OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 127 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, October 10, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 10, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 127 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 127 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 127 (Version officielle) 147 127 10 10 2014 2014/10/10 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Government Orders Government Orders (1000) [ English ] Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act Hon. Denis Lebel (for the Minister of Justice) Bill C-13. Third reading moved that Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act , be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-13 , the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Bill C-13 has received wide media attention, and almost every Canadian who has heard about it has had an opinion on it. Unfortunately, much of what has been reported in the media has disregarded the spirit of this legislation, and this has hampered an informed debate on this important piece of legislation.

Bill C-13 , in simple terms, would do three very important things that would help make the world safer for Canadians. First, it proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, or what some refer to as “revenge porn”. Bill C-13 would also update existing offences, such as the harassing telephone call provision, to make them relevant in the Internet age. Some of these amendments would be particularly useful for police in relation to cyberbullying cases.

The second important component of Bill C-13 is the proposed enhancement of the investigative toolkit police use to deal with cybercrimes and electronic evidence. These amendments, which comprise the modernization of existing investigative powers as well as the creation of new production orders for specific information, would provide Canadian police with the tools that many other police in other countries have been using for over 10 years.

The modernization of the toolkit would ensure that police could access the information they need, and only the information they need, to advance an investigation into an offence.

By providing police with these modern tools, Parliament would not only be facilitating the investigation of crimes involving electronic evidence in Canada but would be enhancing privacy protection for Canadians generally by requiring the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny for all information in relation to which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. (1005) [ Translation ] Finally, Bill C-13 will allow Canada to access and provide greater international cooperation in criminal matters.

This is of vital importance because so much evidence in relation to cybercrimes, such as that related to cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, is stored and located outside of Canada. In many cases, where there is no international cooperation, no investigation can proceed. [ English ] As was previously pointed out at the report stage, Bill C-13 was thoroughly reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The review involved 10 committee meetings and appearances by over 40 witnesses.

While there were appearances by witnesses who opposed aspects of the bill, primarily the investigative tools, many of the witnesses were supportive of the entire legislation package. However, it should be noted that the new intimate images offence received almost universal support, including from members of the opposition. During his testimony before the justice committee, the Minister of Justice explained that the proposed non-consensual distribution of intimate images offence would prohibit the sharing of sexual or nude images without the consent of the person depicted.

It is most important to respond in this manner to cyberbullying that involves this activity, which can cruelly humiliate and shame its target and cause irreparable emotional and psychological harm to the victim, particularly Canadian youth. The minister explained how this would remedy a gap in the criminal law.

The minister also noted that Bill C-13 reflects recommendations made in June 2013 in a federal-provincial-territorial report on cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which recommended both the creation of a new offence and updates to the existing offences and investigative tools. The report was unanimously supported by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety.

The committee also heard from a number of victims of cyberbullying and parents of deceased victims of cyberbullying, many of whom have become advocates for change to better address cyberbullying. Many of these witnesses expressed support for the proposals in Bill C-13 . Mr. Glen Canning, the father of Rehtaeh Parsons, expressed concern about the challenge faced by police in trying to respond to modern crimes using antiquated tools.

He also believes that had Bill C-13 been law at the time of his daughter's harassment, it would have made a positive difference. [ Translation ] The Committee also heard from police, including the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the CACP, and the chief of the Vancouver Police Department, Jim Chu. The CACP represents over 90% of the Canadian police community, including federal, first nations, provincial, regional and municipal agencies. [ English ] Chief Chu clearly stated that the CACP fully supports Bill C-13 .

He offered the committee compelling testimony on the challenges of crime in the online environment and on its growth in areas of traditional crime, such as harassment, fraud, and kidnapping, as well as in relation to new crimes more closely linked to technological advances. He also explained to the committee the challenges police face because of the international nature of cyberactivity. Chief Chu articulated how technology can facilitate traditional bullying and make it more persuasive and painful.

He also expressed concern about the lack of a safe haven and the difficulty of erasing anything from the online environment once it has been distributed. He said rapid intervention is needed before things get worse for victims, who may suffer consequences of this behaviour for the rest of their lives. He explained to the committee that the modernized tools in Bill C-13 are essential for this response.

Chief Chu explained that the bill does not create authority for police to obtain information without judicial warrant and that the police support Bill C-13's proposed judicial oversight as a good way to balance investigative needs and privacy protection. He also noted, however, that these tools need to allow police to respond quickly, which is essential in the online environment. He also responded to the inaccurate portrayals of Bill C-13 , in some instances, as creating authority for police to wiretap without authority.

Bill C-13 does not provide police with this power, and they will continue to require prior authorization by the courts to intercept any private communications. Nothing in Bill C-13 changes this. [ Translation ] The committee also heard from Greg Gilhooly, a lawyer who was a victim of an Internet predator when he was in his youth. Mr.

Gilhooly expressed his strong support for the proposals in Bill C-13 and provided the committee with personal insight into the urgency and importance of acting precipitously to enhance the law in this area because, as he put it, “there are monsters among us,” and police need tools to enable them to act and protect Canadians. (1010) [ English ] The committee also heard from Mr.

David Butt, legal counsel for the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance and a front-line criminal lawyer who commended the government for striking the right balance between investigative needs and privacy protections with the proposals in Bill C-13 . I would like to share with members this quote from his testimony to the committee: ...let's have vibrant police powers to investigate digitally, coupled with significant judicial oversight to control those police powers independently. That's the sweet spot that I say this bill hits.

That's my measure of success in a bill: does it enable the police to act effectively, but does it also give another branch of government, the judiciary, the appropriate tools to oversee? If you've got both of those, you've got the right mix, and I say you've got the right mix here. While other witnesses expressed similar views to the committee, I found this a particularly eloquent statement of what Bill C-13 accomplishes. I would like to continue by citing the support for Bill C-13 expressed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.

Lianna McDonald, the executive director of this organization, appeared before the committee and explained that her organization is a registered charity providing national programs and services related to the personal safety of all children. Ms. McDonald explained at the committee that her goal in appearing was to provide both insight and support for Bill C-13 .

After over 30 years of working for child protection, she considered the bill to be something that would address the challenges her organization is very familiar with as first-hand witnesses to what she described as the collision between sexual exploitation, technology, and bullying. She explained to the committee that Cybertip.ca, Canada's national tip line for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children, has received more than 100,000 reports of sexual abuse and exploitation of children, which has resulted in more than 500 arrests and in removing numerous children from abusive environments. Ms.

McDonald expressed concern that technology has become a powerful weapon and tool in the hands of those who wish to hide their criminal behaviour behind a cloak of anonymity, making it easier to engage in reprehensible harassment behaviour. She urged the committee not to fail in understanding the role of technology in the commission of offences and to be conscious of the importance of modernizing the law. She also expressed concern that the privacy rights of victims have been neglected in the focus on privacy issue discussions, and she indicated that Bill C-13 would be fully supported by her organization. Ms.

McDonald also expressed support for having the new offence of the non-consensual distribution of images apply to victims of all ages, as the impact of this behaviour is significant regardless of age. I hope that I have succeeded in conveying the reality of the broader witness testimony, which is that while there were some dissenting voices, many informed and engaged witnesses considered the proposals in Bill C-13 as necessary and advisable. Unfortunately, media coverage focused primarily on those who expressed criticisms of the bill. Some of those criticisms demonstrated a lack of understanding of the proposals.

Another aspect of the proposals that has not reached much attention but that may be of interest to note, given the prevalence of online crime, is the amendments to the Competition Act proposed in Bill C-13 . We know that there are complex forms of white collar crime, and sometimes there are businesses that push the envelope too far and break the law. The Competition Act is a federal law governing most business conduct in Canada. The Competition Bureau, headed by the Commissioner of Competition, is an independent law enforcement agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of the act.

The Competition Act includes both criminal and civil provisions aimed at preventing anti-competitive practices and other harmful conduct in the marketplace. It is designed to ensure that Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive, innovative marketplace. In particular, the Competition Act sets out certain criminal offences, including, among other things, price fixing, bid rigging, deceptive telemarketing, pyramid selling, and false or misleading representations that are knowingly made recklessly.

It also includes civil provisions that deal with false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices, mergers, abuse of dominance, agreements between competitors, price maintenance, exclusive dealing, tied selling, and market restriction. Bill C-13 would amend certain

definitions found within the Competition Act to ensure that they are clear and technology neutral and that they align with those in the Criminal Code, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, and Canada's anti-spam legislation. This bill would also incorporate in the Competition Act, by reference, the new powers in the Criminal Code regarding preservation demands, preservation orders, and production orders for historical transmission data so that they could be used in investigations of all conduct under the Competition Act, both criminal and civil.

As is the case throughout the bill, preservation and production orders sought by the bureau would be subject to judicial oversight. In closing, I strongly support Bill C-13 , and I encourage all members to vote in support of this important piece of legislation and to send it for further consideration to that other place. (1015) [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice 's speech. I am concerned about two of his comments. [ English ] He said that the bill is enhancing “privacy protection”.

He also said, “Nothing in Bill C-13 changes this”. [ Translation ] I am very surprised because there is a specific clause in the bill that would grant legal immunity to any Internet service providers that choose to share their clients' personal information when asked by any government agency. What the government is doing is quite separate from the judicial oversight system and the process for obtaining warrants. I am very curious to know how the member can think that does not violate privacy protection. Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr.

Speaker, the bill contains an immunity clause pertaining to the submission of documents. As I mentioned in my speech, one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee was Mr. Gilhooly. He is a corporate lawyer who used to work for Global. Mr. Gilhooly was a victim of Graham James, I believe, and he had the courage to come testify. In his testimony, he said, as a corporate lawyer, that the immunity would allay any doubt corporate lawyers might have about what is already enshrined in law. There is already immunity.

Immunity was granted on a statutory basis, which confirms the state of law, before this was done. Nothing has changed. Mr. Gilhooly said that the immunity set out in the bill would remove any doubts corporate lawyers might have so that they could immediately hand the information over to police. That would allow the police to preserve the evidence. In such situations, the evidence disappears very quickly. Once it has disappeared, an investigation is impossible and it also becomes impossible to protect the victims, who are mostly young children. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the issue of cyberbullying and the phenomenal amount of exploitation that has taken place on the Internet and through technology has been a significant issue over the last number of years, an issue colleagues of mine within the Liberal Party have brought forth in the form of other pieces of legislation, private member's bills in particular. It is an issue Canadians are concerned about no matter what region of the country we look at.

Given the level of interest and the amount of potential legislative changes opposition parties have brought forward, such as my colleague from Vancouver who represents the Liberal Party, why does the member believe that the government has not really responded? Given the high level of interest in this issue, a keen sense of co-operation among all political parties to do more on the issue, why does he feel that the government has not acted on private members' initiatives that would have gone a long way in addressing some of the concerns he talked about in his speech.

(1020) Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, I believe the justice committee struck a very good balance in considering the concerns of the opposition parties. There were 10 meetings. Every single witness requested to appear did appear, and we believe the bill that has come forth has struck a good balance between the privacy rights of those who commit the offences and the protection of those most vulnerable people whom they attack, the children of Canada. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice a question because, as a young mother, I feel more and more concerned about cyberbullying and all that it entails, particularly when I think about my daughter's future. I am very concerned when I see what can happen to children all across Canada. What worries me even more about Bill C-13 is that we were unable to reach an agreement with the Conservative government to divide the bill. The official opposition completely agrees with a large portion of the bill.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the Conservative government is acting in such bad faith when it knows full well that all of the members on this side of the House completely agree with such a large portion of the bill? The government could split the bill in two and very quickly pass the portion we all agree on so that it could become law as quickly as possible. We could then discuss the part that we still have issues with and come up with amendments or another way to move forward with that part of the bill.

Why is the Conservative government acting in such bad faith and why is it refusing to split Bill C-13 into two separate bills? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder what would have been the point of splitting a bill when all of the witnesses invited by the parties appeared and there were 10 meetings. I am not convinced that the outcome would have been any different. We believe that this bill truly strikes a balance. It protects the privacy of the victims and the accused, as well as the young and the vulnerable. That is the purpose of this bill, and we believe we have achieved it. [ English ] Mrs.

Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what we put forward makes a lot of sense, because even the Minister of Justice agreed to one of our amendments, but the government refused it. Basically, the member is telling us that all of the witnesses appeared, but he is not telling us that all of them were in favour of this. Mr. David Fraser said: Even though the definition excludes content, just the transmission data tells you a lot more about really what's going on.

I would suggest this can be fixed by either raising the standard from reasonable grounds to suspect to reasonable grounds to believe with respect to this data, or re-crafting the definition of transmission data.... He added a little bit more, but the whole idea here is that although the government allows witnesses to appear, it does not listen to what the witnesses are saying. Again, we see a government that continues to victimize the victims and makes it legal to do illegal things. Can the minister indicate whether or not the government is absolutely sure that this will not constitute a constitutional debate?

Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, each and every law, before it is adopted, goes through very rigid scrutiny as to its constitutionality. This is a procedure that we have followed. We believe that it has struck the right balance. Certainly, there are witnesses who were not in favour of the bill, as there were many who were in favour of it. However, the key issue is that in intercepting information to protect the most vulnerable, the children, there is always a level of judicial oversight. The courts are the protectors of the charter.

The courts intervene in each instance to make sure that the privacy rights of the accused are protected, as are the rights of those who are being victimized. (1025) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech, which I found very enlightening, especially with respect to the Conservatives' usual tactic: pretending to be the victims of the mean old media that focus heavily on their bill's shortcomings.

The parliamentary secretary's affirmation that every single government bill goes through rigid scrutiny before making its way to the House of Commons is not reassuring at all. Both the parliamentary secretary and I know very well that, over the past nine years, several of the bills that the Conservative government pushed through have had parts struck down by court rulings, even by the Supreme Court. In Spencer, for example, the Supreme Court prohibited Internet service providers from disclosing their clients' names and contact information to law enforcement officials who simply ask for it.

Is the parliamentary secretary not worried about yet another fiasco resulting from his obstinacy? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, since Confederation, the Supreme Court has ruled on constitutionality in a number of cases. That is the beauty of our democracy. Bills are passed and analyzed, and then the brightest legal minds of the Supreme Court get us back on the right track when we stray. Investigations will always be subject to judicial review. The court determines the value of a request to protect victims. Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it is very disappointing that we are once again being forced to debate a very important bill under a time allocation motion. I have lost track somewhat, but I think this is the 80th time allocation motion. It has happened so many times under this government that there have been many complex, important bills that we have not had a chance to debate. On top of that, the government decided to hold the third reading debate on this extremely important bill on a Friday, when everyone knows that most members are not present in the House on Fridays. I think that is appalling.

I would also like to talk about the vote at second reading. There was a vote at report stage and another one on this part of the bill, and it was revised in committee. That said, I must denounce the fact that the Liberal Party voted in favour of the bill, even though it had criticized the bill repeatedly. It boggles my mind. I am not normally a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but I was there when this bill was being studied. When they were asking the parliamentary secretary questions, some members said that the bill's first aim was to address bullying.

On that issue, at least, we agree 100% with the Conservatives. All members on all sides of the House agree that cyberbullying must be stopped, for it is a very serious issue. New technology has completely changed the problem of bullying. In the past, once you were home, nasty people at school could no longer bother you, since you were in a safe place. These days, new technology and social networks allow bullies to follow us everywhere. If someone does not like what you wore to school, it will be shared on Facebook or in an email. Disturbing images can also follow us.

Unfortunately, that is what happened in a couple of highly publicized cases, such as the Amanda Todd case. No matter what she did, that image followed her. I agree completely that this must be stopped. That is why we asked that the bill be split. That way, we could pass the essential elements and make positive changes to combat cyberbullying and non-consensual distribution of images. It is too bad that the government did not have the good sense to get this part passed quickly. We agreed to do so. This part of the bill could have been at the other place by now.

Unfortunately, the government did not want to go ahead. It is a real shame because cyberbullying is a very important issue to me. I would like to use my 20 minutes to talk about only the parts of the bill that have to do with cyberbullying. Unfortunately, I cannot because we also have to talk about the problematic parts of this bill that could have very serious consequences for Canadians' privacy. Victims of cyberbullying deserve better. The families of cyberbullying victims came to committee to share their stories. They were very courageous.

Nonetheless, there are thousands of other cases that are not in the media, unfortunately or fortunately, I am not sure which. These victims deserve a debate on this issue alone. Unfortunately, we must debate both because this government is incapable of co-operating. Some of my constituents are working very hard to combat cyberbullying. Someone even developed a website to create a safer social network where people cannot be anonymous. It is very interesting.

(1030) I want to point out all the daily efforts these people are making. Some are forming groups to combat cyberbullying. These are truly exceptional Canadians, and I want to thank them. We have to talk about the other aspects because, unfortunately, very few pages and clauses of this bill really have anything to do with cyberbullying. The vast majority are on changes to the Criminal Code. Some parts of the bill are just fine, but others will seriously jeopardize Canadians' privacy. The government keeps talking about the judicial oversight system for obtaining warrants to get personal information.

Indeed, some parts of the bill call for a warrant. I will talk about the problems with warrants later. However, what the government did not say in its speech and what it seems to have completely forgotten about is that a parallel system is being created, and that it completely bypasses all the mechanisms for obtaining warrants. That was part of the government's own bill. We are completely setting aside judicial oversight, which is the basis for our legal systems.

We are creating a parallel system where someone can pick up the phone, call an Internet service provider and make an urgent request, and the service provider will send the information. The Liberals created this loophole in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Conservative government is taking advantage of it. We know that there have been abuses. The acting information and privacy commissioner announced that in one year, government agencies made at least 1.2 million requests for information from Internet providers. That is huge.

I have trouble believing that there are 1.2 million terrorists, for example, or 1.2 million criminals running around in the streets and that we need to obtain information about them. Furthermore, it was the Internet service providers that informed us about the 1.2 million requests, not the government, which has shown an appalling lack of transparency. It does not want to give us that information. Also, there was no explanation as to why these requests were made. There is no oversight system for these types of requests that could guarantee to Canadians that they were made in extraordinary cases.

I believe that Canadians are prepared to accept extraordinary cases. There are urgent situations where we cannot turn to the regular processes and where we must obtain a warrant after the fact. However, in light of the 1.2 million requests, I find it hard to believe that Canadians would not think that there had been abuses and that there is a flaw somewhere. I actually asked the government a question on the order paper about how many times it requested this kind of information from Internet service providers. That was just for one year, 2012-13.

The Canada Border Services Agency said that it had made over 13,000 requests in one year. I asked the agency what kinds of cases or situations would result in such requests being made. Only two of the 13,000 requests were made for national security reasons. Can we honestly say that these are exceptional cases or national security cases? I think not. The question was asked, but the answer did not cut it. I asked the government another question because it was not going to share that information.

I asked how many times government agencies had made such requests for 2001, which is when the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, was passed. Here is something very disturbing: they did not have the data. We were told that there was no system to keep track of those kinds of requests and that the information could not be provided. An hon. member: For crying out loud. Ms. Charmaine Borg : For crying out loud. The member behind me said that because it is true. For crying out loud.

They would have us believe that they can use this back door to ask Internet service providers for personal information, such as a person's IP address, but that they cannot track this stuff.

(1035) The government is saying that it cannot go back to determine, for example, how many requests were made and how many of those cases had to do with cyberbullying, child exploitation, national security or anti-terrorism. It claims that it does not have that data. How are we supposed to make sure that this is not being abused? Exploiting loopholes has become the norm, and that poses tremendous problems. This bill grants legal immunity to Internet service providers that choose to share their clients' personal information when requested to do so by any government agency or on their own initiative.

However, most of the time, it is government agencies that make a request. A parallel system ensured that an Internet service provider that shared data it had no right sharing could be sued if it abused the process. That is the one and only aspect that gave people any sense of security. In certain cases, Internet service providers refused to respond to a request because they did not want to take the risk of being sued. Bill C-13 takes away this one thing that made Internet service providers think twice. That is a major problem.

When the Conservative and Liberal members—since they voted together—say they want to ensure that there is balance and a warrant system, that is false, for they seem to be forgetting that they gave Internet service providers legal immunity in this bill. Furthermore, the IP address reveals a great deal of information about users, including their conversations and where they go. Contrary to what the Conservatives like to say, it is not the same information that can be found in the phone book. I talked a lot about the shortcomings created by PIPEDA.

Rather than correcting the situation, the provisions in Bill C-13 make matters worse. In addition to providing legal immunity, Bill C-13 also reduces the threshold for intercepting communications—that is, the content of an email or text message—to reasonable suspicion. There already was a threshold for obtaining a warrant, which was good. We should respect existing thresholds for being able to access personal information or communications. However, that threshold has been reduced to “reasonable suspicion”, which opens the door to abuse. I would like to point out another very specific aspect of this bill.

If government agencies can ask Internet service providers to hand over personal information, public servants will have access to that information with a simple phone call. Here is how “public officer” is defined in Bill C-13 : “Public officer” means a public officer who is appointed or designated to administer or enforce a federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament. I can think of many positions that would be included in this definition, including mayors. There are good mayors and bad mayors. Can they all be trusted?

Are there any provisions to prevent abuse? No. This just opens the door wider. When this bill was examined in committee, the NDP proposed 37 amendments, which were all rejected. We heard from a number of witnesses, and contrary to what the parliamentary secretary just said, the witnesses did not all agree. Here is what Carol Todd, Amanda Todd's mother, had to say:

(1040) I do not want my privacy invaded. I do not want young people's privacy compromised. I do not want personal information being exploited without a protection order that would support individuals. I do not want any Canadian hurt in my daughter's name. I want her legacy to continue to promote hope, celebrate our differences, and give strength to other young people everywhere. I think she would have been pleased to see us split this bill.

She does not want anyone's privacy to be invaded, or the threshold for obtaining communications to be lowered, or for government agencies to be given access to personal information without a warrant. That is what she wants for her daughter's legacy. It is really quite clear. There is another aspect that the committee was unable to assess because it happened after review in committee and that is the Supreme Court ruling in Spencer. It is an extremely important ruling that brought certainty to something that may have been rather vague before.

In Spencer, the Supreme Court ruled that no one could have access to clients' names, addresses, telephone numbers and IP addresses without a warrant. Nonetheless, in Bill C-13 we just included statutory immunity for Internet service providers who share information without a warrant. There is some serious and legitimate uncertainty as to whether these parts of the bill are constitutional and whether they will be blocked. That being said, why could we not have sat down together and sorted this out?

We know that the Conservative government seems to be short on respect for the Constitution and the Supreme Court's rulings, as we saw during the process for appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that every bill, every law it wants to enforce respects the Canadian Constitution. It is the government's fundamental duty. When the Conservatives say that there was a review, that legal experts assessed the bill to ensure it was consistent with the Constitution, that is great, but the Spencer ruling was handed down after the bill was drafted.

I am puzzled by something else. As we know, the government is refusing to respond to this decision. It claims that everything is in order and that the bill is constitutional even though many experts doubt that it will pass the test of the Constitution in light of the Spencer ruling. What is interesting is that we expected the government to respond, but it was actually the Internet service providers that did so. Now Rogers and TELUS will no longer respond to requests for information about their clients made by government agencies.

Why is the government not taking its responsibilities seriously by declining to make these requests? That would be the responsible thing for the government to do. Instead, it is the other side doing this. That really bothers me. I agree completely that we must amend the law. It must keep pace with new technologies and the new problems that society faces. Many new things are happening, and we have to keep up to date. However, we cannot and should not put the protection of people ahead of the protection of privacy. We can find a balance.

No matter what the Conservative MPs would like to think, this is not a balanced bill. Furthermore, there is a high probability that it is unconstitutional. It is therefore very problematic. The government says that it is opening the door, that it is all right in certain situations. Yes, there are exceptional cases. However, I am afraid that the government is violating privacy and that once it opens the door, it will open it wider. Where will that take our society?

(1045) Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and acknowledge her contribution to this debate. Why did the government not split the bill in two as the NDP asked in committee? That would have made it easier to meet the growing needs regarding cyberbullying and the protection of personal information. Those are two very different things. As my colleague said earlier, this bill will allow for the invasion of privacy and we do not know how far it will go. The bill does not set any limits in that regard. Ms. Charmaine Borg : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We asked for the bill to be divided. The provisions pertaining to cyberbullying, namely the specific clauses that deal with the distribution of images without consent, could already be law and could already be protecting children. The government decided to run television ads to announce the fight against cyberbullying when a law to that effect has not yet been passed. Things could be different if we could work together properly.

I have already mentioned this, but I find it very disappointing that I had to spend about 15 of the 20 minutes of my speech talking about privacy. I really would have liked to speak on behalf of the victims of cyberbullying in my riding and across Canada and let them know that we are going to take action and work together. Unfortunately, the government put these two parts of the bill together and the debate is about both of them. What is more, as a result of the Spencer ruling, some provisions of the bill will likely be deemed unconstitutional, which will block the entire bill.

If we could have had a bill that included only the provisions about cyberbullying, this would not have been a problem, and we could have considered whether some of the provisions were constitutionally legitimate. [ English ] Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for expressing our opposition to the bill. As someone who also deals with issues surrounding cyber-misogyny in particular and the attack on women of all ages online, which is especially vitriolic, could she speak to the way in which the bill would do nothing to deal with that kind of cyberbullying?

The government's agenda, when it comes to women and discrimination against them, is left wanting. The Conservatives use examples of cyber-misogyny and tragic examples to drive this egregious agenda. Could my colleague speak to that? (1050) [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg : Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Unfortunately, some women are particularly vulnerable targets for misogynist comments on the Internet. The case of Amanda Todd is a good example. A sexual image of her was distributed because sometimes, people unfortunately see women as sexual objects.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord moved a motion that we work on prevention. I think that prevention is very important, but it is nowhere to be found in this bill. If we work together, we can get to the root of the issue and figure out why cyberbullying happens and why people distribute sexual images without consent. We need to get to the root of the problem. We can impose sanctions on people all we want, but if there is no means of preventing this crime, we cannot attack the problem on all fronts. Prevention is important, especially in the case of women who are the victims of these types of attacks.

To combat this problem, we need to get to the root of this problem. Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as you know and as all members on both sides of this House know, cyberbullying causes a lot of pain for the young women—and also young men—who fall victim to this crime. In most cases, the victims are young people who are still in high school and who do not have much power in society. I would like to clarify something with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville .

If I am not mistaken, the member thinks that the government is mismanaging this issue by associating cyberbullying with intrusive provisions regarding Internet spying. From what I understand, she demonstrated that these two topics should be separated. Could she explain why? Ms. Charmaine Borg : Mr. Speaker, this is something we have said over and over. We should be able to split this bill in two. Cyberbullying victims deserve a debate on these problems. They deserve that we tackle the issue of cyberbullying and debate provisions that would help fix these problems. I repeat that we also need to address prevention.

Unfortunately, these two issues are being dealt with at the same time. I would like to talk about what Carol Todd said during her testimony in committee. She said that she did not want people's privacy to be invaded in her daughter's name. That is fundamental. Why could we not adopt only the parts of the bill on cyberbullying and the sharing of non-consensual images, and then examine the other parts later, especially in light of the Spencer decision, which changes everything? [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, one concern I have expressed in the past is that the amount of exploitation that takes place on the Internet is exceptionally high, and has been for a number of years. Cyberbullying takes place every day and the need for legislation has existed for a number of years. The opposition, whether the Liberals or the New Democrats, has brought forward legislation to try to deal with some of these problems. In recognition of just how badly we need some legislation, the Liberals will support this. Would the member comment on the lost opportunities in not passing more progressive legislation earlier?

Certain aspects of this legislation received overwhelming support from all political parties and had the government acted on those portions, cyberbullying and exploitation over the Internet could have been dealt with a few years ago. Would she not agree? (1055) [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg : Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his excellent work and for introducing a bill with provisions that were very similar to those in the first few pages of the bill we are debating today. We could have acted very quickly.

We could have passed the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord , which would have allowed us to examine the issue of cyberbullying and find ways to prevent it. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, despite claiming that they are committed to combatting cyberbullying. That is extremely disconcerting. In response to my Liberal colleague's question, I am extremely disappointed to hear that they are supporting this bill and that they are supporting this government's desire to violate the privacy of Canadians. [ English ] Hon.

Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, much like at second reading, I am pleased but also troubled to speak to Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act . I am pleased that Parliament and the government are moving forward with measures to combat cyberbullying. It is, as many others have said, a scourge on our society and is especially troublesome, creating stress, strain and in some cases a loss of self-worth, among our youth. As my colleagues, the critic for justice and the critic for rights and freedoms, have stated, we support very strongly that aspect of the bill.

Support measures that would provide law enforcement with additional tools to combat cyberbullying is an area where the Criminal Code needs to be updated to reflect the realities of modern technologies and these times. Bill C-13 would do a reasonable job in bringing the Criminal Code up to date. I will speak a little further on other measures we believe, beyond the Criminal Code, that must happen to really deal effectively with cyberbullying. The Criminal Code can only be one aspect. We need to take many more measures in prevention and awareness, et cetera, beyond the Criminal Code.

However, at the beginning I said I am pleased, but I am also troubled. I am troubled because tagged onto the bill were measures of the old Bill C-30 on lawful access that so many Canadians spoke out against. Efforts were made to split the bill at committee and yet, despite the urging of the new Privacy Commissioner and many other witnesses, including Carol Todd, the bill was not split. I will complete my remarks after question period. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Malpeque will have seventeen and a half minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next resumes debate on the question.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members (1100) [ English ] Second World War National Tribute Ms. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to recognize James Noddle, of Newmarket, Canada's first recipient of the 75th anniversary Second World War national tribute. James answered the call of his country to serve as a driver and mechanic with the Ontario tank regiment. His job was to retrofit Sherman tanks into recovery vehicles, and find and repair major pieces of artillery damaged in battle.

He wrote in his memoirs: Our skills were mightily tested as we kept the meager equipment operational on the battlefield, on the sides of mountains, through railway tunnels, across mine-infested roads, while under constant enemy fire, for the final push through Italy, into France and finally Germany. It was my privilege to present this special tribute to James Noddle at his 100th birthday party last Sunday. A grateful nation thanks James for his service. We will never forget.

[ Translation ] Veterans Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, October 10, is World Mental Health Day. It is an excellent opportunity to promote healthy living and remind everyone of the importance of mental health to our overall health. It is also an opportunity to remind people that no one is immune to psychological stress, and this is especially true of the brave men and women who have proudly served their country in the Canadian Forces and who often come back with psychological injuries that never fully heal.

The rate of post-traumatic stress disorder among members of the Canadian Forces has nearly doubled since 2002. The suffering experienced by our soldiers and their families is a real problem. Unfortunately, the resources available to help them are woefully inadequate. Worse still, those who are considered no longer fit for duty under the universality of service policy are being squeezed out, often with almost no resources and sometimes even no pension. This situation is unacceptable.

It is time for the government to show our soldiers and our veterans the respect they deserve, and for the government to ensure that they have all the assistance and all the resources they need.

[ English ] Islamic State Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in Iraq, 100,000 Christians have fled their homes, humanitarian aid workers and journalists are being decapitated, women and girls are being forced to suffer horrific abuse, and anyone who disagrees with these things becomes a target of violence. What are the root causes of these problems? What are the root causes of this violence and misery? It is clear that the root causes of these problems are terrorists from ISIL, and I am proud that this House voted to do something about it. ISIL is a serious threat.

ISIL has explicitly threatened Canadians. ISIL has robbed, raped, and murdered thousands of innocent people. Canadians across the country agree that someone should do something about it. So What are we going to do? We cannot just hope that ISIL goes away. We cannot just hope that someone else will fix the problem. I commend members of this House who voted to allow our troops to conduct air strikes against ISIL. The world needs Canada to take action, to defend the defenceless victims of ISIL, and to stop these terrorists.

[ Translation ] International Summit of Co-operatives Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the first International Summit of Cooperatives was held in October 2012, in Quebec City. The second summit, which I was pleased to attend this week, from October 6 to 9, again in Quebec City, was another success. There were more than 3,000 participants from 93 countries. Major themes were addressed, including the role of the co-operative movement in ensuring our capacity to feed humanity, keep people healthy and contribute to sustainable development.

The great thing is that the summit ends on the eve of Co-op Week, which will be celebrated across Canada from October 13 to 19. [ English ] A good way for us to celebrate co-op week would be for MPs to visit co-operatives in their riding during that week. The co-operative model has been a proven structure for more than 100 years in Canada. They greatly empower each member, resulting in a wonderful combination of business success and social responsibility, which plays an important role in the economy and in the betterment of our communities.

Thanksgiving Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are getting ready for family gatherings over this Thanksgiving weekend, and I believe this is a good opportunity for us to humbly give thanks. [ Translation ] We give thanks for this opportunity we have of living in Canada, the best country in the world. [ English ] We give thanks for our brave airmen and women and humanitarian workers who are leaving for Iraq, risking their lives to help create a safer future for the Iraqi people and to protect us all from terrorists.

We give thanks for the farmers who make sure we have healthy food to eat. [ Translation ] We give thanks for the strong community spirit that exists in Canada and for Canadians’ willingness from coast to coast to work as volunteers to better people’s lives and help those who need it most. (1105) [ English ] In this spirit of giving, let us not forget the less fortunate or those who are left alone.

[ Translation ] World Food Day Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, October 16 is World Food Day. The 2014 theme, “Feeding the world, caring for the earth”, was chosen by the UN General Assembly to increase the visibility of family farming and smallholder farmers. Small farms in Canada feed entire cities and are at the heart of our rural economy. Unfortunately, 8,000 family farms have disappeared under the Conservatives, and two million Canadians run the risk of malnutrition. The UN has even expressed concerns about food security in Canada's aboriginal communities.

The NDP has developed a pan-Canadian food strategy to strengthen the system that takes food from the farm to the fork by way of our processors. Canadians deserve policies that help everyone eat well. Canadians deserve an NDP government that will stand up for family farms.

[ English ] International Day of the Girl Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, I would like to invite all Canadians to celebrate International Day of the Girl on October 11. Each year, on this special day, we celebrate the hope and inspiration that girls and young women represent for our families, our communities, and our country. This day also brings attention to the needs of girls throughout the world, who so often face violence and poverty, as well as inadequate education and health care.

That is why I am proud of the Government of Canada's leadership role in having the United Nations declare the International Day of the Girl. On October 11, I hope that all Canadians will find ways to support and celebrate girls and young women on this unique and very special day.

Dunbarton High School Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Canada Green Building Council has named Dunbarton High School of Pickering, in my riding, as the greenest school in Canada for 2014. Of the many schools invited to participate, Dunbarton High displayed exceptional progress in reducing its impact on the earth and raising necessary environmental awareness. The school has started an enviroclub, geared towards helping the school community become more environmentally friendly.

It has worked on an on-campus biodiversity program, in which they planted 70 trees and 22 native species in an effort to reduce the school's reliance on air conditioning, and they have participated in rehabilitation efforts in local parks. This achievement did not come easily to the school; it is the result of hard work, commitment, and passion from students and staff. They have made their school proud. I am honoured to share with this House that I am part of a community and a city, Pickering, which has one of the greenest schools in Canada.

[ Translation ] Citizenship Week Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be talking about Citizenship Week today. I would like to congratulate the new Canadians in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert once again. In September, 74 people in Saint-Hubert and Saint-Bruno were granted Canadian citizenship. Canada has built a reputation as a country of broad cultural diversity, and it has maintained that reputation on the international stage. Despite our obvious wealth, there are still too many people waiting for Canadian citizenship.

Processing delays for sponsorship and family reunification applications are still too often preventing people like you and me from starting a life in Canada. The government needs to know that by working together we can enhance Canada's reputation as a country that welcomes newcomers. Let us build our history together.

[ English ] Citizenship Week Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, next week Canadians are invited to join together to celebrate Citizenship Week. This is an opportunity to reflect on the many freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that we enjoy as citizens of this great country. It is also an ideal time for all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to Canada, our values and traditions. Since 2006, more than 1.5 million new citizens have made a permanent connection to Canada.

We are proud of this record, and we continue to ensure that we welcome even more new citizens to the Canadian family. With our government's recent changes to the Citizenship Act, connections to Canada are being strengthened and newcomers are seeing their applications being processed more quickly. Next week, thousands of newcomers will become Canadians at poignant ceremonies from coast to coast to coast. I invite all Canadians to take

part in Citizenship Week activities across Canada to celebrate all that it means to be Canadian and to show the world that we are Canada proud.

(1110) [ Translation ] Municipality of Stoke Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some good news about my riding. However, first, I would like to recognize a great Canadian. Germain Nault, a veteran who took

part in the Normandy landing, was introduced in the House in June. He passed away on Tuesday, September 23, several days after receiving the prestigious French Legion of Honour. I remember him as a man who said, “let there never be another war”. We will remember him. Meanwhile, the small municipality of Stoke is celebrating its 150th anniversary. Stoke is one of those places where it is good to live. It has beautiful mountains that can be seen for miles around. It is home to the Canadian cross-country ski and biathlon training centre.

The agricultural industry in the area is booming, with companies such as Mario Côté, Ferme Lieutenant, Miellerie Lune de miel, Boulangerie Bertrand and Charcuteries et Salaison Aurèle Théberge, just to name a few. Tomorrow, on Saturday, I will be sampling local products at Oktoberfest. For 150 years, generations of people have been rolling up their sleeves to build a region that is proud, united in tough times, courageous, prosperous, fertile and faithful to the traditions of hard work, equality and justice. Congratulations to the people of Stoke.

[ English ] The Economy Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the anti-trade NDP is at it again. Yesterday, the NDP attempted to gut the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. It tried to remove the investor protection provision from that agreement. This is something that is contained in almost every modern free trade agreement worldwide. Not surprisingly, the Liberal trade critic did not show up to help stop the NDP's anti-trade agenda. Then, again, she has not attended a trade meeting in the ten months since she was appointed as the critic.

While the Liberals and the NDP are playing hooky, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians, which is growing the economy and helping to create jobs. Since coming to office, our Conservative government has created almost 20% more jobs on a per capita basis than its closest competitor. In fact, Statistics Canada just announced today an increase of 74,000 net new jobs in September. The majority of those jobs are full-time jobs. Only the Conservative Prime Minister and the Conservative government will stand up for the economy of this country.

Religious Intolerance Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Office of Religious Freedom was notified of a possible plan to target and kill Ahmadis in Lahore, Pakistan, by the country's largest terrorist group, known as the SSP. Local sources have said that the SSP is vowing to teach the Ahmadis a lesson. Threats like this are not to be ignored by anyone. We will all remember May 2010, when an attack in Lahore, Pakistan, killed 90 and wounded another 120 Ahmadis.

These brazen attacks were carried out in two Ahmadiyya mosques during prayers, against men, women, and children who simply wanted to worship in peace. Canada needs to move quickly to engage with Pakistan in a way that ensures the safety of all Ahmadis. Religious freedom and security are not just notions for Canadians; they are basic human rights. Canada must do what it can to protect those freedoms around the world.

[ Translation ] Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, who is really in charge of the Liberal Party of Canada? We have good reason to wonder if high-level people other than the leader are pulling the strings. From one day to the next, nobody in the Liberal Party seems to have the same opinion. When the Liberal leader says that he will not support the decision to participate in a mission in Iraq against the Islamic State, is he conveying the views of high-level puppet masters?

When the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie says that the Liberal Party supports the troops, is he conveying the views of the Liberal leader? Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to know who is making the decisions within the Liberal Party, who is developing its policies and who is telling the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada how to lead.

[ English ] Ethics Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development is once again using his office for political party purposes. Just before the last election, the NDP obtained Conservative Party plans to campaign in “very ethnic” ridings, a partisan plan drawn up on ministerial letterhead. Now, the minister is spending his days on Twitter, sending out crudely drawn attacks on opposition politicians. However, it is not the minister himself who is firing up Microsoft Paint to put block letters on opposition faces.

No, it is his staff who are putting this together. Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has had enough of his antics. Who could forget this very same minister last year tweeting out how he thought it was a “good thing” that his staff were not unionized. While the mess he has made of the temporary foreign worker program spirals out of control, the minister and his staff were devoted to the one thing they really know how to do well, which is coming up with Lolcats. Canadians deserve better.

(1115) Child Fitness Tax Credit Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour to welcome the Prime Minister to the Durham region and to an exciting announcement at the Abilities Centre in Whitby, where he said the child fitness tax credit will be doubled. All families know the rising cost of enrolling their kids in hockey, soccer, or dance. These are real needs for each family. Over 1.4 million families benefit each year from this tax credit, including mine, with my children Mollie and Jack.

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that we are doubling the child fitness tax credit and making it fully refundable, allowing more low-income families to benefit directly. On top of this, we have the universal child care credit, the child tax credit, and the children's arts tax credit. In total, each Canadian family is saving approximately $3,400 a year under our government. I want to thank the Prime Minister for putting families first more than any other leader, and I wish Canadian families a happy Thanksgiving.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] National Defence Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are ending this week with as many questions about the government's ill-defined combat mission in Iraq as they had at the beginning of the week. One thing has become clear: the Conservatives are forcing Canada into this combat mission with little planning and no real answers about our goals or exit strategy. This sets up an impossible situation. How can the Department of National Defence produce a plan for a mission that has no clear direction from the government? Hon.

Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear what the direction is. Under the leadership of President Obama, 60 countries have joined a coalition to oppose ISIL, and Canada is determined to do its part to stop this terrorist organization of extreme views, unlike any we have seen before, from continuing its rampage against civilians, from continuing to kill civilians without discrimination. That includes a military component. That includes the Royal Canadian Air Force, and we are proud of the part that they are preparing to play.

[ Translation ] Public Safety Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us take a simple example: the government boasts about protecting Canadians from the Islamic State armed group, but we saw in committee that that is not true. The government showed that it was unable to combat the radicalization of some individuals. How come 130 individuals were able to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities without triggering any action by this government? Why did this government not do anything? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we take terrorist threats very seriously in Canada. That is why we brought in the Combating Terrorism Act, which allows us to lay criminal charges against individuals who travel to commit terrorist attacks. Why did the member and his party oppose this law, which is essential to protecting the safety of Canadians?

National Defence Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the plan to combat the Islamic State armed group here in Canada is not the only problem. For the past few days, we have been asking questions in the House about whether the Conservatives plan on engaging in combat operations in Syria. The government refuses to answer simple questions. The Conservatives did not have to include Syria in their motion, but they did nonetheless. Why does the Conservatives' proposed combat mission include Syria if they have no intention of going there? Why this total lack of clarity? Hon.

Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's combat mission is very clear. We are not undertaking any military action against any state. We are carrying out a military combat mission against the Islamic State terrorist group, and we will carry out this mission in Iraq, with the permission of the Iraqi authorities. The real question for Canadians is why the NDP insists that Canada not get involved in supporting the international military effort.

(1120) International Development Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Malala Yousafzai received the Nobel Peace Prize for the work she has done for girls' education, and I offer her my warmest congratulations. Meanwhile, the Conservative government is still refusing to reinvest in the Global Partnership for Education, which is doing so much for girls' education. Will the government finally renew its commitment to education for all by contributing to the Global Partnership for Education? [ English ] Ms.

Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, education, and particularly education of girls, has been one of the focus points for Canada's development dollars. I look at what we were able to accomplish in Afghanistan, where millions of girls are now able to go to school. We have a great reputation on that. We will be considering the Global Partnership for Education as its replenishment conference comes forward. Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the replenishment conference in fact took place last June.

I am sure I speak for all members in this House when I congratulate Malala Yousafzai, who has been recognized for her courageous work on behalf of girls' education with a Nobel Prize. It is truly deserved. Malala asked Canada to make a pledge to the Global Partnership for Education, which held its replenishment conference last June, but the government made no pledge at that conference and none since. When will the government renew Canada's commitment to education for all? Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, indeed the replenishment conference did take place last June, but there are ongoing calls for replenishment, and we are considering that. I have met with Alice Albright on several occasions. I know that she has had conversation with our Minister of International Development . As I said, education is of particular interest to our government. We particularly wish to see the success of young girls as we move forward in our development issues, and we will be considering our contribution.

[ Translation ] Copyright Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has already said that copyright matters to Canadian businesses that drive our economy. It seems that will not apply if the businesses are news organizations and the Conservative Party wants to steal their content for its ads. It is a tactic that we only see in banana republics. Will the government drop this mean-spirited, unfair plan? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, first and foremost, we are not going to comment on rumours and speculation within the Liberal Party. However, we will certainly make our position clear. It is that there is public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions and accountable for what they say in public settings, and major television networks should not have the ability to censor what can and what cannot be broadcast to Canadians. Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry once said copyright matters to Canadian businesses that drive our economy.

It seems that will not apply if the businesses are news organizations and the Conservative Party wants to steal their content for its ads. It is a tactic that we only see in banana republics. Will the government back off and drop this ill-conceived plan? Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, David Lametti, who is a property and IP law professor at McGill and an aspiring Liberal candidate, said of this issue, “...protecting political discourse or speech ought to be a priority in a democracy, even if we don't like or agree with the speaker or the content.” He went on to say, “And relying on copyright rights to do the work of restricting this kind of speech distorts the purpose of copyright and the balanced view that our Supreme Court has consistently articulated over the years.” We agree with him, and so should the opposition. Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the government is trying to concoct a ridiculous excuse involving free speech. It is seems the government means “free” in the sense that it will not cost the Conservative Party one red cent for all the footage it steals. It is hardly free when the exemption would apply only to political parties and no one else. Would the government please announce that it is dropping this hare-brained scheme?

(1125) Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I know the opposition member well and I understand why he is so adamant about this issue. I certainly would not want his leader's quotes to be used over and over again against him as well. However, at the end of the day, we believe that this has always been protected under the fair dealing provisions of the law, and if greater certainty is necessary, we are prepared to provide it.

National Defence Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, former Canadian ambassador David Mulroney said it best. We have learned hard lessons from Afghanistan, one of which is that clear objectives are critical to avoid quagmires. The government's combat mission in Iraq does not have those. Last weekend, Mr. Mulroney was asked how to measure something like degrading ISIL, and he said, “You can't.” We need a clear, measurable definition of success, which the government has so far been unable to provide. What are the objective standards of success for this combat mission? Hon.

Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. We, and this Prime Minister , have learned a lesson from Afghanistan that is very important: it requires military effort to prevent a terrorist safe haven from emerging across the length and breadth of an entire country. That is why we are supporting this military mission. It is six months in length. It is a very limited number of aircraft. It is to degrade the capacity of Islamic State to deliver terrorism against the people of Iraq and around the world. Those objectives are very precise. Mr.

Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I did not know delivering terrorism was one of the objectives. This is exactly why we are worried about this mission creeping. Instead of saying, “Here are clear time limitations on our combat participation” or “Here are the military developments that will signal to us our mission has ended”, we get nothing but evasiveness and rhetoric from the government. How can the Conservatives press ahead with a combat mission in Iraq—and possibly, by the way, in Syria—with no clear plan and objectives? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this time the hon. member is completely wrong. This is a counterterrorism mission with a military component. In Canada's case, it will involve air strikes against ISIL targets so that they are no longer able to attack innocent Iraqi civilians or attack us here in Canada or other allies and partners. What is different on the NDP side, what is scandalous with this opposition, is that it is unwilling to do anything of a military nature against a deadly terrorist threat.

International Development Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the president of the World Bank is chastizing the international community for failing miserably in its response to the Ebola pandemic. The World Bank estimates that the crisis may cost $32 billion by the end of next year. Our contributions have not reflected the scope of the emergency, yet our government is attempting to pat itself on the back saying, “Job well done”. Where is the sense of urgency? Will the government increase Canada's contributions to the World Health Organization? Ms.

Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since day one of the Ebola outbreak in western Africa, Canada has shown international leadership. We have been one of the top 10 contributors. In fact, Canada has contributed $35 million to leading international humanitarian organizations like the World Health Organization, Médecins Sans Frontières and the Red Cross. We have dispatched two mobile lab units. We are contributing 800 to 1,000 doses of some of the most promising vaccines. Canada is a leader. [ Translation ] Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, last month, the government announced that it would contribute $2.5 million for personal protective gear to help deal with the Ebola crisis. This equipment is necessary to prevent the spread of Ebola and protect the teams on site. However, there have been delays in sending this equipment, and the epidemic is spreading. Why is the government not responding in a timely manner to the urgent requests from the World Health Organization? [ English ] Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada is contributing $2.5 million worth of protective gear.

In fact, the first shipments have already gone out and we are working with the World Health Organization to prioritize the remaining shipments. (1130) [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization has urgently asked Canada to send 300,000 face shields to protect those working on the ground to contain the Ebola virus. So far, only 128,000 of those face shields have been sent to West Africa because the Conservative government is unable to find an aircraft to transport the equipment.

How can the Conservatives justify not being able to find an airplane to transport this equipment and save lives? [ English ] Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously the response in western Africa is evolving, so I am pleased to update the House. In fact, the gear that was specifically mentioned has all now shipped, in part using the Hercules. As for the remaining equipment that needs to go out, again, we are working with the World Health Organization to prioritize. However, those protective gear items have already now been shipped.

[ Translation ] Industry Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. Ten years ago, the government negotiated with drug companies to extend the monopoly period on new drugs. In exchange, the companies were supposed to invest 10% of their revenue in research and development in Canada. The reality is that only 4.5% of that revenue was invested in 2013. Why does the minister not implement measures to make sure these companies keep their promises? [ English ] Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this is a vital industry to Canada. Certainly in my home area of Mississauga—Brampton, and across Peel, this is a very vital industry. Canada is showing global leadership on this file.

[ Translation ] Copyright Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to change the law so that Conservatives can use media content without asking broadcasters' permission. When asked whether any experts at all supported their initiative, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said that Michael Geist agreed with them. Once again, they are trying to mislead us by quoting an academic out of context. Is the minister aware that Michael Geist himself criticized the government on this file? [ English ] Mr.

Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely untrue that Mr. Geist was quoted out of context. In fact, I have the quote right here. It states: ...copyright law should not be used to stifle legitimate speech.... ...attempts to use copyright to claim absolute rights over the use of a portion of a video clip is surely counter to basic principles of fair dealing (in Canada) or fair use. That is a quote and it is pretty clear. [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the problem is that Michael Geist also condemned the minister's stunt and said that the Conservative government is creating a misguided exception in its own interest. As it turns out, even the only person the minister could find does not agree at all. In general, when people misquote, it is because they have something to hide. Why does the government want to change the law to serve the Conservative Party's partisan interests, like it recently did with the unfair elections act? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I do not think it is this party that is trying to hide anything. We are actually trying to make it usable by parties when expressions are made by individuals that should be allowed to be seen by the public. If members did not like my first quote, I have another one from David Lametti, property and IT law professor at McGill University, the aspiring Liberal candidate, who said: ...relying on copyright rights to do the work of restricting this kind of speech distorts the purpose of copyright and the balanced view that our Supreme Court has consistently articulated over the years.

I do not know if members want “yes” for an answer. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, you are twisting the words of experts like Michael Geist— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, he is twisting the words. The fact is, if this proposed change is an innocent one, why not make sure that they are fully honest and open about it? I asked yesterday and I will ask again. Will the minister for democratic reform ensure the full and fair debate on this, or will we yet again see an omnibus budget bill as a way to cloak a reform that has nothing to do with the budget? Mr.

Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I feel bad this morning for the abuse that you are taking from the members of the opposition on these questions. It is just unacceptable. We certainly know who is twisting in the wind this morning, but we are certainly not going to comment on rumours and speculation. Our position has always been clear. There is a public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions, accountable for what they say in public settings. Why would the opposition not want to be held accountable?

(1135) [ Translation ] Rail Transportation Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, when the member for Wascana asked whether the latest train derailment in Saskatchewan involved DOT-111 cars—the same kind of cars that exploded in Lac-Mégantic and are not shock resistant enough—the Minister of Transport refused to answer. Yesterday we learned that many of those tanker cars were indeed DOT-111.

Can the minister assure us that none of those cars was one of the 5,000 most dangerous DOT-111 cars that she promised, on April 23, to pull out of service within one month? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said, and we share that, we are relieved to learn there were no injuries involved in this particular incident. Transport Canada, of course, will co-operate fully with the Transportation Safety Board, which is responsible for investigating the causes of this accident.

What is clear is that our government has taken very strong action in response to the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations on DOT-111s to remove the least crash-resistant and also to have an aggressive, more aggressive than the United States, three-year phase-out on the DOT-111s. We are taking action to ensure the safety of Canadians, workers and our communities. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, again there was no precise answer. To repeat, last April, the minister said the most dangerous DOT-111 cars would be gone within one month.

Were they or were they not involved in the train wreck this week in Saskatchewan? The railway is saying these particular DOT-111s were not their cars, indeed they were supplied by the shipper of the highly flammable distillate. I am sure that is a great comfort to the people of Clair, Saskatchewan, and Lac-Mégantic. How is the government requiring shippers, not just railways but shippers too, to get these dangerous cars out of service? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this from a member whose government was lax when it came to railway safety.

We instead have been taking very strong actions. We are talking about prohibiting the least crash-resistant DOT-111s and a three-year phase-out or retrofit with respect to the remaining to bring them up to standard. We are also in discussions with American partners in terms of a new, tougher standard for these cars. What did the Transportation Safety Board say about that? Ms. Tadros said, “I am encouraged by the Minister of Transport 's strong response to the Board's recommendations”.

Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on the UN International Day of the Girl and inspired by the fearless advocacy of Nobel laureate Malala, we must reflect on the action needed here in Canada regarding indigenous girls. Twenty-three per cent of female murder victims in Canada are indigenous even though they are only 4% of the population. Will the Prime Minister finally accept that this ongoing tragedy reflects complex sociological issues, such as racism, sexism, poverty, foster care, education, and call an inquiry to keep indigenous girls in Canada safe? Mrs.

Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our action plan brings together many measures to combat violence against aboriginal women and girls, and we on this side of the House are proud of it. I am also proud that on October 11, Canada and the world is celebrating the International Day of the Girl. On this day, our government recognizes girls as powerful agents of change and leaders of today and tomorrow.

This government, with the help of Plan Canada, has worked tirelessly to make the International Day of the Girl a reality and Canada led the international community of the United Nations in building support for establishing this day, which is now celebrated both domestically and internationally. We on this side of the House are proud of the International Day of the Girl.

[ Translation ] Infrastructure Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a survey conducted by the Quebec urban transit association reveals that most Quebeckers believe that the federal government should contribute more to public transit. On the provincial side, the Quebec transport minister has said that despite the need for austerity, the province's contribution to public transit will not be lowered. Will the Conservatives heed this call and increase investments in public transit? 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, never before has a government in Canada invested more in public transit. We are investing in partnership with the provinces and municipalities, while respecting their respective jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the NDP wants to centralize everything in Ottawa. Another interesting thing that came out of this poll, is that the users prefer to pay a toll. The NDP members have never understood how that works.

(1140) Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the envelope that transportation companies receive, the users contribute the most to cover costs by paying 36% of the bill. The Government of Quebec contributes 21%, while the federal government, which claims to do so much, contributes only 1%. The NDP has long been saying that the federal government can and must do more when it comes to public transit. Will the government commit to increasing its contribution to public transit? 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, with the transfer of the excise tax on gasoline alone, the federal government has transferred $600 million to the Province of Quebec to be divvied up among the public transit organizations. The figure the hon. member gave is therefore incorrect. What is more, CUTA, a public transit organization, acknowledged that no government has ever done as much for the country as ours. [ English ] Mr.

Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, transit infrastructure is urgently needed in the Lower Mainland to protect and develop the region's economy. TransLink is pushed to its limits and has resorted to telling commuters frustrated with service delays to lower their expectations and simply go for a coffee. When will the government come to the table with long-term solutions to address chronic underfunding and when will it finally agree with New Democrats that Canada needs a national transit strategy? 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, the solution for the NDP is to centralize everything in Ottawa. That is its solution. I have a list. The Evergreen Line in Vancouver was $350 million. The Surrey maintenance facility was $2.5 million. The Kamloops transit maintenance facility was $4 million. Kelowna transit maintenance was $2 million. SkyTrain security was $30 million. That is a long list, which has never been done before.

Housing Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister tried to brag about investments in housing. The trouble is only a fraction of the money is federal for Ontario, it is over five years, and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation is specifically excluded. This week's Vital Signs report found that 90% of residents in Toronto's apartment blocks are inadequately housed. The waiting list for assisted housing has climbed to 77,000 families. Toronto Community Housing has specifically asked the feds for help. Why is the government refusing to address the housing crisis in Toronto?

Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this government is making record investments in low-income housing across the country. We have initiated a new policy called housing first. Just imagine, now people who are homeless can get a home and when they then apply for jobs and have to fill in their addresses, they can fill in actual addresses. Imagine how much stronger that is going to make those applications. We are supporting people who get jobs. That is the best social program. We are supporting housing in this country.

We are getting the job done.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have been proud to see that Canada remains among the strongest international supporters of Ukraine's efforts to restore stability, and implement democratic and economic reform. Canada continues to call on Russia to follow through on its commitments to de-escalate the crisis and cease its aggressive tactics in Ukraine. Ukraine sovereign territory must be respected and the Ukrainian people must be free to determine their own future.

Could the parliamentary secretary please update the House of Commons on Canada's latest moves to isolate Putin's autocratic regime? Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as members may know, my family suffered under Soviet tyranny for decades. While Canada is a global leader on tobacco control, in fact, a founding member of the World Health Organization's framework convention on tobacco control, I am pleased to inform the House that Canada will boycott the next meeting in Moscow.

We stand with the people of Ukraine and we will offer no legitimacy to the Putin regime's actions in Ukraine when it comes to these farcical international conferences on which it tries to pull out some legitimacy. Putin's Soviet-style oppression techniques— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[ Translation ] The Environment Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a government report indicates that the former Saint-Maurice shooting range was contaminated as a result of National Defence activities. The land consists primarily of 169 hectares of wetlands, which is rare on Montreal's north shore. The people of Terrebonne and surrounding areas are concerned that there is no plan to quickly decontaminate this site. Can the government guarantee that the land will be decontaminated within a reasonable time and that the wetlands will be protected when the land is transferred in future?

(1145) Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of our men and women in uniform is the first priority of this Department of National Defence and of this Minister of National Defence . We have made record investments in infrastructure in order to protect the environment and clean up land in several Canadian regions. We will continue to work on that. Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow hundreds of people will protest in Cacouna against the oil port project.

The Liberals agree that the Conservatives have completely discredited the project's environmental assessment, but they refuse to oppose it and give the Conservatives time to carry out an environmental assessment. That is the epitome of inconsistency for the Liberals and their leader. For their part, the Conservatives go so far as to show contempt for the Superior Court's injunction on drilling. Social acceptance of the oil port by the people of eastern Quebec is now impossible. Does the Quebec lieutenant for the Conservatives understand this and can he help clean up this mess? [ English ] Mr.

Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in this issue. I can assure him that projects will only go forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. However, the fact is that TransCanada has not yet submitted an application for the construction of a marine terminal. If it does, it will be carefully reviewed by the National Energy Board. At this stage, the only work being done is exploratory in nature.

That work was carefully reviewed and authorized by departmental experts contingent on very strict conditions. Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the work that should have been done was at Fisheries and Oceans, and it was not done. It was supposed to come out with a scientific advisement, and it did not. [ Translation ] Obviously, there is no consensus on the oil port. The promoter has not been able to demonstrate the social acceptability of his project because it will only be used to export unprocessed Canadian oil.

It will cause the loss of well-paid jobs and, above all, it will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem. Why does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans insist on defending a project that is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development? [ English ] Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the member is a lawyer not a fish biologist. However, I can assure him that DFO allowed this exploratory work to go ahead because it was clear that it would not result in harm to marine life.

DFO has scientists who are specifically devoted to marine mammals, including the St. Lawrence belugas. They were involved in this file. One of DFO's key priorities is the protection of marine life, and that has been the priority in this case as well. Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would invite the parliamentary secretary to read the judgment, where it clearly states that Fisheries and Oceans did not do its job. [ Translation ] The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government are responsible for the current mess in Cacouna.

The Conservatives failed to be transparent when they muzzled scientists. They gutted the environmental assessment process so badly that it has lost all credibility. What is more, they are not fulfilling their responsibilities when they let proponents drill right in the middle of a threatened species' habitat. Will the minister finally admit that the oil port project in Cacouna is a huge mess and that it must be stopped?

[ English ] Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that the court case to which he referred regarded provincial laws and provincial officials. It had nothing to do with DFO, DFO officials or DFO processes. We are confident that the DFO process is diligent, thorough and based on the best available science.

Public Safety Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on a set-up question, the government used the chair of the public safety committee to ask the minister about an alarming American news story with respect to a threatened attack on a Canadian mall. The security agency under the minister's authority had to know that this was old information, not accurate and misleading. Such inaccuracies can only undermine the confidence of Canadians in the minister. For what purpose was the Minister of Public Safety using such misleading misinformation? Will he come clean with Canadians today?

(1150) Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rely on our national security intelligence and the great work of our law enforcement agency. Let me quote the director of CSIS, Michel Coulombe, who said to Parliament, to the people of Canada, this very Wednesday, “The threat is real”, but not imminent.

I invite the member and all parliamentarians to support this government in moving forward to provide tools to our law enforcement agency, to our national security intelligence, so they can do their work, track the terrorists and keep our country safe. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to answer my question. However, let us turn to what was said at the public safety committee two days ago. CSIS confirmed there were 80 individuals who returned to Canada after being involved in terrorist activities abroad. The RCMP said that a number of individuals were under risk investigation.

Yet the minister, speaking from written notes and referring to the 80, stated that they had, “violated Canadian law”. How many have been charged? Are the remainder being tracked? [ Translation ] Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, why try to defend the indefensible? We are talking here about political leaders who condone terrorist acts. The public safety critic had the opportunity to ask this question in committee and he got his answers. The policy that we have put in place to combat terrorism is working because the RCMP is conducting investigations.

Charges are pending against over 100 individuals. Why are these individuals under investigation? Because our government fulfilled its responsibilities by implementing laws to protect our country.

Foreign Affairs Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Judith Brassard, a Canadian citizen convicted of murder, is serving her sixth year in prison in Colombia. Last week, the television show Enquête pointed out numerous irregularities in her case. Can the minister tell us what the government has done to ensure that Ms. Brassard is being treated fairly and equitably? [ English ] Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, while the law does not allow me to comment on specific cases, I will take that up with the member after question period is over and ensure that the minister has all of the information for her. [ Translation ] Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Colombian ombudsman himself condemned the irregularities in Ms. Brassard's trial, but that does not seem to have motivated the office of the minster responsible for consular affairs to do anything at the time.

We also need to think about Judith Brassard's two children, who want to have contact with their mother's family here, in Quebec. What is the minister doing to ensure the well-being of these children and to uphold the right of their Canadian grandparents to see their grandchildren grow up close by? [ English ] Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that we are providing consular services in this situation. The Government of Canada cannot exempt Canadians from legal processes.

The consular's role is to advocate for the well-being and fair treatment. We will continue to do so.

Intergovernmental Affairs Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government announced support for four new research projects that will highlight the benefits of internal free trade to Canadian consumers. As we complete trade agreements abroad, our government has taken concrete action to free Canadians from the internal barriers that limit their success, movement and choice. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry please update us on this announcement and the benefit it is to Canadian consumers? Hon.

Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, eliminating internal trade barriers will create jobs, boost economic growth and lead to more choices for Canadian consumers. While we are encouraged by the progress to date, there is still work to be done to strengthen our national economy and global competitiveness. As Canada signs on to more international agreements, we must ensure that Canadian companies have the same opportunities right here at home.

Yesterday's announcement will support essential work to show how free trade within Canada will directly benefit Canadians and our families.

(1155) Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Canadians all across our country are waiting to get their citizenship. They are waiting in excess of three years quite often because the Conservative government has created a crisis of paperwork in which it often takes over three years to process a simple citizenship. When will the Conservative government take the issue of processing times to the degree in which it will reduce it to under 12 months? When will that happen? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that lob question. It gives us a chance to talk about the progress we have made this year in only the first seven months, creating 150,000 new citizens. That is a great success which was never seen under the Liberals. Processing times are coming down, and they will be under one year by early 2016. The number of years the hon. member mentioned is completely false. He has a tendency to mislead the House on that front. The Liberals voted against the— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Pontiac. [ Translation ] Mr.

Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when the government closed citizenship and immigration offices, we knew full well that there would be major delays, but we never would have thought that more than two years later there would still be many cases left unprocessed. There are many such cases in my riding. Some immigrants are even having to resubmit their applications for permanent residence because their original application has expired. Come on. That makes no sense. What is the government doing, right now, to speed up the process? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we are grateful that the Liberals and NDP keep giving us the opportunity to talk about the progress we are making with our citizenship and immigration programs. Processing times for permanent residents and new citizens have dropped dramatically thanks to the work done by this government and the investments made by this Prime Minister . We are still cleaning up the huge backlog that was created by the Liberals, and we will continue working at it.

[ English ] Employment Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, later today the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the minister responsible for employment will be making an important announcement in Winnipeg on the Canada job grant. Already this year, the Minister of Employment and Social Development has signed the Canada job grant agreements with all the provinces and territories. This is an excellent record. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development update the House on the status of the Canada job grant? Mr.

Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Employment and Social Development announced that the Canada job grant applications were now available in Alberta, and the same thing was occurring in the Northwest Territories. We are getting the job done. This is a terrific program. Over the next 10 years, we will need over 300,000 new construction workers in Canada, 150,000 new workers in the petroleum sector and 145,000 in the mining sector. The Canada job grants can deliver guaranteed jobs at the end of this training.

It is a good program. Those members should be on board.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister relates to the joint review panel on the proposed Site C development in British Columbia. The panel review is very clear that there will be significant effects, that cannot be mitigated, affecting the hunting, fishing, and trapping rights of Treaty 8, Saulteau, and Blueberry River First Nations. Their decision came down even before the Tsilhquot'in Supreme Court decision. Will the government commit to saying “no” to Site C in deference to the established rights of first nations in the area? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am carefully reviewing and considering the panel's findings, and at this point in time, it would be inappropriate to comment any further.

Employment Insurance Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have raised EI premiums for years, at a huge cost to small-business owners and workers. Now there is a job-killing tax. The PBO says this wrong-headed approach would cost 9,000 jobs. Many workers in Thunder Bay—Superior North have been cheated out of their EI benefits, and now even more will lose their jobs. Will the Minister of Finance reverse his foolhardy approach on EI?

(1200) Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let us hear from the people who actually create the jobs. CFIB says the small business job credit will create 25,000 person years of employment and called it, and I quote, “fantastic news for Canada's entrepreneurs and their employees”, and as such “can only be a positive for the Canadian economy”. We are lowering EI payroll taxes by 15% and saving small businesses over $550 million. In contrast, the Liberals and the NDP are supporting a 45-day work year that would drastically increase premiums by a whopping 35%. I have great news. More than 74,000 jobs were created in the month of September.

[ Translation ] Foreign Affairs Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, this week, my constituency office was inundated with calls following the government's decision in favour of military involvement in the armed conflict raging in Iraq and Syria. The people of Montcalm are furious that our government is breaking with the traditional Canadian approach to international conflict. Can the government explain to the people of Montcalm how bombings will bring about peace without creating new Islamic State sympathizers? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, a member who represents a riding by the name of Montcalm should have a better understanding of Canada's military traditions. The NDP is the party breaking with Canadian tradition. Canada has done its

part in several international efforts against terrorism, just as it did during the world wars. We will do our part this time too.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the 2013-14 annual report of the Federal Ombudsman for the Victims of Crime and the government's response.

Ways and Means Notice of Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Committees of the House International Trade Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Bill C-41 ,

an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

(1205) Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) Motion for concurrence moved that the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities presented on Monday, February 10, 2014, be concurred in. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed. An hon. member: On division. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I declare the motion carried (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Sex Selection Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the International Day of the Girl, we are reminded of the important role that girls and women play in our lives and in our society. [ Translation ] I am honoured to present to the House a petition signed by Canadians across the country condemning sex-selective abortion.

Canada Post Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that the people of Laval are currently joining forces to save home mail delivery. I have here a petition signed by hundreds of people from Vimont, Auteuil, Duvernay, Saint-François and Saint-Vincent-de-Paul who definitely want to keep home mail delivery services. They are calling on the government to look at new ways of modernizing the crown corporation, among other things.

[ English ] Sex Selection Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. Two of them condemn the discrimination against females that occurs through sex-selective pregnancy termination. The issue of abortion is very divisive in this hall, but I hope that everyone could agree and support that this is a practice about which we are concerned.

Agriculture Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from a number of constituents who want reassurance that Bill C-18 will not impact the ability of our farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell their seeds. I have had an opportunity to chat with them and reassure them that Bill C-18 does not intend to do that.

[ Translation ] Sherbrooke Airport Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by hundreds of people who are imploring the government and Transport Canada to give the Sherbrooke airport the necessary security screening services to operate an air service by adding this airport to the list. This would allow the City of Sherbrooke to continue using this airport and especially to develop the region, which is badly in need of air service. The petitioners are asking for Transport Canada's support with regard to the review of this decision.

[ English ] Health Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first one has nearly 200 signatures from residents of Denman Island and Vancouver Island. The petitioners are calling for support for Motion No. 501, a national strategy for innovation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness in sustainable health care . This motion calls for establishing regional centres for innovation, bringing together integrated medicine and allied professionals to collaborate, research, and document low-cost, low-risk health care options.

Democratic Reform Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from some 150 residents of Vancouver Island asking Parliament to review the Elections Act and to devise some form of proportional representation.

Rail Transportation Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today. The first petition is with respect to the subsidies the government had cut for the ACR line. The petitioners are from Sault Ste. Marie, Richards Landing, Goulais River, Aweres Township, and Echo Bay in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie. The petitioners want to make sure their voices are heard. It is important to note that there is not one passenger rail transportation system in the world that is not supported by a government, so for it to be successful, the government needs to come to the table on this.

Pensions Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling today is with respect to the increase in CPP. It is one of the most pressing economic issues Canadian families face, especially seniors, of course. The fact that the government would be taking $11 billion from seniors' income is quite concerning. The petitioners are asking that the government reinstate the retirement age of 65. I am pleased to say that we would actually do that when we form government in 2015. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I have just a note to hon. members.

There have been a couple of instances today. When presenting petitions, one usually avoids any sort of editorial commentary. There have been a couple of references on both sides of the House during the presentation of petitions. It is just something to avoid.

(1210) Prostitution Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition is with respect to the fact that our law in Canada has been declared unconstitutional with respect to the current prostitution laws. Because a lot of women are forced into the sex trade and trafficked, the petitioners do not want our country to be without a law in this respect, so they are asking that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man, or child and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.

Sex Selection Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second important petition I present is with respect to the fact that in Canada, a lot of people are now using ultrasound so they can tell the sex of a child, and if the unborn child is a girl, they abort that little girl. Most Canadians are against this abhorrent practice. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is as well. It is also the official policy of the Conservative Party of Canada to condemn discrimination of this sort. Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through gender-selective abortion.

Canada Post Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, residents in my riding are continuing to sign petitions protesting the loss of home mail delivery by Canada Post. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reject the plan of Canada Post to reduce services and to explore other options to update Canada Post's business plan.

Sex Selection Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, given that tomorrow is the International Day of the Girl, I am pleased today to present a petition signed by British Columbians that calls upon the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Dementia Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions signed by people in the Ottawa area asking the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to support Bill C-356,

an act respecting a national strategy for dementia , tabled by the member for Nickel Belt . The petitioners are asking also for a national strategy to be designed for the health care of persons afflicted with Alzheimer's and other dementia-related diseases.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if revised responses to Questions Nos. 642, 643 and 644, originally tabled on September 15, 2014, could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 642--

Hon. Carolyn Bennett :

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Yukon, providing for each (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (

v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 643--

Hon. Carolyn Bennett :

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Nunavut, providing for each (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (

v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 644--

Hon. Carolyn Bennett :

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the Northwest Territories, providing for each (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (

v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-13. Third reading The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : When the House l