OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 057 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 5, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 057 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 057 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 057 (Version officielle) 147 057 05 03 2014 2014/03/05 14:05:00 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 (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of our national anthem led by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the House and my colleagues on the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women for the honour of being elected chair of this indeed very special committee.

Over the past year, the committee heard from many witnesses about this tragic situation affecting aboriginal women and girls across Canada. For me the most meaningful moments were at the three-hour meeting with friends and families of the missing and murdered women, who told their stories in a straightforward but poignant way. I know I speak for the entire all-party committee when I say that we were all deeply moved by what we heard. It could not have been easy for the friends and families to open their hearts so honestly and openly, but we were honoured that they were willing and able to do so.

I would like to thank the committee members on all sides for their hard work. I know that each and every one of us wants to see an end to violence against aboriginal women and girls.

Birthday Congratulations Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Canada's newest nonagenarian, Bill Scandlan. In my eight years as the MP for Hamilton Mountain , I have never before singled out a constituent for special recognition on the floor of this chamber, but Bill is special. Whether it has been as a labour leader, a city councillor, a community volunteer, or a political activist, Bill has always put service above self.

He has single-handedly enriched the lives of literally thousands of Hamiltonians, many of whom may not even be aware that it was Bill's guiding hand that led to the progress they have made. As a lifelong member of the CCF-NDP, he has been an amazing mentor for whole new generations of political activists. I know that I would not be in my current position if Bill's deep-seated commitment to women's equality and social justice had not led him to push this once young female candidate to aspire to an elected position. Through the many ups and downs of it all, his support was and is as constant as it is unconditional.

It is with deep affection, respect, and huge admiration that I want to wish Bill a very happy 90th birthday. Hugs to Bill. He is simply the best.

Kinsmen Foundation Telemiracle Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to extend congratulations to the Kinsmen Foundation on another successful Telemiracle to help families with children with disabilities and people with special needs. Over the 20-hour telethon last weekend, viewers were asked to open their hearts and wallets and to ring those phones, and indeed, the viewers responded to the tune of almost $5,286,000. Along the way, more than 40 musical and dance ensembles from across the country entertained viewers.

Now in its 38th year, the Telemiracle has raised more than $100 million to benefit thousands of Saskatchewan residents. I would like to extend thanks to the warm-hearted Saskatchewan population for supporting their community and to the thousands of hard-working folks at the Kinsmen Foundation for their efforts year-round to improve the quality of life for Saskatchewan residents.

University of Guelph Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary year of the University of Guelph. Founded in 1964, the U of G came together through uniting the long-standing Ontario Agricultural College, the Ontario Veterinary College, and the Macdonald Institute into a premier academic institution whose mission is to change lives and improve life.

The university's exceptional reputation of academic and research excellence lives on through the outstanding work of more than 30 Canada Research Chairs, groundbreaking programs like the barcode of life, and the many experts who appear before our parliamentary committees who hail from the University of Guelph. This great university is a cornerstone of our community in Guelph. Its staff and students and the residents of our community have created a co-operative and caring environment, fostering a spirit of compassion and intellect and making our community one of the best in the country.

I congratulate the students, staff, faculty, and alumni on 50 incredible years as we look forward to an even brighter future.

Marlin Styner Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to inform this House of the passing of a truly incredible individual and a personal friend, Marlin Styner. In 1981, at the age of 18, Marlin became a quadriplegic when the vehicle he was riding in struck a cow. Marlin became a leader in our community with his message that success is not determined by physical strength or appearance but rather by our attitude and the boundaries we set for ourselves in our own minds. This attitude opened doors for Marlin and for other disabled people throughout our province.

The business administration diploma he received at RDC was the start of an incredible journey that proved his point about boundaries. He received the mayor's special recognition award for humanitarianism and held the position as chair of the Alberta Premier's Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. On behalf of my family and colleagues in this House, particularly the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia , I extend our deepest sympathies to Marlin's wife Diane and those loved ones who have always surrounded them both.

(1410) Loretta Saunders Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, New Democrats mourn alongside the family of Loretta Saunders. This young Inuk woman from Happy Valley-Goose Bay was in the midst of her studies when she was kidnapped and murdered. Many of us have just come from a vigil on the Hill, where indigenous women and their allies sent a clear message to the Conservative government. The time for talk is over. The time for study is over. The time for action is now. Indigenous peoples are not asking for an inquiry into the deaths and disappearances of over 800 indigenous women.

They are demanding it. From the beginning, the NDP has stood with the families of the first nations, Inuit, and Métis women who have been lost. Their ask has been clear and consistent: no more stolen sisters. Yet the government stubbornly refuses to hear their cries. The same week Loretta Saunders died, six more aboriginal women went missing. Saturday is International Women's Day. Alongside our sisters from across the globe, we will stand tall and strong and demand full and lasting gender equality. Today we lend that strength to Loretta's family. Loretta's life is cherished and valued, and there must be justice.

Prostitution Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, March 8 is International Women's Day, an opportunity to celebrate the progress that has been made toward equality for women worldwide. Sadly, many women and girls in Canada continue to face injustice and inequality through prostitution. Our nation is now at a tipping point. We must ensure that we do not legalize an industry that promotes and normalizes the exploitation of women at the hands of pimps and johns, nor should we continue to treat prostitution as a nuisance.

Canada must take an approach that recognizes the inherent harm of prostitution to our most vulnerable citizens. We must adopt a made-in-Canada approach that severely punishes pimps and johns without criminalizing the victims, that provides robust programs to help women exit prostitution,and that fully reflects the equality of women as human beings, not objects to be bought and sold. Today, as we are reminded of the progress of women's equality, let us be resolved to stand ever stronger against sex slavery and gender violence. We can do better.

RCMP Superintendent Bill MacRae Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the recent passing of a legendary member of the RCMP, Mr. Bill MacRae. In the words of our own Sergeant-at-Arms, Kevin Vickers, Bill MacRae was the heart and soul of the RCMP. He was also a visionary, because it was Bill MacRae who convinced his superiors to include human relations training as part of the RCMP's core curriculum. More importantly, it was Bill MacRae who convinced his superiors to invite females to join the ranks of our national police force.

Bill MacRae was also the one who convinced his superiors to allow first nations men and women to join the force. Bill's insight and intelligence and his humour and humanity truly transformed our national police force. In many respects, his passing marks the end of an era. While we offer our condolences to Bill's family, I would also invite all of my colleagues to join with me in paying a final tribute to a remarkable man and a truly great Canadian, Bill MacRae.

[ Translation ] Food Waste Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the most recent FAO report states: ...given the limited availability of natural resources it is more effective to reduce food losses than increase food production in order to feed a growing world population. Canadians waste $27 billion worth of food each year. More than a third of a person’s groceries end up in the garbage every week. Most food waste occurs toward the end of the food supply chain, with processors, retailers and consumers. Meanwhile, more than 800,000 people use food banks every month. That is huge.

The federal government has a role to play, which is why I am moving a motion in the House of Commons. My motion proposes concrete measures, such as declaring October 20 of each year National Day Against Food Waste and developing a pan-Canadian food waste reduction plan. Now it is time for all of us to do our part. Food waste is everyone's business.

(1415) [ English ] Venezuela Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I met with a woman whose young niece was a beauty queen in Venezuela. Her 22-year-old niece was shot in the head and died from her wounds at the hospital. Genesis Carmona was an unarmed student protester. Her grieving aunt and others are calling for an emergency debate by the Organization of American States to discuss the crisis in Venezuela. These petitioners— The Speaker : Order. I know the hon. member is reading from notes, but the camera is picking up something that may be perceived by some members as a prop.

I hope the member will just stick to the notes that he has in his hands. The hon. member for Calgary West. Mr. Rob Anders : Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are asking for economic sanctions and the freezing of the Maduro government's assets unless the use of water cannons stops. They are also asking for a delegation to monitor and report on human rights violations in Venezuela.

Furthermore, I call upon the Maduro government to release all those detained during the protests, to immediately cease all government interference with peaceful protesters, and to ensure those people who are perpetrating the violence bear the full weight of the law. A democratic government not only respects but protects its citizens' rights of expression and assembly. Hugo Chavez has passed away, and Venezuelans want to turn the page. Like many, Venezuela yearns for freedom.

Bullying Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, bullying is taking a toll on children across the country, and too often we hear the sad stories of kids who choose suicide over dealing with the taunts and jeers and broken friendships, so I want to share a story of a little girl who is not willing to let bullying define her or stop her from growing to be the young woman she dreams of becoming. Alvena Little-Wolf Ear lives in Nanaimo. She is only nine years old. The bullying started in grade 3 with taunts about her weight and her first nation background.

It was so bad at one point that Alvena said, “Mom, I bet if I was dead, kids at school would be happier.” Her mother, Annette, did the right thing and convinced Alvena to speak to a therapist and share what was happening. By breaking her silence with two trusted adults, Alvena found the strength to start sharing her story with thousands of people. She asked her mom to post her story and a picture of herself on the Facebook page “Healthy Active Natives” so that people would know that she was being bullied but that she was determined to end the bullying by using exercise to change her life for the better.

Racism and sexism are ugly words, but the raw truth is that children as young as Alvena have to deal with them. We all need to do more about raising awareness of bullying and how it affects children. Alvena Little-Wolf Ear will not let it stop her, and we should not either.

Natural Resources Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we understand that resource development creates jobs and grows the economy. In fact, nearly 20% of our GDP comes from natural resource development, and one in 10 Canadians relies on it for employment. The NDP wants to destroy these jobs with their opposition to new infrastructure and development in these industries. They are so opposed to resource development that even labour unions are attacking the NDP's flawed economic theories.

On this side of the House, we are committed to protecting Canadian jobs while ensuring that jobs and these projects are safe for Canadians and for the environment. It is time for the opposition to get onside with hard-working Canadians.

Loretta Saunders Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today we honour the life of Loretta Saunders at a vigil here on Parliament Hill. I want to offer our deepest sympathies and condolences to the family and friends of Loretta on behalf of all Labradorians and on behalf of the Liberal caucus. The tragic death of Loretta Saunders has hit the hearts of Canadians all across the country with the story of a young Inuit girl from Labrador who left home with tremendous hope and promise and with aspirations to conquer the world.

She studied at Saint Mary's University and was successful in overcoming significant personal challenges in her own life. While doing so, she undertook her studies on missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada with the goal of making a difference for all aboriginal women in our nation. Since I was elected in May, this is the second aboriginal woman in my riding to be carelessly and senselessly murdered. Another young Innu woman, Bernice Rich, was also tragically killed in June of last year in Sheshatshui. Today we remember her as well as the hundreds of other aboriginal women who have met the same fate.

Canadian Peacekeepers Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, for a newly independent nation the road to peace and stability is seldom smooth. On March 4, 1964, the UN adopted a resolution calling for the deployment of peacekeeping forces to the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. Canada's peacekeepers used diplomatic as well as soldiering skills to maintain a fragile balance between opposing forces.

In all, 28 Canadian peacekeepers would pay the ultimate price between 1964 and 1993, and more than 25,000 Canadians have served in Cyprus since that first battalion of brave soldiers arrived 50 years ago this month. As Canadians, we have charged ourselves with a solemn and never-ending mission to keep the memory of Canada's veterans above the tide of time. Lest we forget.

(1420) Ukraine Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I travelled extensively in both Ukraine and Russia and I gained an enormous respect for their cultures and languages. Today I stand with all those in Ukraine and Russia who are calling for peace. [ Translation ] Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be fully respected. Ukrainians must be able to live in peace. By taking military action, Russia is violating its obligations under international law and its multilateral agreements with Ukraine. [ Member spoke in Ukrainian. ]

[ English ] Conservative Party of Canada Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not deserve empty promises. The Liberals chatter about standing up for the middle class, but the Liberal leader has offered nothing to demonstrate it. We all know that charisma cannot be substituted for substance. On this side of the House we show substance every day. We are showing average Canadians that they can count on this government to make life more affordable by keeping money in their pockets. Since the Conservatives were elected in 2006, we have cut taxes 160 times.

That is what a plan for the middle class looks like. The average family of four now saves $3,400 a year in taxes. We are also helping middle-class Canadians find jobs through the Canada job grant and we are giving $100 million a year in loans to apprentices. We are doing all this while balancing the budget in 2015. I am sure, even if my colleagues opposite do not know it, that budgets do not balance themselves.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Foreign Affairs Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the United States has urged Russia to accept observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to monitor the situation in Ukraine and safeguard human rights. Will Canada also be sending observers? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, and I appreciate the question from the leader of the NDP.

Canada will contribute observers to an important military observer mission in a coordinated effort to better monitor the Russian military intervention in Crimea. I can also announce today that at the request of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, we will be imposing economic sanctions on members of the Yanukovych regime. I am also announcing that we are suspending our participation in a joint economic and commercial commission with Russia. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Prime Minister has listened to reason regarding the freezing of assets.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what financial aid Canada is giving to Ukraine to help stabilize its economy during this crisis? Has Canada approached the International Monetary Fund? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I told the Prime Minister of Ukraine that Canada is prepared to help his country in partnership with our international partners. We are currently in discussions with the International Monetary Fund. We are prepared to co-operate in this regard. It is critical that there be economic stability in Ukraine.

(1425) Democratic Reform Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Conservatives used every trick in the book to block the NDP's efforts to ensure that public consultations are held in Canada on the Conservatives' electoral “deform” bill. Why are the Conservatives afraid to let Canadians have a say about democracy? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to see that the NDP decided to oppose the electoral reform before reading the bill. The party's critic admitted as much. The bill is currently in committee.

I look forward to the committee's decisions. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not want Canadians to have a say. However, the NDP will hold consultations and listen to Canadians. What the Prime Minister is doing is unprecedented in Canadian history. He is using his majority to favour his party. It is unprecedented. Never has a government imposed closure for partisan political purposes. Is that the real reason why the Conservatives want Canadians to be kept in the dark? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, on the contrary, I noticed that the NDP decided to oppose the bill before even reading it. [ English ] That is the fact. The reality here is that the partisan tactics are those of the NDP, which decided and said very publicly that it opposed the legislation even though its critic had not even read it. These are sensible, long-overdue changes. We encourage Parliament to take a look at them. They should benefit Canadian democracy generally. We encourage the parliamentary study and encourage debate on the actual contents of the bill instead of the conspiracy theories of the leader of the NDP.

Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if they are really that proud of it, why are they so afraid to talk to Canadians? Yesterday over 153 Conservatives voted to let one of their own MPs off the hook on charges that he knowingly made false statements in Parliament. Does the Prime Minister think it is okay for his MPs to present fabricated evidence in Parliament as long as they admit it after they get caught? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member in question, as you know very well, voluntarily apologized.

He, at his own initiative, brought this to light in the House of Commons and corrected the record, and he is to be commended for doing so.

Foreign Affairs Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we welcome the Prime Minister 's comments with respect to asset freezes for the former Ukrainian regime and the importance of human rights observers. As the Prime Minister will know, there are democratic elections coming up in May to elect a new democratic government in Ukraine.

We are wondering if the Prime Minister could report to the House on how Canada will play a significant role in ensuring that there are electoral observers in place, well before the election in May, to assure Canadians and the world community that they are in fact free, fair, and honest elections to choose a new democratic government for the people of Ukraine. Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, when I visited Ukraine last week at the request of the Prime Minister , we offered the new prime minister, the new president, and the new government our full support in the conduct of the presidential election on May 25. We have provided substantial assistance in the past, and we will obviously provide long-term and short-term election observers to ensure that the will and courage of the Ukrainian people be fully respected by the international community.

[ Translation ] Infrastructure Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic growth is stagnating. Our economic growth since 2006 is the worst it has been since the tough times of R. B. Bennett. Furthermore, according to the OECD, 138 countries will have better growth this year, including Australia, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States. The Minister of Finance thinks that the best solution is to invest in community infrastructure. Why, then, does the Prime Minister plan on cutting the building Canada fund by 87% next month? (1430) [ English ] Hon.

Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has proudly made unprecedented investments in Canada's infrastructure since 2006. Economic action plan 2013 announced a new building Canada plan, which provides $53.5 billion in new-investment funding over 10 years, beginning in 2014–15 for Canada's infrastructure. That is unprecedented. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Let us be clear.

For the current fiscal year, the building Canada fund is budgeted at $1.6 billion, but next year, beginning next month, that amount drops to $210 million. That is $1.6 billion now, and $210 million next year. Do the math. That is a reduction by 87%. In fact, building Canada will not make a full recovery until 2019. So why does the government seek to rival R.B. Bennett in terms of economic growth? Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, these investments in infrastructure are of $70 billion over 10 years. We know for the Liberals, the budget balances by itself. That is what we are doing. We are continuing to invest in infrastructure and balancing the books.

Democratic Reform Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Prime Minister a simple question that so far he has refused to answer. Did anyone involved in writing his unfair elections act speak to campaign operatives at Conservative Party headquarters while it was being drafted? Can Canadians please have a clear answer, once and for all? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of indulging the conspiracy theories of the leader of the NDP.

The proposals the government has made on the Elections Act are in black and white and they are before this Parliament. I would encourage the New Democrats to read them, to take them seriously, and to engage in intelligent and informed debate on them. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, we take the fundamental rules of our democracy so seriously that we take great offence to see that for the first time in the history of Canada a government is using its majority to change those rules to its own advantage. [ Translation ] I had a very simple question that the Prime Minister seems to be avoiding. Canadians want to know whether this bill was designed first and foremost to put the Conservative Party at an advantage in the next election. Did someone at the Prime Minister's Office contact the Conservative Party headquarters when this bill was being drafted, yes or no? It is as simple as that.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, I have no intention of indulging the opposition leader 's conspiracy theories. [ English ] The reality is the following. The NDP had decided for its own partisan reasons to approach this entire bill with a series of conspiracy theories rather than actually examining the contents of legislation, which, as the public recognizes, do not support any of those conspiracy theories. These are important matters for our democracy, they are important reforms, and I would encourage the NDP to reverse course and start looking at them seriously. Hon.

Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Prime Minister will not answer that simple question speaks volumes. Is the Prime Minister dodging the question because he knows the unfair elections act was designed by his party to make it more difficult to vote for people who do not vote Conservative? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the intention of the act is to make sure that all people who vote are valid, registered voters and that they can identify themselves.

These are objectives making sure that the vote is fair and that all people who vote are entitled to vote and only vote once. I think these are the fundamental characteristics of a democracy. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is what they are trying to fix with this? Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell us exactly how many people have been charged with voting illegally. The Prime Minister has claimed that people have been charged. How many are there, exactly? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, independent authorities are responsible for investigations. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that there are systems in place to guarantee that votes are valid.

(1435) Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, perhaps the real reason the Prime Minister is unable to answer is that he claimed that there was a massive problem with illegal voting, when that claim is completely false. The Prime Minister is telling us that they are going to prevent hundreds of thousands of Canadians from voting because of an Infoman gag? If that is the case, they are the butt of the joke here. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, having registered voters is one of the foundations of democracy.

Each person gets one vote and needs to be identified. [ English ] The only question Canadians are really asking is why the NDP would think it is so important for people to be able to vote without any identification whatsoever. We obviously do not think that is appropriate. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is going to serve a useful purpose because, drop by drop, the reality is going to start to sink in. In order to vouch for someone at the polls, one actually has to show valid ID, which provides one's name and address.

Does the Prime Minister really believe that tens of thousands of people are committing fraud, leaving their names and addresses behind, hoping that nobody ever catches them? Is that his theory? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the one thing I agree with the leader of the NDP on is the longer they listen to him, drop by drop something really is sinking in. I would just point out that the law outlines 39 authorized various forms of identification that voters can use, and any two of those would be valid.

Obviously, this is to facilitate identification and make it easy for people to vote.

Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we learned earlier this week that negotiations on the cover-up deal between Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright began in the Prime Minister 's Office, in the Prime Minister's “private high-security boardroom”. Did the Prime Minister ever ask Nigel Wright what he was talking about with Mike Duffy in the Prime Minister's private boardroom in the middle of the Senate scandal? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, this question has been asked and answered on many occasions.

As we know, the RCMP has thoroughly looked at the matter and been very clear that I had no knowledge of the discussions to which the hon. member refers. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, after the Prime Minister 's own lawyer, Ben Perrin, helped negotiate the cover-up deal between Duffy and Wright, Mr. Perrin's emails were illegally deleted, stealing a page from Dalton McGuinty. Why did the Prime Minister 's staff in the Privy Council Office tell officials at Library and Archives Canada not to speak to journalists investigating their cover-up? Right Hon.

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, just about every single assertion in that

preamble is categorically false. However, on the issue of Library and Archives Canada, as he will know well, these are decisions of Library and Archives Canada, and these questions should be directed to that independent organization. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Actually, Mr. Speaker, after Ben Perrin's e-mails were illegally deleted, journalists asked Library and Archives Canada to brief them on the laws that require important government documents to be preserved and protected. The Prime Minister 's staff in the Privy Council Office stepped in and halted the briefing.

On whose authority did the Prime Minister 's staff prevent public servants from briefing reporters about the law? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the RCMP made very clear, this government, this administration, has turned over all emails and all information in our possession and turned them over as soon as we had them, and the suggestions contained in the

preamble of the question are completely false.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has no choice but to act, and fast, on the western grain transportation crisis. It is a $5-billion mess, caused by the way the current government designed the system, under the thumb of railways. Farmers are demanding immediate action, and so are premiers Wall and Redford. The feds do have the necessary emergency powers under

section 47 of the Canada Transportation Act. Would the transport minister use them today to get prairie grain moving and to compensate farmers for their losses?

(1440) Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as a western Canadian and former farmer, with lots of family and friends still involved in farm operations, I understand the situation they are facing out there. That is why we continue to have those discussions with a number of people in the whole supply chain. We continue to look at all options before us, and we will continue to do that until we have the right solutions that seem to please the vast majority of that supply chain. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in other words: please the railways.

Beyond just today, the government's defective legislation on railway services has to be fixed. More than a year ago, the current government was warned that its new law would not work because there was no clear definition of services, no objective way to measure success or failure, and no liquidated damages payable to farmers when the railways screw up. The necessary amendments to fix this mess are already drafted. Will the government bring them forward for unanimous consent before the House adjourns for two weeks, on Friday? Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is a little rich taking these instructions from the member for Wascana , who did away with the crow rate without any kind of discussion at all, paid out one year of what was supposed to be a seven-year payment. For him to come forward now and somehow intimate that we are friends of the railways, I think he should look in the mirror.

The Environment Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, last week, Premier Wall said that we need those GHG regulations to come forward. Former environment minister Prentice said that “As conservatives we must believe in and establish and enforce world-class regulatory and monitoring standards.” Would the minister tell her predecessor and Premier Wall that the Prime Minister has punted the GHG regulations so that there is no agenda, there is no interest, there is no activity, and there is no progress?

Or are we going to get the minister's usual singsong answer, where she takes credit where no credit is due? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, our government is a world leader when it comes to addressing climate change. We continue to work with the provinces and the territories on reducing emissions from the oil and gas sector, and it is premature to comment further on any future regulations, as we are in discussions.

However, what I can tell the member is that thanks to our actions, we have seen significant reductions in greenhouse gases, unlike the Liberal government that increased greenhouse gas emissions by 130 megatonnes.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Alberta and Saskatchewan are calling upon the government to intervene, to address the serious backlog of grain in the Prairies. Alberta's agriculture minister is telling Ottawa to bring in fines against the railways that deliver inadequate service. Alberta's farmers are telling me it is long past time to impose tough cash penalties on railway companies. The rail act has no teeth without regulations that would address these bottlenecks.

Would the Minister of Transport finally stand to tell Canadian farmers when they can expect these regulations? Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the member and her party over the last days, we are working with all options that are on the table, from all of the members in that supply chain, coming forward with the right application at the right time. I had a great meeting with the ministers, both from Saskatchewan and Alberta, along with their counterparts from British Columbia and Manitoba, where this crisis is the deepest.

They have all said we need to move forward with the right applications at the right time, and that is exactly what we are doing. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, farmers have had enough. They are not interested in having another meeting or another study. Farmers do know why there is a grain backlog. It is because rail companies have a duopoly in this country, and I think the government on that side should actually understand that. It is not a competitive market. Farmers are the ones actually left paying the price.

The mystery really, truly is why the Minister of Transport will not introduce new rules that would get the grain moving. How many more millions must farmers on the Prairies lose because of the government's inaction?

(1445) Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I constantly say to the member opposite, this is the party that represents that area of Canada. We are proud to do that. We continue to work with all aspects and all members of that supply chain in moving forward with concrete results that will actually change the situation. This is not a new situation in western Canada. We have been having logistics fights with the railways and the old Canadian Wheat Board for years. We understand that movement is required, and at the right time and place that will be brought forward.

[ Translation ] National Defence Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as long as men and women continue to join the army to defend our country and our values, it is our duty to provide them with the assistance and support they need when they return home. The Conservatives do not seem to want to hire mental health professionals. There are currently fewer mental health professionals than before the Afghan mission began. Human resources specialists at the Department of National Defence have said so themselves: there are not enough resources.

What will the minister do to fix this problem? [ English ] Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is actually not the case. We have increased the annual health care expenditures by over $100 million to over $420 million. We have almost 400 full-time mental health professionals. We are hiring more. I can give the men and women assurance that this will continue to be a priority for this government. That will not change. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, over a month ago we asked the Prime Minister to make the mental health needs of the military his personal priority. However, we are still short professionals, and the government has not even met targets it set before the war in Afghanistan. Yesterday we asked about a mother who received a cheque for one cent, after her son committed suicide following his tour of duty. The minister pledged immediate action for the family of Justin Stark. Can the minister now tell us what action he has taken to make up for the callous treatment of this family? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I told the House yesterday, this bureaucratic screw-up was totally unacceptable. Immediately after question period, I contacted the department. I received assurances that something like this will not happen again; there will be better communications. This is what this woman is owed. We have contacted this woman, and a telephone call has been arranged for tomorrow. I will personally convey our apologies for this unacceptable incident.

Natural Resources Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government takes the safety of Canadians and the environment seriously. That is why, through our responsible resource development plan, we implemented new safety measures for pipelines, including doubling the number of comprehensive audits, increasing the number of inspections by 50%, and implementing fines for companies that break environmental regulations. Canada needs pipeline infrastructure to take advantage of our natural resource wealth. Can the parliamentary secretary update this House on new developments in this area? Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I should add that while our government takes pipeline safety seriously, the NDP and the Liberals both voted against these measures. Tomorrow, the NEB will make a final decision on the proposal to reverse the flow of Line 9 to bring oil from western Canada to the east. Our government relies on the independent National Energy Board to review pipeline projects based on the facts and scientific analysis.

[ Translation ] Employment Insurance Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board said that he could not estimate the amount he expected to spend on the employment insurance program. That is odd because, last year, he was able to, and the year before, too. This is like the Minister of Finance saying he cannot table a budget because he does not know how much he is going to spend. For crying out loud. Why is the minister refusing to disclose the estimates about employment insurance? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to make three points. First, the information about those expenses is in budget 2014. [ English ] Second, obviously the full accounting will be in the public accounts as they are done year after year. Third, the kinds of estimates that the hon. member is looking for should not be in the estimates because it is not a votable item.

(1450) Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board seems to forget what his job is. He says that only votable items should be in the main estimates, but his tabled estimates include a total of 350 non-votable items. The minister should know, they are called statutory forecasts. Does the minister not even read his own estimates? Does he not understand that the estimates are the only opportunity for Parliament to provide oversight over planned government spending? Why is he hiding this information from Canadians? Hon.

Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his recommendation. I will look at all the other non-votable items in the estimates for next year, but the hon. member should know that the actual estimates for the items that he seeks are found in budget 2014, as I mentioned. I think we should focus on votable items in the estimates. If he wants a fully accurate number as to what the EI figures are, they will be found in the public accounts as they are found year after year. Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it certainly sounds as if the minister is either hiding information or he is not clear what his job is, because the point of the estimates is for the government to provide estimations of spending. We all know the government has projections for EI spending in the next fiscal year, and we now know that non-votable items are a part of the main estimates. Can the minister tell us what the projections are for EI? Is it more or less $20 billion? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is, as the hon. member should know, being a parliamentarian, that we spend on behalf of the people of Canada the amount required for EI as the demand is there. That is what we do year after year; so the hon. member should know that. The hon. member mentions $20 billion. I would remind him that it is his party that wants to have a $21 billion carbon tax that will raise the EI accounts across the country. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleagues took the time to explain to the President of the Treasury Board that, contrary to what he said, non-votable items are still usually included in the main estimates. They also explained that projections for employment insurance spending are usually part of the main estimates, so he has no reason to hide those projections. Why is the minister refusing to give us those numbers? What is he planning to do with the fund? Is he planning to do the same thing the Liberals did? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I said, the information he is looking for is in budget 2014. Every year, that information is in the public accounts. [ English ] It is the same every year. We are seeking to make sure that the estimates have votable items in them, because that is exactly what hon. members should be seeking the information on.

[ Translation ] Government Advertising Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government has an ad campaign that targets Canadians, but it seems more like propaganda than anything else. During the Oscars, the government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars unjustifiably. How does the government reconcile the partisan spending with the fact that thousands of young Canadians will not be able to find a summer job in the next few months? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the government has a responsibility to inform Canadians about the important programs and services available to them. Advertising is an essential way for the government to inform Canadians about important issues. That is our goal and our responsibility. [ English ] Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, on Monday the defence minister defended wasting tax dollars on Oscar night ads promoting yesterday's programs, but Conservative budget cuts and hiring freezes have left soldiers with PTSD and their families suffering today because they cannot get the help they need, and the Conservative members seem to think that is funny. Just a $100,000 ad could pay to help seven soldiers with PTSD succeed in their transition to civilian life. Once again, why does the minister choose partisan self-interest over the health of injured soldiers.

(1455) Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have already mentioned, we have a responsibility to communicate with Canadians on important programs that might be of value to Canadians in their lives. We will continue to do so. I would mention again that, when we actually allocate money for advertising, it goes to advertising, unlike during the previous Liberal government when it went into the black hole of various felons who are now in jail.

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today on Parliament Hill, there was a vigil to honour the memory of Loretta Saunders. Her name is added to those of Kelly Nicole Goforth, Heather Ballantyne, Cassandra Joan Desjarlais, Miranda McKinney, Jodi Roberts, Tricia Boisvert and Rocelyn Gabriel. These women were murdered or have gone missing in the past six months. Does the government understand that a public inquiry is the only way to honour the memory of the some 800 missing and murdered aboriginal women? [ English ] Hon.

Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is certainly fair to say that Canadians across the country and here in the House of Commons are shocked and saddened by the death of Loretta Saunders. However, the reality is that we are acting on issues that pertain specifically to violence against women. This government has enacted more than 30 pieces of legislation with justice and public safety intention. We have brought forward more tools for police to respond specifically, more programs designed specifically to help vulnerable women get out of violent situations.

We have enabled aboriginal women to have matrimonial property. Sadly, rather than working with the government, this member and his party have— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today people gathered on Parliament Hill to remember Loretta Saunders and demanded action, just as this week the Canadian Human Rights Commission joined the growing number of voices calling on the government for a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

Will the Conservatives acknowledge the severity of the problem and take real action? Will they finally move forward with a national inquiry and an action plan on ending this tragedy? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, while others advocate for more studies, this government is acting. We have taken significant steps already, directly aimed at addressing violence.

We have given the police more tools, are establishing a new national centre for missing persons, have committed to a new DNA databank for missing persons, enhanced the Canadian Police Information Centre, and created a national website to help older missing and murdered cases match with remains. We continue to give the police the tools and increase the laws to sanction violence against women and girls, and this member opposes them.

Small Business Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadian small businesses are the engine of Canada's economy and are responsible for creating high quality jobs and economic growth in communities from coast to coast to coast. Our government recognizes the important role that small businesses play in our economy. Could the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture please update this House on what else our government is doing to help Canada's small businesses grow and remain competitive? Hon.

Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his hard work on this file. This is important for our economy. We want to be sure that entrepreneurs have less red tape and pay lower taxes. Unlike the opposition, we will not impose on them a $21-billion carbon tax. Unlike the Liberals, we will not put this country further into debt because we know that more debt results in more taxes in the end.

Public Safety Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety is about to cancel one of the most successful programs protecting public safety. Why? The program, Circles of Support and Accountability, is responsible for an 83% reduction in sexual recidivism, and a 73% reduction in all types of violent recidivism. The bottom line for Circles of Support and Accountability is no more victims, and it works. Why is the minister increasing the risk to public safety by cancelling this valuable program?

(1500) Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we always welcome initiatives. That is why we have put in place a national crime prevention strategy. This offers five-year support to local initiatives. This program has the support of our government. The member is referring to a grant that was provided by Correctional Services Canada. Correctional Services Canada has to do its best job for those inmates who are behind bars.

[ Translation ] Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the findings of a recent Wellesley Institute study on cuts to refugee health care are disturbing. In addition to being inhumane, these cuts could jeopardize public health and would probably be more costly than the savings the Conservatives hope to realize by implementing them. Once again, the Conservatives are making poor choices in addition to playing with the health of Canadians. What does the minister intend to do to address the harmful effects of his botched reform? Hon.

Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will very clearly do what we have always done on this side of the House: support refugees with quality health care funded by the federal government. We have to put a stop to the rhetoric of both parties opposite concerning the health care that some provinces would like to provide to people who are not refugees. Rather, those are really people who have claimed refugee status in Canada, but have been rejected, and some provinces would like to give them very generous health care benefits that even exceed those provided to Canadians.

We will never accept such a policy.

Infrastructure Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Infrastructure recently announced the largest infrastructure spending program in Canadian history. It provides guaranteed, long-term, stable funding, unlike the Liberal Party leader's policy proposal. Can the Minister of Infrastructure tell the House about the funds our government has committed to investing, in whole numbers, so as to avoid the Liberals' calculations of thousands and billions, and tell us where that money will be spent? Hon.

Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent question. Unlike the Liberal leader, we are familiar with the numbers and we know that budgets do not balance themselves. The new building Canada plan is the longest and most generous plan in Canada's history. Over the next 10 years, we will invest $70 billion in infrastructure in every region of Canada.

This is a record amount that is unparalleled in the history of this beautiful country.

Canada Post Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the people of Honoré-Mercier are worried. Some of the suburbs north of Montreal just lost their home mail delivery service, and now my constituents, many of whom are seniors, are wondering whether they will be the next to be hit by the Conservatives' cuts. The government lacks vision. It slashed services, rather than finding ways to maintain them. Why did the Conservatives decide that seniors and people with disabilities no longer have the right to receive their mail at home? [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have said in the House before, it is important to note that two-thirds of the mail delivered in Canada currently does not go to people's doors at their house. What Canada Post has indicated it must do in order to be self-sufficient into the future is to ensure that this last one-third moves to the same system that is in place for the other two-thirds. With respect to the disabled and to seniors, Canada Post has in place methods and ways to deal with these issues, and it has been doing so for more than 25 years.

[ Translation ] Intergovernmental Relations Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, after a year of unilateral decisions, restrictions and deadlines, yesterday Ottawa finally gave up on its idea of imposing a job training program on Quebec and is renewing a labour market agreement. Unfortunately, in February, the minister also raised questions about the labour market development agreement, the LDMA, including the $581 million in annual funding for Quebec.

Since the minister has finally acknowledged Quebec's expertise in labour matters, does he intend to renew the LDMA, as Quebec is asking? Or will he keep playing tough and create another conflict that has no reason to exist?

(1505) Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason the Bloc Québécois has only three seats is because it cannot take “yes” for an answer. We said “yes” to Quebec's demands. The agreement we just signed with the Government of Quebec recognizes that the province has its own system of training of the workforce. My Quebec counterpart, Minister Maltais, praised the agreement, and all of Quebec's union and entrepreneurial organizations have endorsed our government's approach. We are making unprecedented investments in job training so that Quebeckers can find work in this economy.

[ English ] Presence in Gallery The Speaker : On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Cyprus, I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a delegation of veterans. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the bilateral visits to Bangladesh and India, March 8 to 16, 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 second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in relation to Bill C-3,

An act to enact the aviation industry indemnity act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[ Translation ] Government Operations and Estimates Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the supplementary estimates (C) 2013-14.

[ English ] Public Safety and National Security Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-479,

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, known as the fairness for victims act. The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Employment Insurance Act Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) Bill C-578. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-578,

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period for apprentices) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act. The bill is intended to remove the initial EI waiting period for the in-school training period for apprentices and to remove a disincentive for apprentices to complete their accreditation. I thank my colleague the member for Avalon for seconding the bill. Apprentice training is a long process that ensures we have the skilled workforce that the economy needs.

Right now, many apprentices start their training but do not technically finish because they are hired before being fully accredited. The system lacks incentives to return for the in-class portion of their training. For example, it takes over 6,000 hours, which is three years of 40-hour weeks, to complete an apprenticeship to be a baker. Much of this is crucial on-the-job training. However, there are two 12-week, in-school periods, and 150 hours of theoretical work to complete the apprenticeship and become an advanced baker-patissier. During these in-school periods, the apprentice is not paid.

During the first of these periods, he or she still has to make it through the two-week waiting period before being eligible for employment insurance. The bill builds on the Liberal Party's 2001 amendment that waived the subsequent waiting periods for apprentices, by also removing the first two-week waiting period for claimants enrolled in an apprenticeship program. I hope we will see more apprentices completing their programs, which will result in a more skilled and productive workforce. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1510) [ Translation ] Main Estimates 2014-15 Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe I will have the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion, which I am moving seconded by the Minister of Justice .

Motion That, notwithstanding the Order made February 27, 2014, to refer Votes 1 and 5 of the Main Estimates for the year 2014-15 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the said Votes 1 and 5 be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and referred to the Standing Committee on Health. [ English ] Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I understand that the agreement was on votes 1 and 5, and I am asking if the House leader for the government side could confirm that it is not 1 and 9, but 1 and 5. [ Translation ] Hon. Peter Van Loan : Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is 1 and 5. [ English ] The Speaker : Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker : The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Gender Parity Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions. The first petition is from a group of folks in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's and from people across Nova Scotia requesting that the Government of Canada establish rules so that under no circumstances shall an individual or group of individuals' right to equal treatment based on gender, something they are born with, be compromised by another individual or group of individuals'

interpretation of a religion, a personal choice, and that no public funds be provided to any facility that provides for gender-based discrimination. This petition came about when a Muslim man joined a co-ed martial arts class and demanded that the participants be separated into men's and women's groups, based on his

interpretation of religion.

Canada Post Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the other two petitions deal with rural mail delivery. The petitioners ask that rural mail delivery continue in Nova Scotia.

Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions signed by Canadians from across southern Ontario. First, the petitioners call on the Minister of Health to label alcohol containers, advising that there is no safe amount of alcohol to drink during pregnancy, and that consuming alcohol during pregnancy may cause brain damage to a developing child.

Veterans Affairs Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call on the government to restore funding for and to reopen Veterans Affairs Canada offices.

Agriculture Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the last petition calls on the government to enshrine in legislation the inalienable right of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.

Abortion Mr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this petition calls on Parliament to respond to Canada's Supreme Court, which says that we have a responsibility to enact abortion legislation. Therefore, the petitioners call upon us to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible. The petitioners are mostly from my riding in southern Alberta.

(1515) Mining Industry Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today. The first petition is from members of the St. Kevin's parish in my home riding of Welland. It talks about the creation of a mechanism for a legislative extractive sector ombudsman in Canada with the capacity to look at complaints be received from abroad where our extractive industries go. The petitioners are looking to see that this be enacted in legislation.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon the government to enact a moratorium on GM alfalfa. As we know, alfalfa simply spreads, and GM alfalfa would contaminate other alfalfa fields where GM is not warranted or welcome, and would indeed do great damage to organic crops across the country.

The Environment Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first is a Canadian interfaith call for leadership and action on climate change. Those who signed the petition are calling for collective action by Canada to sign and implement a binding international agreement, replacing the Kyoto protocol and committing nations to reduce carbon emissions and setting fair and clear targets to ensure that global average temperatures stay below a 2°C increase from pre-industrial levels.

Mining Industry Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for the creation of a legislated ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining. The signatories are calling for more corporate social responsibility, and they want this ombudsman to be able to receive and investigate complaints and to assess compliance with corporate accountability standards based on international labour, environmental, and human rights norms.

Rail Transportation Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a variety of petitions. The first petition is about the government cutting the subsidy to the Algoma Central Railway line. The petitioners are concerned about the impact this will have on their communities and businesses. They ask the federal government to reinstate some funding and allow the ACR to operate.

Volunteerism Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls on the Government of Canada to recognize service by issuing a new Canadian volunteer service medal, designated the “Governor General's volunteer service medal”. It would be for volunteer service by Canadians in the regular and reserve military force and cadet corps support staff who are not eligible for other medals of this kind, and who have completed 365 days of uninterrupted honourable duty in the— The Speaker : Order, please.

There are still several members rising to present petitions and we have only gone through a small number in about half the time available for petitions. Does the hon. member have another petition? No. Okay, we will move on, but I would urge members to provide just a very brief

summary and not to read or offer comment on the petitions. The hon. member for Beaches—East York.

Public Transit Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. Briefly, the first petition calls upon the Government of Canada to enact a national public transit strategy that would provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit and establish federal funding mechanisms for public transit.

Canada Post Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the plans to end door-to-door delivery of our mail service. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan to cut mail service and increase prices, and instead to explore other options for modernizing our postal delivery system. Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I have two different petitions on Canada Post from Castlegar, Nelson, Slocan Valley and East Kootenay, one calling on the Government of Canada to reverse cuts to services by Canada Post, and the other instructing Canada Post to halt its plan to downsize and downgrade public post offices.

(1520) Proportional Representation Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from the Nelson area calling for amendment of the Canada Elections Act to introduce a suitable system of proportional representation after public consultation.

Health of Animals and Meat Inspection Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the last but not least petition is in support of my Bill C-322 to prohibit the importation and exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption, as well as horse meat products for human consumption.

Canada Post Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions signed by thousands of Canadians across the country, including my riding. The first is from Canadians concerned about cuts to Canada Post, including the elimination of door-to-door service, the loss of up to 8,000 jobs, and significant increases to postage fees. They call on the Government of Canada to reverse these cuts and to look for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Government of Canada to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins into Canada.

[ Translation ] Gatineau Park Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to present this petition on behalf of Canadians who want to see the House of Commons pass legislation that would provide Gatineau Park with the necessary legal protection to ensure its preservation for future generations.

Mining Industry Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of dozens of my constituents. They are calling on the Government of Canada to create an extractive sector ombudsman, which would allow people with concerns about Canadian mining activities to file complaints. The ombudsman could receive and analyze those complaints and assess compliance with international social responsibility standards regarding labour, the environment and human rights.

[ English ] Canada Post Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by my constituents and people from all over Toronto asking the government to reject Canada Post's plan to reduce services, and calling on it to explore other options by updating Canada Post's business plan and returning Canada Post to its function as an essential public service.

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 Business of Supply [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Disclosure of Members’ Travel and Hospitality Expenses Mr.

Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) moved: Motion That the House recognize the importance of transparency and accountability in the expenditure of taxpayers’ money and also recognize that the majority of parties have already begun disclosing the travel and hospitality expenses of their Members; and therefore call on the Board of Internal Economy to instruct the non-partisan professional administrative staff of the House of Commons to begin posting all travel expenses incurred under the travel point system as well as hospitality expenses of Members to the Parliament of Canada website in a manner similar to the guidelines used by the government for proactive disclosure of ministerial expenses.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for the most enthusiastic welcome to the House that I have seen in years. I have to say that I am very grateful to him. I would also like to congratulate and thank my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador, from the beautiful riding of Avalon , for seconding this motion. Sunshine is the ultimate disinfectant, as many people will say. In this particular case, I do believe that sunshine, meaning transparency, would make us more accountable to the public.

We want to be more accountable to the public for a very good reason, which is that the money we spend here is not our money, but belongs to the Canadian public, to the taxpayers of this country. By accepting this motion, we would be saying to the country that we are ready, willing, and able to report to the Canadian public as to how its tax dollars are being spent, especially in the execution of what we do as members of Parliament and in general as parliamentarians. Before addressing the motion at hand, I want to back up for a few moments to talk about what we as a party have done over the past while.

The Liberal Party's open Parliament proposals were announced by our leader, the member for Papineau , on June 5, 2013. The following are the main points of what we consider to be an open Parliament. First would be to require that members of Parliament and senators proactively disclose travel hospitality expenses made by them and their staff. Second would be to introduce legislation to make meetings of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons open and transparent to the public.

The ability of the committee to go in camera where necessary, for example on sensitive HR matters, will remain but not as is currently the case, that is, by default. The Senate Board of Internal Economy is already public. Third would be to create a common quarterly and more detailed online expense report—which, of course, we can see at liberal.ca—for each member. This is for spending by members of Parliament and the Senate. It is also more easily accessed and usable by the public from the homepage of the Parliament of Canada website.

Fourth would be for the House to work with the Auditor General to develop mandatory performance audits of the House of Commons and Senate administration every three years, as well as public guidelines under which the Auditor General would be called in to perform more detailed audits of parliamentary spending. Also, the leader of the Liberal Party introduced a private member's bill at about the same time, which is on notice in the House of Commons. The bill contains three main points. It would amend the Parliament of Canada Act to ensure that the Board of Internal Economy's meetings were open to the public by law.

The bill would only allow the Board of Internal Economy to meet behind closed doors if the subject matter being discussed were related to security, staff relations or tenders, with the unanimous consent of members present. These are our initiatives. They would entail an open Parliament where we could go to our websites and find out what we had been spending on travel and hospitality. It is similar to what is now being done by ministers of the crown, of course, as brought in by the former Liberal government under Paul Martin.

I would like to once again put forward in the House a detailed understanding of why we do this. Let us look at the motion, which begins with “That the House recognize”. Most members of this House, but not all, already recognize this. However, we need to get unanimity to make sure that everyone is onboard with what we are doing.

The motion is as follows: That the House recognize the importance of transparency and accountability in the expenditure of taxpayers’ money and also recognize that the majority of parties have already begun disclosing...call on the Board of Internal Economy to instruct the non-partisan professional administrative staff of the House of Commons to begin posting all travel expenses incurred under the travel point system.... I will stop here for a moment on the travel point system, as many members accumulate a certain number of points to come to Ottawa, regardless of the price of individual tickets.

I come from central Newfoundland, and it can be an expensive endeavour to get here even at the best of times. For others, it is not as expensive. Therefore, the point system is in place, but it has to be transparent. We have to show Canadians how we spend their money so that we can effectively do our jobs. The motion concludes with: ...as well as hospitality expenses of Members to the Parliament of Canada website in a manner similar to the guidelines used by the government for proactive disclosure of ministerial expenses.

(1525) We hope that all members of the House will practise what Liberals call a “new way of transparency” that allows Canadians to go online to see what their member of Parliament or other members within the House spend their taxpayers' money on. It is their money. I certainly believe that they have a right to see how we spend it. An investor in a company has the same right. If people readily give their money to financial advisors, they certainly have the right to find out how those advisors are spending or investing their money, in many cases.

Obviously, the very reason, the root cause of that, is that it is their money and they entrust those people to do that. In a similar vein, the people of this country are investing in good governance and, therefore, it is their money being invested and we, as parliamentarians, as their direct representatives, must come clean and show them what we are spending it on.

We are tasking the non-partisan professional administrative staff at the House of Commons with the responsibility to post all travel expenses incurred under the travel points system, as well as hospitality expenses, and if we use the proactive disclosure model, we can strengthen transparency and accountability in the House of Commons. That is what this motion is about today.

Canadians' faith in public office holders in politics has been seriously shaken recently by the ethics scandal rooted in a $90,000 payment by the Prime Minister 's chief of staff to a sitting legislator and the continued secrecy of the Conservatives. There requires a lot more sunshine that we are not seeing cast upon a situation that to say is tawdry is putting it lightly. There is a great deal of suspicion that has been caused by that particular incident, and Canadians are now saying they demand better of their direct representatives, and this is what this motion would do.

It would demand that much better, to which we have to answer the call and say to Canadians, “We know what you are saying and we have to practise it”. We preach it, but we have to practise it. Again I say, we preach but we have to practise.

That is why in June, as I mentioned earlier, the leader of the Liberal Party introduced an open parliament plan, which would do the following: require proactive disclosure of travel and hospitality expenses; open up meetings of the secretive House of Commons Board of Internal Economy; ensure that quarterly online expense reports are easily accessible by Canadians; and, of course, the final point, which is very important, work with the Auditor General to develop public guidelines to ensure proper spending in Parliament.

I will even admit to the House right now that for several years, the expenses that I incur in my office are in a binder and sit in my office. Any constituent of mine can come in and look at them. I will hand them over. Constituents can go through them as much as they please and if they have any questions, I am more than happy to entertain those questions. That is an essential part of being a public servant. If one enters the life of public service, this is what one has to do. It is not something provided as a favour to the public. It is something required as a responsible measure of public representation.

That is what we must do. That is what we must endeavour to do and improve upon each and every time we enter the House, each and every time we are elected to represent our particular constituencies, all 308 of them, soon to be 338. As I mentioned earlier, for all members of the House right now, people can go online and get the general categories of expenses through the official channels, but what Liberals would like to do, and what we did as a party, was to go a step further and allow people to find out the nature of the expenses, especially when it comes to travel and hospitality.

Again, that is modelled after what was done for ministers' expenses back in the early 2000s under the Paul Martin government. We thought that was the model to use and, therefore, we extended it to the MPs who sit in the House, certainly from a party perspective on this side of the House. Some parties have followed suit; other parties have not. Nonetheless, we hope over the next little while, we will find that, with proactive disclosure—we cannot just force MPs to do this. Nobody should be forced to do this. We want MPs to be inspired to allow them to expose to Canadians how they are spending their money.

(1530) There are so many things we can improve upon. We, as a party, have not improved them all, but we are striving to do so. We were the first to do so, because we think that the most responsible thing we can do is to lead by example. If as parents we behave in such a way in front of our children, to provide the ultimate example of how we would like them to behave, we should certainly take our own advice and lead by example as representatives here in the House.

People trust us to manage their money and make the decisions that they feel are right for the betterment of this country in general, not just in their riding. I understand it when people say that we need to move along and do this as a group. We have. Proactive disclosure is just that. It is proactive in that it puts us out there, to say we need to move beyond what is already required of us, to lead by example. That, in and of itself, is probably a good measure of good governance. We should not just sit here and be reactive to the latest scandal that appears in 140 characters or less on Twitter.

We should not only respond to whatever scandal comes up in breaking news on cable news channels or any other type of media. If we become reactive only to what the people require, we will find ourselves far behind where the people want us to be, and we will not measure up. That is not a question of losing elections. It is just a question of providing good representation. By and large, people feel that expenses need to be exposed to the public, which is why they ask for it. That is why these news items garner a lot of attention. It gives the appearance of concealing something that was done wrong.

Pardon the example, but there is an old expression that says we can dress up a pig as much as we want, but it is still a pig at the end of the day. Therein lies the analogy of some of the issues that take place. We go above and beyond the call of duty to make it look like something else, when it in fact sits exactly as it stands. More often than not, we tend to undermine the intelligence of the average citizen of this country. Let us not kid ourselves. I am not casting aspersions upon any particular issue.

I am talking about issues in general that garner a lot of negative reactions from the public because, essentially, it comes down to one nugget of emotion for the people, which is how stupid do we think they are? That is pretty much where we should be going, to say that we do not think that they are that stupid or naive. We do not want to conceal anything from them because we do not think that they will understand it, or that we should wait until the other person acts or until the right machinery is in place so that it gets done. We should be proactive. It is kind of ironic that we use proactive disclosure.

Disclosure should be something that is natural for any person who is a representative of the people. It is odd that we call it proactive, but it is proactive because we are doing it. There is an array of politicians and an array of representatives like us who are not. The rule states that we do not have to go this far, which is why we said that it is not good enough. Just because the rule says we do not have to go that far does not mean that we do not have to step in the direction that we feel is right and that Canadians feel is right. That is why I am very happy to be moving this motion today.

I certainly believe that this is a step in the right direction. This is disclosure. This is the sunshine that will prove to be the ultimate disinfectant.

(1535) Is it the final word? Is that it? Is that all we need to do? No, there are always improvements. We have to make sure it is right. That should not stop us from doing the right thing. Proactive disclosure is one of the those things that is inspiring to many people across this country. I hope that some day, every parliamentarian, every member of the House of Commons, will partake in this. I look at some who have done it. My colleague right here did it, despite many obstacles. He did it several years ago. Good on him for doing it.

He was re-elected for the right reasons, not because voters disliked someone else but because he did the right thing. A lot of people in his riding recognized that. By tasking the non-partisan professional administrative staff of the House of Commons with the responsibility to post all travel expenses incurred under the travel point system, as well as hospitality expenses, using the proactive disclosure model, we hope this model will serve the purpose to formalize what we should be doing in the future. Canadians have a right to know how their money is being spent. Members should not just take my word for it.

I have received several emails over the past six months from the average citizen, saying just that. I repeat: Canadians have a right to know how their money is being spent. That comment was sent to me some time ago in an email. I thought, who are we, as the direct representatives, to counter that point? It certainly would not make a lot of sense.

It has been nearly a year since our leader announced that the Liberals would raise the bar on openness and transparency by proactively disclosing travel and hospitality expenses, and yet it still not being performed in a standardized way, for all parties, by the House of Commons. We hope that this motion and this debate today will not so much lecture parties to do this, although it may come to that, as inspire all members of Parliament to do this. We want a uniform, standardized system that applies to all members of Parliament.

We want to see all expenses in one spot, in a format that is easy to find and easy to understand. That is why on liberal.ca, people can go directly to their member of Parliament and see these proactive disclosure measures on travel and hospitality. They can see proactive disclosure, a detailed model of disclosure, designed and implemented. As I mentioned earlier, former Prime Minister Paul Martin, in 2003, brought in this model to be adhered to by the ministers of the day, and they were his own ministers. He did not require all parliamentarians to adhere to it, just his own ministers.

It was a gutsy thing to do in that situation, but he did it. We think that should serve as a model for all MPs in this House, despite party representations or independence. I believe that at the end of the day, people would ultimately agree this is the sunshine that acts as a disinfectant, which they will be happy to see because it will show how we are doing our jobs with their tax dollars. How effectively we are doing our jobs will be seen on election day.

The policies of defence, justice, free trade, crime, and others can be judged, but now people can also judge their representative on how they personally spend taxpayers' money. That should be a natural extension of what we are as members of Parliament. Everybody in the House likes to preach about being open and transparent. I encourage all members of the House to now practise what they preach. (1540) [ Translation ] Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for this motion.

My question for the member across the way concerns what the motion says about disclosing expenses. It says that this will reflect the guidelines used by the government for proactive disclosure of ministerial expenses. Does my colleague interpret that to mean a guideline to disclose the bare minimum, as in the previous Liberal system, or does he foresee a more robust system, like the Conservative system, which includes all the expenses for the staff and designated travellers and all the elements on the events list? [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Before I go to the hon. member, I would like to remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleague. The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, I repeat, “...as hospitality expenses of Members to the Parliament of Canada website in a manner similar to the guidelines used by the government...”. We want that more robust system, yes. [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his speech and his motion. I would like to know whether it was his intention to support our amendment regarding, among others, a review by the Auditor General. What are the Liberals' intentions with regard to the NDP's amendments? (1545) [ English ] Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, I am assuming the member is talking about the amendment that was earlier handed to me personally. There is no amendment on the floor right now. I would suggest she should probably hand that in first to see if it is in order before she gets my opinion.

Nonetheless, if it is what I think it is, things look pretty good. However, she may want to pose an amendment. Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his motion, as it supports the ongoing Conservative efforts to improve transparency and accountability, and I do commend the Liberal Party and the member. We believe in the effort to improve MP reporting. There have been extensive improvements made in that area especially since 2009-10.

Most recently, in October of last year, the all-party Board of Internal Economy announced some further details of the quarterly reporting that will become available in 2014-15, which is about to begin. Based on the motion, can we presume the Liberals will be supporting us in our ongoing efforts to improve MP expense reporting? Could he also comment on the recent changes at the Board of Internal Economy? Mr. Scott Simms : Mr.

Speaker, I am not disparaging in any way by saying this, but we came to the point in proactive disclosure where we thought we had to take that step to go even further than what was already being practised. We decided at the time that we needed to step forward, and we did; so all the measures that are currently in place, yes, of course we support them. Do they need to be strengthened? Yes, of course they do. Do we support that?

Yes, of course we do, which is why we made the step to be proactive in what we were doing, to be based on the expenses that are already out there and transparent for ministers, much as we did back in 2003. I appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague. He obviously likes to practise what he preaches, and hopefully in the future he will practise it even more, to make it an even better system. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, in June of last year when the whole issue of proactive disclosure really came to the House, the leader of the Liberal Party at that time sought unanimous support of the House of Commons. We did not achieve it back then, but we continued to push it. It is nice that we have the Conservatives somewhat onside, and I appreciate the fact that they are going to be supporting the motion. However, it is important to recognize that the whole issue of leadership on this issue has come from the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

We need to recognize that, at the end of the day, we want to see all members of all political entities in the House support the initiative of proactive disclosure. Maybe the member could point out from his perspective how important it is that all members of the House get behind the resolution that has been presented by my colleague. Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg North for all the hard work he is doing in his riding, which is pretty standard form, or should be standard. The abilities of the gentleman from Winnipeg North astound me each and every day.

He is unbelievable. I want to highlight the situation. That man spends tireless hours in the House, to the point where I am inspired on a daily basis. It is unbelievable. If it were any better, I could retire and become that man's agent or his publicist. Members may laugh, but it is true. They know he spends more time here than most people I have seen in ages. He is Winnipeg North. It is as simple as that. The member did bring up a good point with respect to proactive disclosure. Let us look at the very essence of what this is.

It means members will be judged as members of Parliament, and they will be judged on policy and voting. There is one thing Canadians cannot get to judge them on, and that is their expenses in executing their job. With this motion they could. We are getting closer. We are not perfect, but we are getting closer to where we should be on proactive disclosure.

(1550) Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for bringing forward the motion, which we will be supporting as well. In response to a question from my colleague around the issue of giving the Auditor General a clear legislative mandate to oversee and audit the spending of the House of Commons, the NDP has been pushing for this for some time. I understand from the member that he is favourable to that and that the Liberals will be accepting changes and modifications to include the Auditor General as part of that. The member and I agree completely on that.

Canadians assume the Auditor General already has jurisdiction, and they would be quite surprised to learn that the Auditor General does not. I wonder if the member could clarify what he is saying. Does he support the Auditor General being called upon to oversee and verify these expenses? Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that there is an amendment coming forward? I get that feeling, but I am not quite sure. It is not out there yet. I am not quite sure what this is. I am not sure if it can be accepted by the House. Basically I am saying all of this because I want to leave that man in suspense.

Why not? I want to leave him in suspense because we practise what we preach. I do not think the NDP does. An hon. member: Who does not disclose it? Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, can I go online and get the NDP expenses? An hon. member: No. Not the NDP. Mr. Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I cannot. Is that correct? I was wondering if each member of the NDP— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I would ask hon. members of the Liberal caucus to be quiet, so their colleague can continue. Mr. Scott Simms : See how open we are to accepting criticism, Mr. Speaker.

That is just the type of party we are. We are open. If this is the ultimate way the NDP wants to behave by disclosing its expenses and everything else, why has it not been done? I cannot go on the NDP website and find expenses. I do not quite understand. I think there may be something afoot here. I hope the amendment will finally put an end to this, whereby every member of the House of Commons would tell Canadians what they spend in executing their job. Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to point out that what we have in front of us today is an allotted day opposition motion from the Liberal Party of Canada. I would like to actually thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his motion, because moving toward increased transparency and accountability is something our Conservative government has strongly supported and continues to support. Our government has a solid track record of achievement when it comes to improving the transparency of all aspects of government operations, including contracts, tenders, and government records.

I think it is easy to forget how far we have come since 2006. Today, we take for granted all the protections we now have in place as a result of our initiatives, but we should not lose sight of what inspired us to make these changes in the first place. We had a Liberal government that was caught with both hands in the cookie jar. There were mysterious and lucrative contracts with Liberal-friendly ad agencies, with little or no work to show for them. There was misappropriation of taxpayer money, kickback schemes, and money changing hands in brown envelopes.

As the Gomery commission poked at the rot, a picture began to emerge of a system tailored to benefit the Liberals and their friends. There was a systemic lack of accountability and oversight. There were insufficient guidelines governing appointments, advertising, and behaviour of ministers and their staff. With all this in mind, our first order of business when we formed government was to enact the Federal Accountability Act, the toughest accountability legislation in the history of Canada.

This was a sweeping initiative, designed to close the loopholes the previous government had used to enrich itself and its friends.

For example, the Federal Accountability Act and action plan, among other things, reformed the financing of political parties; cleaned up the procurement of government contracts; cleaned up government polling and advertising; provided real protection for whistleblowers; strengthened access to information legislation; strengthened the power of the Auditor General; strengthened auditing and accountability within federal departments; strengthened the role of the Ethics Commissioner; and toughened the lobbyists registration act.

In all, our Federal Accountability Act and action plan made substantive changes to 45 federal statutes and amended more than 100 others, which touched virtually every part of government. This was a significant achievement. However, since then, our government has continued with its unprecedented work on strengthening the transparency and accountability of our public institutions. For example, we are working to ensure that federal departments post more information on contracts, including those for professional services and management consultants and those awarded to former public servants.

We have also taken significant steps to make important information more accessible than ever to the public. For example, government procurement information can now be found on a single website called Buyandsell.gc.ca, which is free of charge and does not require registration. In 2012, departments began publishing quarterly financial reports, which are accessible through the open data portal, which can be found at data.gc.ca. Summaries of completed access to information program requests can now be searched online through this open data portal.

We have also unveiled a searchable expenditure database, which for the first time provides citizens and parliamentarians with easy access and analysis of all government spending. We continue to strive to make information more accessible to Canadians.

(1555) Though this government released a record number of materials through access to information requests in 2012-13, which was a 27% increase over the previous year, we still had one of the fastest turnaround rates on record for processing access to information requests. There is no question that this is a record of achievement. It is a record that shows relentless progress toward increased transparency and accountability. It is a record that shows necessary respect for the right of taxpayers to see where their money is going.

It takes great effort to get to where we are today, and it will require great effort to continue our progress. It has required an investment of time and political will to continue moving it forward. We have done it because it was the right thing to do. We understand that the same information that helps Canadians understand their government can also be twisted and mischaracterized by our political opponents, which might explain why previous governments did not enact the changes we have enacted and why we have had so much ground to cover as we work to improve transparency and accountability in government.

However, that still has not deterred us. We will continue to move forward, knowing that we are building a system that makes it harder for people to misuse government resources for personal gain. Our determination ultimately arises out of a respect for taxpayers that underpins our party. We are not afraid to set higher standards for ourselves. We do not try to fool Canadians with grand schemes that distract the eye and empty the wallet but accomplish nothing. We try to develop practical solutions to real problems that respect the bottom line.

We have not governed to enrich ourselves but to build a better, stronger Canada. We have shown unprecedented leadership in transparency and accountability and are very proud of our accomplishments in this regard. Today I would like to focus on specific actions Conservative parliamentarians have taken to apply these principles in their personal affairs, specifically by improving transparency and accountability for travel and hospitality expenses.

The motion in question calls for the travel and hospitality expenses of members of Parliament to be reported in a manner similar to the government's proactive disclosure guidelines for ministerial expenses. I am proud to say that Conservative members of Parliament have gone further down this road than anyone. We knew that Canadians were concerned about expenses both here and in the other place, and we sought a way to provide them the assurance they need with respect to how their money is being used.

We pushed for improved reporting that would provide more details for all MPs, particularly with respect to travel and hospitality, but we were concerned about the time frame required to achieve this within the formal reporting mechanisms that apply to all members. Rather than wait, we developed our own system for tracking travel and hospitality expenses. We chose to base our own reporting system on that used for proactive disclosure under the ministerial model for travel and hospitality expenses. The model is adapted to fit MP expenses and is driven by two primary principles.

The first is that if a travel or hospitality expense is paid for by the taxpayer, it should be reported within our system. Second, the most important relationship, when it comes to reporting expenses, is between the member and his or her constituents. Although our Liberal colleagues also developed a reporting system, there are a number of differences in our respective approaches. It is impossible to compare principles with the NDP, since it has no reporting system at all. Instead of making an honest effort to require their members to improve their transparency, they offer only excuses and deflection.

A careful look at proactive disclosure by ministerial offices reveals comprehensive accounting of travel and hospitality expenses, not just by ministers but also by their political staff.

(1600) Conservatives are the only party currently posting complete travel and hospitality expenses for staff as well as for parliamentarians. MPs' staff do important work for our constituents and are in a position of trust. It is no less important for us to account for travel and hospitality expenses for our staff. Just as ministerial staff have to disclose all travel expenses charged to the taxpayers, Conservative MPs also provide proactive disclosure on all staff travel expenses.

My Liberal colleagues go partway in this regard in that they appear to report staff travel when it takes place between Ottawa and the riding, but there is no sign of travel expenses incurred within the riding. This is at best a half-measure, but to be sure, and in fairness, it is a vast improvement over the complete lack of measures exhibited by the NDP. Another apparent difference between the Conservative and Liberal systems is that Conservatives are posting all items charged under the hospitality budget as hospitality expenses.

It is not clear if this is the case for the Liberal system, but perhaps they could clarify whether they are posting all hospitality charges or just selected ones. One thing is clear. There is one party in this place that is not offering details of its hospitality expenses, and that is the NDP. My colleagues in the NDP have decided that they would rather not post any detailed expenses. Not only that, they have tried to disparage our attempts to increase transparency regarding our expenses. They have the gall to wrap their lack of transparency in a cloak of virtue.

The NDP members claim that they will not report their travel and hospitality expenses because there is not currently a system that applies to all MPs. Well, we agree that there should be a system that applies to all MPs. We do not agree that this should stop MPs from taking steps to increase their own transparency. A new system will not appear overnight, so we have taken steps to fill the gap. In the end, while the NDP waits for a system that applies to all MPs, virtually all MPs except the NDP have a system in place. Mr. Peter Julian: April 1, April 1. Mr. Blaine Calkins: The truth hurts. Hon.

John Duncan: They are heckling me now, Mr. Speaker. The NDP members claim that they will not report their expenses because the systems currently used by other parties require self-policing. While we agree that we should work toward a system that is vetted by House administration, we do not agree that this is a barrier to MPs being accountable to their constituents. I have worked hard to ensure that my travel and hospitality reports accurately reflect my expenses, and I believe that my colleagues have done the same. I wonder why the NDP balks so much at posting its expenses.

Is it because it mistrusts its own members so deeply that it would rather post nothing than coax them to do it themselves, or is it because they are worried about what the public might see if their spending were posted? Whatever ideas the NDP offers as a distraction, the fact is that absolutely nothing prevents it from taking immediate steps toward being transparent now. Currently, MP expenses are closely scrutinized by the non-partisan experts within House administration.

The quality of their work, as far as I understand, is not being debated, and the Auditor General has confirmed that the safeguards they have in place are rigorous and effective. This motion, as I understand it, would allow us to explore ways in which we could collect and collate information so that it could be presented in a format similar to ministerial proactive disclosure, which has been widely accepted. This makes sense. The NDP, on the other hand, would have us do away with the current system entirely.

It would have us set up a new system, based on the British system, which, according to evidence provided at procedures and House affairs, functions in a manner very similar to our own system.

(1605) The British developed an arm's-length organization, because their system was not working. Setting up their organization cost millions of pounds and took several years and a lot of growing pains. It was worth the cost and effort for them because they were replacing a system that was completely broken. In the end, they ended up with a system of safeguards not remarkably different from what we already have in place. Why would the NDP ask us to spend millions of dollars to end up no further ahead?

I am proud of our government's record on transparency and accountability and can confidently state that we will continue to lead on this front. Since this motion is consistent with the direction we have already taken and efforts already under way, thanks to Conservative leadership, I have no problem supporting it. In fact, I move: Amendment That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word “posting”, the following words, “, on April 1, 2014,”.

(1610) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : In these cases, the mover of the initial order of business must agree to the amendment. Does the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor accept the amendment as moved by the Chief Government Whip ? Mr. Scott Simms : Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : It is accepted and in order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the trend on the Conservative side has been to pull what we call a Mississauga—Streetsville.

In other words, they invent things that really are not true. The member knows full well that in my case, for eight years now, I have been having my direct website connected with my verified complete expenses, as have all NDP MPs. It is the only caucus in which all MPs are directly tied in to House of Commons disclosure. The member knows this. What is curious is that he neglected to mention the number of Conservatives who have refused to participate in the partial and unverified disclosure the Conservatives were doing last December.

In fact, a rough count, and journalists are looking into this now, shows that almost a third of the House of Commons caucus, and of course many more Conservative senators, given all the scandals they are embroiled in, are not even part of this partial voluntary scheme the Conservatives cooked up to try to put a little smoke and mirrors around expense disclosure. I am going to ask the member a question. We are on television, so he has to give an honest answer. Does he realize just how many members of his caucus do not even subscribe to the partial smoke and mirrors disclosure the Conservatives put forward?

Can he tell the House how many Conservative members are not even engaged in the partial disclosure from last December? Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I actually take great umbrage at what the member from British Columbia just stated. First, I do not need a television camera on me to tell the truth. Second, yes, I am well aware of each and every one of the Conservative members who has posted or not posted. The current posting is 100% of Conservative members of Parliament and 100% of Conservative senators. It is auditable. It is true.

I do not know anything you can do, other than apologize for being so blatantly wrong and accusatory. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I would again remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see that the Conservatives have moved in this direction. Liberals appreciate the support. The amendment to bring it forward to April 1 is actually encouraging.

This is something Liberals have been advocating for months now and is something we believe in. Proactive disclosure is a great way to ensure that there is more transparency. It is something the leader of the Liberal Party has been arguing for virtually since he took the leadership of the party. We give credit where credit is due and acknowledge and appreciate the support the Conservatives are giving the Liberal opposition motion. Does the member feel that the only way we are going to be able to get the NDP to disclose the information we are currently disclosing is through the passage of this motion? Hon.

John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, in fact I see the vast majority of this motion to be somewhat redundant, in that we are not going to get the NDP to move until there is no choice but to move. This is a motion. We have something much more significant, which is direction from the Board of Internal Economy, as of April 1, whereby the House administration will ensure there is disclosure that is very much in parallel with the proactive disclosure we are undertaking at this time. (1615) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I find this debate counterproductive.

The parties are trading accusations. On this side of the House, the NDP wants to work with the Office of the Auditor General to withdraw from MPs the responsibility to police themselves through the Board of Internal Economy. However, the NDP initiative was thwarted by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I am not necessarily opposed to the formula as proposed by the Liberal Party today. However, I would like to know why the two parties in question are not supporting the NDP initiative. My question is for the Conservative Party.

Why does it not support the NDP initiative to ensure greater transparency in reporting by removing from members the responsibility to police themselves through the Board of Internal Economy and giving that oversight responsibility to the Office of the Auditor General? [ English ] Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, the procedure and House affairs committee has already studied this subject at great length. The NDP was on this path during those committee hearings and got no support.

As a matter of fact, the Auditor General has stated, as I said in my speech, that the controls and processes in place by the House of Commons administration are extremely robust and more than adequate to fulfill the task. Now, with public disclosure on top of that, from the board, I cannot imagine why we would want to put a very expensive system in place. We do not require that to achieve our mission and goal. Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. Chief Government Whip , for his excellent presentation in the House of Commons today.

I would also like to thank him for his invaluable service, not only as the whip of the great Conservative caucus that we have, but also for the yeoman work he has done at the Board of Internal Economy. I would like to thank him for not only making sure that Canadians can rest assured that honest, hard-working members of Parliament have their expenses go through a rigorous process when it comes to their duties, but also for his leadership in making sure that the Conservative caucus posts its expenses. I wonder if the Chief Government Whip could further edify something for the folks at home.

I know he alluded to it in his previous answer, but I wonder if he could expand a bit more on the audit that was done by the Auditor General in regard to the House of Commons financial services. Could he also explain why, in his opinion, Conservative members of Parliament and Conservative senators, along with some of the Liberal members, are the only ones who seem to be willing to publicly display items above and beyond what is currently required? Why does he think that the NDP seems to be afraid to do what most Canadians would deem to be appropriate, which is to proactively disclose? Hon. John Duncan : Mr.

Speaker, there are many things to say. The first thing that Canadians, and all members of Parliament, would say is that we respect the Office of the Auditor General. We also respect the work of our House administration. There is no need to put them at odds with each other, in any way, shape, or form. What we are proposing and what this motion proposes would not do that. The NDP always wants to create a wedge. Wherever it can create one, it wants to do that. Whether it is for the greater good or not, that is what it wants to do.

In terms of why the NDP is working so hard to not disclose hospitality and travel expenses proactively, I can only speculate on that. Sometimes we spend more energy and resources avoiding doing something than actually doing it. I have failed to understand its logic in this since about halfway through last year.

(1620) Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House and congratulate the Liberal Party. It does not happen very often. I have been here for 10 years, and I have had some difficulty with some of the decisions that the Liberals have taken. I say this as a former financial administrator, one of the only people in the House who has actually prepared documents for audit. I am well aware that when putting expenses together, we need to ensure three things: that they are uniform, complete, and verified.

That is what we in the NDP have been saying now for years, going back to the very beginning when I was first elected in 2004. I was one of the first, along with a number of my NDP colleagues, to post verified expenses from the House of Commons online. I am proud to say that every single member of the NDP caucus no