambro. This is a historic lighthouse. It is of national historic importance, and the Government of Canada needs to continue to fund it.

The Environment Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government is expecting the people of Toronto to say “yes” to the line 9 pipeline, notwithstanding difficulties with the company in terms of its environmental record, notwithstanding the difficulty that people have had in intervening in the process, and not withstanding the fact that the government has stripped environmental protection for new pipeline development. The people who signed this petition cannot say “yes” to that.

[ Translation ] The Budget Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to present several petitions signed by hundreds of Quebeckers. The petitioners want the Minister of Finance in particular to do whatever is necessary to reverse the government's decision to eliminate the 15% federal tax credit granted to investors who pay into labour-sponsored funds, as announced in the budget on March 21, 2013.

[ English ] Toronto Island Airport Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions today signed by citizens in and around my riding of Beaches—East York in Toronto. Both petitions have to do with the Toronto Island airport. The first petition calls on the government of Canada to block any changes to the tripartite agreement that would allow jet airplanes or extensions of the Toronto Island airport runways, to stop subsidizing Porter Airlines, and to compel the Toronto Port Authority to pay millions of dollars in back taxes owed to the people of Toronto.

(1515) Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the Government of Canada to amend the good neighbour policy to extend an eight-mile radius, to set out an altitude of not less than 2,500 feet, and to make this new policy mandatory, with emergency exceptions only.

[ Translation ] Labour-Sponsored Funds Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are worried about the government's decision to eliminate the 15% federal tax credit granted to investors who pay into labour-sponsored funds. They are calling on the Minister of Finance to reverse that decision, and they are quite right to do so.

[ English ] Search and Rescue Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions from thousands of Canadians right across the country who state that they are opposed to the Government of Canada's decision to close the Canadian Coast Guard marine communications and traffic services centres in St. John's, Newfoundland; St. Anthony, Newfoundland; Saint John, New Brunswick; Rivière-au-Renard, Quebec; Montreal, Quebec; Thunder Bay, Ontario; Vancouver, B.C.; Tofino, B.C.; Comox, B.C.; and Inuvik, Northwest Territories.

As well, the petitioners oppose the closure of the Coast Guard marine rescue centres in Quebec City, St. John's, and Kitsilano. The petitioners urge the government to acknowledge that the cuts to staff and the closure of the centres threaten the lives of fishers and other mariners and put the marine environment at risk. They call for the reversal of these decisions.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in my next petition, the petitioners are calling on the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure responsible conservation and management of sharks. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins.

Rail Transportation Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of residents in the Sarnia—Lambton area who are concerned about cuts to the rail passenger service. It is important for young students, seniors, and families, and it is particularly important for smaller communities and their economies. The petitioners are calling on the government and VIA Rail to reverse the cuts that have been made across Canada and to re-establish this rail service for passengers.

[ Translation ] Mining Companies Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by many people from Ahuntsic who want mining companies operating abroad to be regulated.

Air Transportation Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the other petition I wish to present is from another group of citizens. It has to do with ADM and the noise caused by aircraft flying over Ahuntsic. The petitioners are calling on us to take an interest in this matter. They would like two positions to be created on ADM's board of directors to be filled by representatives of the people, as well as two other positions on the Soundscape Consultative Committee. The petitioners are calling for some interesting changes regarding management of the noise caused by aircraft flying overhead.

[ English ] Hydraulic Fracking Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of several residents of Prince Edward Island, including some from the great riding of Charlottetown. The petitioners are concerned about the practice known as high-volume hydraulic fracking. This practice is of particular concern to us in Prince Edward Island because 100% of our drinking water comes from groundwater.

The petitioners point out that there is no definitive impartial report that can be used to either support or denounce fracking, so they are asking the government to have the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development study high-volume hydraulic fracking, and in particular its potential impacts on drinking water resources, air quality, human health, and the health of aquatic and terrestrial eco-systems, as well as the potential for seismic risks.

Navigable Waters Protection Act Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition from the residents of Fort Smith, Yellowknife, and other locations in the Northwest Territories. They call on Parliament to quickly pass Bill C-529 ,

an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act in relation to Slave River. It is a bill that would protect the Slave River under the Navigable Water Protection Act, a river that has been used for navigation for hundreds of years. Without this protection, the Slave River could be dammed or otherwise blocked without requiring any federal government intervention.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of many Canadians who are calling on our federal government to maintain stable and predictable long-term core funding for public broadcasting, including CBC radio and Radio-Canada. The petitioners feel the CBC plays an important role in reflecting Canadian culture nationally while at the same time serving many regional areas, including rural areas like northwestern Ontario.

(1520) Visitor Visas Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents with regard to the issue of visitor visas. The petitioners want to see extra consideration given to family members when visitor visas are being issued. Far too often, visas are turned down for family members who want to attend such things as weddings, birthdays, funerals, and many of the types of family moments when it is important for families to be together. The petitioners are asking that more attention be given to the need for making changes to allow more visas to be issued to family members.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) Bill C-11. Second reading moved that Bill C-11,

An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (priority hiring for injured veterans) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise before the House today to speak to this important issue and changes that will further enhance the way our government supports Canada's veterans and their families. It is also a pleasure to do so soon after our nation came together as one to express its great pride and profound gratitude for what these men and women and their families did for our country.

The outpouring of respect and admiration we saw from coast to coast to coast on Remembrance Day and throughout Veterans' Week was truly heartwarming and reassuring to me as Canada's Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have always believed that this support and recognition for veterans and still-serving members must extend year round, and the changes we are discussing today are another example of how our government is doing exactly that.

Before I turn to the specifics of the amendments before us, I would like to take a moment to talk about the reasons why we are proceeding with these changes and how they fit within our ongoing effort to help veterans and releasing members of the Canadian Armed Forces to make seamless transitions into civilian life. As Minister of Veterans Affairs and previously as the associate minister of national defence, I have had the privilege to see personally and up close why the men and women who have worn our nation's uniform and those who continue to wear it reflect the very best of who we are as Canadians.

I have been impressed by their skill and professionalism, their character and courage and their commitment to serve without hesitation or reservation. I have listened with pride and awe to their stories and experiences. I have been amazed by their modesty and have appreciated their frank discussions about the issues that matter most to them and their families. One concern I have heard many times is the challenge some of them have faced, or are facing, as they make the transition to civilian life. Central to this are the difficulties some experience trying to start rewarding new careers.

We know that former personnel sometimes face barriers trying to demonstrate how their military training, skills and experience translate into the civilian workforce. Our government understands this and that is why we have been doing everything we can to promote veterans' skill sets to potential employers.

That is why we were a founding partner and financial supporter of the Helmets to Hardhats Canada program that provides veterans with opportunities for employment and apprenticeship in the construction industry and why we launched our hire a veteran initiative in partnership with employers across the country to assist veterans in finding new and meaningful work. My department has been doing its part by specifically targeting veterans for hire by treating military experience as an asset in our selection process. Now our government is proud to take these efforts an important step further.

Through our proposed amendments to the Public Service Employment Act and through changes to its regulations, we are moving veterans to the front of the line when it comes to hiring qualified Canadians for federal public service jobs. With the proposed amendments before us, we will create a five-year statutory priority entitlement for Canadian veterans who are medically released for service-related reasons. This change will give veterans the highest level of consideration for jobs above all other groups in recognition of their sacrifice to Canada.

With this change, we are recognizing that while these men and women have suffered injuries that prevent them from continuing to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, they still have so much to contribute to our country. This is the right and honourable thing to do. Also, through changes to the act and accompanying regulations, full-time, regular and reserve force veterans who are medically released for non-service related reasons will see their existing level of priority extended from two to five years. This will also allow them a longer period of priority entitlement for positions they are qualified to fill.

Simply put, these changes will offer qualified veterans the employment and career opportunities that never existed before for those injured and while they were serving as members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

(1525) What is more, we will extend these opportunities to Canada's cadet organization administration and training services and to Rangers by adding them to the definition of who is considered “personnel” with the Canadian Armed Forces. Finally, the proposed amendments we make to this legislation will be retroactive to April 1, 2012. This means that if a veteran previously had priority status under the regulations and that status expired during the past 18 to 19 months, we will reinstate it with a full five years. It is the same for those veterans who still have priority entitlement.

We will extend that out to a full five years as well. We are doing all of these things because we believe veterans deserve such considerations and because Canada will also be better for it. For those of us who are fortunate enough to work with veterans on a daily basis, we understand that without these changes, we run the risk of continuing to lose the valuable contributions of highly-qualified individuals when they honourably end their military careers because of an injury or an illness.

That is why we believe these amendments are common sense and that is why it is incumbent upon us to work in close consultation with key partners such as the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Department of National Defence, so Canada can continue to reap dividends from having invested in and supported veterans' military careers, ensure our nation's workforce is bolstered and enriched by the contributions veterans have to offer and, most certainly, at the same time continue to provide injured and ill veterans with the chance to keep serving their country and develop their experience and skills in a civilian capacity.

The measures I have outlined today are yet another way we can continue to honour veterans in a meaningful and practical way and ensure they share in the wealth and security that they helped create. To summarize, every year, many military members transition out of the Canadian Armed Forces. For those Canadian Armed Forces members who cannot deploy and meet the demands of operations, finding meaningful employment is a key factor in making a successful transition to civilian life. When a position becomes open in the public service, different groups have different levels of access.

In spring 2014, when this regulation is expected to come into force, those regular force and reserve force members who are medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces for service-related reasons will receive a statutory priority for a period of five years. This will provide veterans with the highest level of priority consideration for public service positions above all other groups in recognition of their sacrifices and service to Canada. This recognition will also apply to their families. It will move veterans who are injured in the service of Canada to the front of the line.

Those full-time, regular or reserve force veterans who are released for non-service related medical reasons will continue to receive their existing level of priority. However, the duration of their access will be increased from two years to five years, allowing them a longer period of priority entitlement for positions. Veterans who make use of this measure must qualify for the postings they are seeking. The changes will apply to medically released veterans who received a priority entitlement on or after April 1, 2012.

When I announced this legislation in Toronto, Shaun Francis, the chair of True Patriot Love Foundation, said: The leadership skills, experience and expertise that our personnel develop in uniform is second to none, and makes them an invaluable asset to any new organization they choose to join...We are proud of our ongoing partnership with the Government of Canada to ensure that soldiers, sailors and air personnel can continue to build on the incredible commitment they have already shown to Canada.

(1530) In addition to the proposed legislative and regulatory changes, our government continues to work with corporate Canada to help veterans find new opportunities to successfully make the transition from military to civilian life. Partnering with corporate Canada allows veterans to put their training and skills acquired during their service to good use in the civilian workforce, while at the same time also providing a quality of life for themselves and their families.

We also provide opportunities to train and upscale their abilities to better qualify for available jobs in the federal public service and elsewhere. We recently announced in excess of $75,000 for such training and upscaling. I would like to close by calling upon all members of this honourable House to lend their full support to these important changes and ensure that our men and women, who have given so much to our country and who are now becoming our veterans, receive their full entitlement and our respectful support for this proposal. [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for introducing this bill to help military personnel make the transition to civilian life. I would like to ask the minister two questions. One of them concerns his bill and the other touches on a related matter. The minister mentioned in his speech that he is proud to be able to help veterans in their transition to civilian life through the Helmets to Hardhats program, which helps veterans find jobs in the construction industry. However, this program is not available in Quebec.

Quebec veterans are at a disadvantage compared to veterans in the rest of Canada who have access to this program. Therefore, I would like to ask the minister if he is working on other partnerships with the private sector, as requested by the ombudsman in one of his recent reports, such as partnerships with the aerospace industry or defence industry. Furthermore, the bill seems to have forgotten about a category of people. For example, a soldier with a non-service-related injury could ask the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) to overturn this decision. After two or three years, VRAB could recognize this.

Is the minister prepared to amend the bill to extend the deadline for someone whose appeal to the board to overturn the department's decision is successful? (1535) [ English ] Hon. Julian Fantino : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his concern for the well-being and welfare of our veterans and their families. I encourage him to lend support to this initiative as it will help along the way to achieve the best possible results in helping our veterans transition. With regard to the Helmets to Hardhats program, I do not know that there is any limitation as to who can avail themselves of the program.

We are partnering with the construction unions and the industry. I will look into the issue the member raised with respect to Quebec. I believe it is available nationwide, but I will make a specific inquiry and get back to the member with respect to that. With regard to the private sector, obviously this is an initiative that focuses on jobs in the federal public service. We also have other programs that we recently announced. There are $75,000-plus for upgrading skills and training for a veteran who may choose to embark on a career elsewhere. This is also available to a spouse or a related family member.

There is great buy-in on the part of corporate Canada to join with us in securing good jobs for our veterans and welcoming them into the workforce. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat amused to hear the hon. minister describe the Government of Canada as a financial partner in the Helmets to Hardhats program. Last year during the NHL playoffs, the Government of Canada was spending about $90,000 per ad on self-serving economic action plan ads. Its annual investment in the Helmets to Hardhats program is a little bit more than $100,000 for a website.

Would the minister please explain why economic action plan ads are a more important investment than the Helmets to Hardhats program? Hon. Julian Fantino : Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the hon. member for his expressed concern, but I wonder if he would also consider speaking to some of his folks with regard to helping us promote the good programs. His colleagues can obviously chime in, and every little bit helps. Helmets to Hardhats is a program that is in partnership with the corporate private sector.

This is another initiative, and if the hon. member has other ideas or suggestions, as Minister of Veterans Affairs I would welcome his input. However, let me also indicate that very often when these initiatives are put forward, the only thing we can contribute is rhetoric, and I hope that is not the case with the hon. member opposite. Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. minister for his hard work in bringing this piece of legislation forward to help our veterans and for his commitment and hard work toward not just the veterans but also the families of veterans. My question for the minister is this: how does this fit into his overall vocational rehabilitation plan? He just announced an increase to $75,800 of the cap for education. Also, I understand eventually this piece of legislation will appear before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Could he also highlight a message he has for members of the committee as to how we would like to deal with this in an expedient manner? Hon. Julian Fantino : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member not only for his question but for his efforts and great assistance and support in this particular area of veterans issues. One of the things we are trying to do is improve on many different fronts the response our government continues to make to veterans and their families; for example, since about 2005 some $5 billion of net new money has gone into programs and services and other support for veterans.

We have consistently improved on the new veterans charter, with enhancements that will in essence allow veterans to avail themselves of much more resources and support, up to and including cutting their grass, shovelling their snow or cleaning their homes, if they are not able to do it themselves.

That said, it is important to note as well that the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs has been requested, or commissioned, so to speak, to delve into the new veterans charter to see what improvements can be made to upgrade our response to continue to keep the veterans issues on the forefront, as we have been doing. To that end, I believe the committee will be acting post-haste in this particular area and we will receive back recommendations that will enable us to increase, enhance and continue to work on veterans issues.

(1540) Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank our veterans who serve us very bravely overseas over the years. We also have an obligation to take care of our veterans when they return from wars. In a number of cases, veterans have come to my office who are having a very difficult time accessing these benefits through the government. In my riding, there is a veteran who served in Afghanistan and came back and has been asked to wait five months before a psychological doctor can be seen. Literally, this veteran is out in the cold.

He is going to be out on the street. My question for the minister is this: why does it take five months to see a doctor so this veteran can get his benefits? Hon. Julian Fantino : Mr. Speaker, one thing I have learned in my lifetime is to never guess at giving answers when I do not have the facts. I do not know the facts, but if the member opposite would like to share— Mr. Speaker, the member can smile and ridicule all he wants. I do not have an answer to that. I do not know what he is talking about.

I am offering him the opportunity, as a reasonable, understanding person, if he wishes to pursue this issue, to have me listen to him. I would be more than happy to do that. Otherwise, I do not know what he is talking about. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing the comments of the minister with regard to looking for ways to support veterans who have been released from the armed forces. He did ask for ideas and input from the members on this side of the House; therefore, my question relates to the release process.

The legislation would actually complicate the release process and would potentially delay the released member's beginning to seek employment and so on, because of additional red tape. I was recently at the Legion Command for Alberta and Northwest Territories and met with some of the senior executives there. There are deep concerns about the release process already. The poppy fund is being used to bridge the gap when forces members are released, because the processing is so slow that they are not receiving any of the benefits to which they are entitled.

They are unable to pay the rent at times, and so the poppy fund is stepping in. How would the minister ensure that this additional red tape on the release process—a process that already is backlogged, not working and costing our recently released forces members—would not make it worse for all the members who are leaving the armed forces? Hon. Julian Fantino : Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely allergic to red tape. We are trying to find ways to streamline all of the services and support systems to veterans.

An example of that is the elimination of 1.2 million documents annually that Veterans Affairs Canada would have processed, and did process, with regard to expenses that were being incurred by veterans with respect to their very basic needs. For those who could not look after their own homes, Veterans Affairs Canada does that. However, having said all that, we would not be increasing bureaucracy. This is far from it. This would enable a streamlined effort to ensure a smooth transition between being serving members in the military and veterans.

Admittedly, this is the purpose of the comprehensive review of the new veterans charter. If there are hiccups, if there are issues, if there are concerns, if there are gaps, we encourage the member to bring those to the attention of the committee and they will be dealt with. (1545) [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-11 , introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs . This is only the second bill since the Conservative government came to power.

That is very little considering all the issues that have been raised, including in the ombudsman's reports, and the recommendations on how to improve the new veterans charter. It is a little disappointing that our government has so often ignored our national heroes over the past six years. The worst

part is that the new veterans charter was supposed to be a living document, but the bill we are about to debate does not deal with the new charter. Contrary to what the minister was saying in response to the parliamentary secretary, the new veterans charter has not been routinely improved; it was improved only once. When the charter was adopted in 2006, the concept of a living document meant that the charter would be amended as problems emerged. In the mission in Afghanistan, our troops suffered heavy losses.

There were 158 deaths, and over 2,000 wounded soldiers came back, not to mention those who will be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in the coming years. According to a recent study, that is 14% of our troops, but we suspect that the number of injured soldiers and soldiers affected by stress is much higher. It is against that backdrop that the new veterans charter was adopted by Parliament on the condition that it be a living document.

That meant that it was going to be amended a number of times if required, as needs arose, or if the charter proved to be inadequate, as has been shown by the issues and comments raised in the past two years. Since they came to power, the Conservatives have not kept that promise. The charter was amended only once in 2011, by means of Bill C-55 . After seven years, a minister has finally decided to review the new charter in its entirety. It is not official, however, because the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has not yet begun the official review.

As specified in Bill C-55, that study was supposed to have begun on October 4. Today is November 21 and the House adjourns on December 11, so we will have hardly any time to begin studying the new charter before the House adjourns for the holidays, and we will not be starting again until next February. That leads us to today's debate on Bill C-11,

An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act . Essentially, this bill seeks to give priority to veterans and members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service. If, during the hiring process, the veteran demonstrates the essential qualifications required, the Public Service Commission will have to appoint that person in absolute priority, ahead of employees who are considered surplus or on leave. They will henceforth be in the highest category of hiring priority. A second provision of the bill deals with the extension of the entitlement to priority, from two years to five. At the moment, veterans are in a regulatory category

whereas public service employees are protected by the act. The government has therefore decided to include veterans in a category that is protected by the Public Service Employment Act. This is a noble gesture on the part of the government. However, like the measures it has taken previously, such as the Last Post Fund, and the reimbursements for training and post-secondary education, these are half-measures that will have little impact on the quality of life of most veterans.

We will therefore support this bill at second reading, but we consider that it does not go far enough and that it raises questions that the government will have to answer. Moreover, in a climate of budget cutting, where we are seeing massive layoffs in the public service, this bill unfortunately will not really help veterans to get jobs in the public service, at least in the medium term. This bill is actually a reaction to poor human resources management. The Conservatives have laid off so many public servants that veterans are no longer successful in being hired from the priority list.

(1550) What is most disappointing about the measures this government has introduced is the little impact they have had. I will not start listing off everything from 2006 on. I will only go back as far as the last budget, tabled in 2013. The Conservatives announced with great fanfare that they were going to improve the Last Post Fund and double the refundable amount from close to $4,000 to a little under $8,000. An ombudsman, Patrick Stogran, had been mentioning this problem since at least 2009. The government waited some three or four years before addressing it.

I would like to point out that it was a Liberal government that gutted the program in 1995 or thereabouts. More recently, the Conservatives announced that they were increasing aid for training and post-secondary education, with maximum funding of $75,800 per veteran and a maximum envelope of $2 million over five years. As they say, the devil is in the details. Although I do not know exactly how many veterans will apply for assistance under the program, let us take the amount of $2 million, for example, and divide it by $75,800, which is an accurate amount for someone going to university.

If veterans receive the maximum amount, only 27 of them will have access to the program over this five-year period. Therefore, a little over five veterans a year will have access to the program. I do not see how these measures will help our veterans. The Conservatives say they are increasing aid, but the criteria are often so strict that no one qualifies for it. It is easy to pull numbers out of the air and then make sure the criteria are so restrictive that the government will not be out of pocket at the end of the day. That is what the Conservatives are doing.

They are using these tactics and saying that they are helping veterans, when what they are really doing is balancing the budget at their expense. Now there is this bill that gives veterans priority for appointment to public service jobs. At first glance, it is a wonderful measure. However, on closer inspection, this bill is much less attractive because few public service jobs will be available in the coming years. From 2006 to 2011, about 2,000 veterans made use of this priority entitlement. Of that number, 1,024 veterans secured a job in the public service.

Of those 1,024 veterans, 739—72%—got a job with National Defence. At Veterans Affairs Canada, the situation is somewhat more dire. Between 2006 and 2011, only 24 veterans got jobs at VAC, which corresponds to only 2% of all jobs. However, our veterans, who have experienced the difficulties involved in the transition to civilian life, should be ideal candidates for jobs at Veterans Affairs Canada. They should play a key role in the development of VAC policies to ensure that those policies are designed for them and meet their needs.

The second-largest employer of veterans in the public service is the Correctional Service of Canada, which hired 54 veterans during that period, or 5% of all veteran hires. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is not very far behind with 44 hires, or 4% of the jobs obtained during this period. When we look at these figures, it is clear that not all departments are making the same effort to hire veterans. Indeed, most departments have hired fewer than ten veterans, while others have hired none.

Therefore, these departments would have to undergo a major culture change to ensure that such measures actually help our veterans. As things stand right now, I am not sure that this will help even things out in terms of hiring more veterans in our public service. The Ombudsman has found that about 4,500 veterans per year participate in vocational rehabilitation services. On average, 220 veterans put their names on list of those eligible for job priority status, and, as a result, 146 veterans on average get a job in the public service. This is a very small number.

This does not make much of an impact on the majority of veterans or even on many of them. Moreover, the job priority status for veterans applies only to a very specific group.

(1555) The vast majority of jobs in the public service require bilingualism, a post-secondary diploma or even university education. Two to four years of experience is often also required. Under current regulations, veterans are given a two-year priority entitlement. The veteran must already have a diploma in hand because there is not enough time to start a university degree. Even now, with the new deadline, there is not enough time for a veteran to go to university, if he so wishes, and be available within the time prescribed.

In addition, veterans who do not have a university degree are not overly interested in going to university for the extended period required. As I said earlier, 4,500 veterans participate in the vocational rehabilitation program each year. Only 63 veterans chose university-level programs; 32 received support from Veterans Affairs Canada and 31 received support through the service income security insurance plan. The other participants chose vocational training or college-level programs that lasted anywhere from 12 to 24 months. That number, 63, caught my attention.

Is it true that only 63 veterans chose university-level programs, or are people being discouraged from choosing such programs because of the severely restrictive criteria? The Ombudsman wrote the following in his report: While...Veterans Affairs Canada profess[es] to consider the needs of the client/Veteran, they normally do not permit training or education in a new career field if, at the time of release...the client...has skills that are transferrable to the...workforce....

They are required to take a job that does not interest them or one that pays less than a career requiring post-secondary education, simply because they have skills. The government does not want to do anything that will cost a lot of money. That is the conclusion. In the end, it is not need that influences the decisions, it is the cost of funding education. The government is putting a lot of focus on the Helmets to Hardhats program, as though the construction industry were the miracle cure for job transition for our veterans.

I agree, it is a good program, but it is not available in every province and it does not cover all trades. As I said, it is not available in Quebec, unfortunately. I have received calls from veterans who are disappointed that they cannot access this program because it is not available in Quebec. I believe this restricts our veterans' ability to improve their quality of life and their job prospects.

For example, the ombudsman recommends entering into partnerships with other industries and organizations, such as the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian defence and security industries and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada. We have to have more collaboration from private sector players, who are not always aware of veterans' skills. Unfortunately, human resources departments do not know how to interpret the CVs of military candidates. A recent study revealed the scope of the task.

The Navigator study, conducted for the Veterans Transition Advisory Council in late August, found that most of the 850 employers consulted have little or no understanding of veterans' skills. Only 16% of employers make a special effort to hire veterans. Almost half of employers believe that a university degree is more important than military service when hiring. Only 13% said that their human resources department knows how to interpret a resumé from a military candidate. We have to do more in this regard. To my mind, this bill has a major flaw.

First, we have to remember that only Canadian Forces members medically released for service-related reasons will have access to the program. Previously, to be given priority, members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP had to be released for medical reasons, whether they were service-related or not. That is also the spirit of the new charter. To qualify for Veterans Affairs Canada benefits and services, the injury has to be service-related. If the department ruled otherwise, the veteran could appeal the decision to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and then the Federal Court.

Unfortunately, this is no longer clear.

(1600) In addition, if a veteran needs to appeal a decision before a Canadian Forces tribunal or the VRAB, the procedures involved in these administrative tribunals can be very long. Does this mean that the duration of the priority, which begins the day the soldier is released from duty, continues to run out while these administrative procedures drag on? The ombudsman had this to say recently on his blog: However, under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual’s file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not.

This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release. Like the ombudsman, we are worried about this uncertainty. Would it not be better to use the recognition of the link between the injury and the service to determine the accessibility and length of the priority entitlement? This could be done two ways: either the reason for release is designated “service-related medical release” or the link between the injury and the service is recognized by VAC or the VRAB.

Either way, the system remains consistent, some of the red tape can be avoided and we could ensure that veterans do not lose their entitlement priority. This bill also creates categories of veterans, and we are against that approach. The NDP supports the principle of having a single category of veterans. That is not what this bill does. Veterans of the RCMP are not included in the bill and remain in the regulatory category. I think that a member of the RCMP who suffered a trauma and wanted to get out of the policing environment to start a new career could have benefited from priority hiring under this bill.

Including veterans of the RCMP would have been a way of thanking them for their service and sacrifices. Now members of the Canadian Forces released for medical reasons attributable to service will have this priority entitlement and others will not. This bill should have gone further. One major problem facing the Canadian Forces is the principle of universality of service, which requires members who cannot be deployed to be dismissed from the Canadian Forces. This is not entirely fair.

We understand the importance of this principle to cohesion and morale, but would it not be possible to include the duty to accommodate principle? Do those who served their country not deserve to be given a job where they could continue to serve? That is what the RCMP does for its members. The Minister of Veterans Affairs says that the Department of National Defence wanted to maintain the status quo on this. However, would it not be possible for the Standing Committee on National Defence to study this issue? Does this government not owe it to our troops and our veterans?

For months now we have been asking the government whether it realizes that it has a moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation toward injured veterans. The government's lack of response would suggest not. The NDP has said time and time again that it will honour this century-long commitment made by successive Canadian governments, except for this one.

Again, the NDP will support Bill C-11 , but the government will have to address our concerns in committee and make the necessary changes to ensure that this bill benefits the largest possible number of veterans who need this priority entitlement for a smooth transition and a better quality of life for them and their family. (1605) [ English ] Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it saddens me in a way to hear so much negative focus on the work that we have been doing.

To be perfectly candid and up front, I do not agree with the member's assertion that nothing has been done with the new veterans charter. Almost $5 billion in enhancements to the new veterans charter in the last few years is nothing short of remarkable. I want to ask the hon. member opposite why his party has consistently voted against such things as $8.5 million in funding to support service enhancements for the new veterans charter and almost $700,000 in funding to improve service for severely injured veterans.

There were monies to promote the well-being of current and former members of the navy, $4.6 million to veterans' assistance programs to pay for health care costs not covered by the provincial health program, and I could go on. I find it difficult to hear all this concern and all this criticism when in actual fact, year after year, budget after budget, that party has voted against our efforts to increase benefits, support, and services to veterans and their families.

Ultimately, the only thing I would like to ask is whether the member and his party are not in sync with our efforts to improve the quality of life for veterans and their families. [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine : Mr. Speaker, I always have a good laugh when ministers and the members opposite say that the NDP or the opposition is always against their measures. Of course, their measures are 500 pages long, reams and reams of paper, and 80% of the content is bad. They ask us to vote for measures that we cannot even examine properly. It is funny when the minister says that he has invested $5 billion.

He is so far from being transparent in his management that it is hard to figure out if all the money was spent. Recently, we were asked to vote for a budget that will grant more money, while the department has probably not even spent all the money that Parliament granted it in the last budget. It is somewhat inflammatory to say that we are against their measures when those measures are buried deep in omnibus bills. They should stop doing that. Canadians understand very well that we cannot support such bricks.

In addition, the ombudsman reviewed the new veterans charter and said that there were a number of problems with it. According to him, compensation is quite inadequate for many wounded soldiers, compared to regular workers who can challenge the decisions of workers' compensation boards and will receive a much higher amount than wounded Canadian Forces members. A lot of improvements need to be made, and I hope that the minister will listen to the measures that we are going to propose during the study of the new charter. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP member for his speech and ask him a question. I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about the situation of veterans, given what the minister told the public about them, namely, that veterans do not play a special role, that they are just like any other member of society, and that the government and Canadians do not have a sacred duty to treat them differently. Veterans' representatives and veterans themselves were very disappointed to hear that this government had broken this historic promise here in Canada.

Does the hon. member believe that this bill will undo the damage done by government lawyers and the minister himself? They broke this sacred contract between veterans and our country.

(1610) Mr. Sylvain Chicoine : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Quadra for her excellent question. Veterans have been forced to file numerous class action suits against the government, such as the veterans' suit in British Columbia. Government attorneys deeply shocked veterans because they denied this social and moral contract, this moral and social obligation to take care of our wounded veterans. The attorneys said that Canada had no duty to its veterans, even though this principle has been recognized for 100 years, since the beginning of the Canadian federation.

It has never been questioned by any government. We have had the opportunity to ask the minister countless times, and he refuses to recognize this sacred duty to take care of these veterans. That is scandalous, and my colleague is right to bring it up. Veterans have been deeply shocked by the minister's attitude. He refuses to recognize this sacred obligation to take care of our country's wounded veterans. It is completely unacceptable. Will this bill fix that problem? Absolutely not. It is not being addressed.

I ask the minister to recognize Canada's sacred obligation to take care of its veterans, because this is a given. I do not understand why this sacred obligation is being called into question. The minister should be ashamed that he will not recognize it. Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for his excellent speech and his remarkable work on the veterans file. I know he is very passionate about it and knows the file very well.

It is unfortunate to see the continued intellectual dishonesty of the Conservatives, who think that Canadians can be manipulated. They say that we voted against this and that and against so much money, when the Conservatives know very well that things do not work that way. In their 500-page omnibus budget bill, there was hardly more than a few million dollars for veterans. For a file as important as the veterans file, it is unfortunate that we continue to hear their old rhetoric that does not hold water. Our party will work with the other parties and try to improve the bill in the next stages.

We intend to work very hard to improve it, even though we sometimes have difficulty being heard by the government side. Although we have a government that is always unreceptive to our ideas, we will try to improve it. Mr. Sylvain Chicoine : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his question and his comments. We remind Canadians that the minister has once more accused the opposition of not supporting his measures. Some of them are good, perhaps, but burying so few good measures deep in mammoth bills is not the way to do things.

The minister said that they have spent more money,but if we look at the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs, we see that it has been reduced by tens of millions of dollars. They tell us that they are pouring in more money, but that is not the case. They are balancing the budget on the backs of our nation's heroes. We have certainly seen some shortcomings in the bill, as I mentioned. I am not sure that it is going to help a lot of veterans in the medium term. We are in a climate of budget cuts; thousands of public service jobs are being eliminated.

I do not see how this bill is going to help many veterans, at least in the medium term. When we come back in 2015, when we can start hiring again and stop cutting services to Canadians, perhaps this bill will help. Until then, it needs a number of improvements. We must improve the situation of the veteran whose injury is not immediately attributable to service and who, after going to the VRAB, gets a ruling in his favour two or three years later. This is a shortcoming that certainly needs to be corrected because that veteran will only have one or two years left in which to get a job in the public service.

That is one of the things that needs to be improved. (1615) [ English ] Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, you were sitting in the chair yesterday when there was an exchange between this side of the House and the government side about medical records that have gone missing. I understand the parliamentary secretary has said something to the effect that after looking into it, there could be some people whose files could be missing. I want to quote from an

article that appeared today in The Globe and Mail on page A4. It is headed “Veteran continues to search for missing medical files”, and it reads as follows: Former infantry corporal Kenneth Young tried for years to obtain the medical records related to his treatment at a now-closed veterans’ hospital only to learn they had been destroyed in 2009, along with more than 27,000 boxes of other veterans’ medical files. That is 27,381 medical boxes of files to be exact. The

article continues: He kept pestering the bureaucrats to find them “and it got to the point where they said ‘don’t write us any more. If you have any other problems or questions, contact the Privacy Commissioner.’ Which I did,” he said. “A few months later [the Privacy Commissioner] called me up and said ‘well, your files were destroyed.’” The Privacy Commissioner’s office sent Mr.

Young an e-mail from 2009 in which Valerie Stewart, the supervisor of national information holdings for Veterans Affairs, explained to department staff that Library and Archives Canada had “reviewed the hospital patient files and determined that they do not have archival value.” Ms. Stewart went on to say that officials at the Veterans Affairs department had “determined there is no potential research value in these files,” and urged that “we proceed with the destruction of these files ASAP.” The

article goes on to quote the parliamentary secretary, mentioning him by name, which I shall not do because I know we cannot in this House, who said, “Indeed, no active, living veteran'