12571 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 193 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, March 31, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 31, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 193 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 193 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 193 (Version officielle) 147 193 31 03 2015 2015/03/31 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 ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Canadian Human Rights Tribunal The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 61(4) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the 2014 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal annual report. [ Translation ] This report is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[ English ] Chief Electoral Officer of Canada The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the administration of the Fort McMurray—Athabasca, Macleod, Scarborough—Agincourt, and Trinity—Spadina byelections held on June 30, 2014, and Whitby—Oshawa and Yellowhead byelections held on November 17, 2014. [ Translation ] This document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[ English ] Access to Information The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 39(1) of the Access to Information Act, a special report to Parliament entitled “Striking the Right Balance for Transparency”. [ Translation ] This report is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Committees of the House Canadian Heritage Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage respecting the request for an extension of 30 days to consider Bill C-597,

An Act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day) . [ English ] The Speaker : Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1 (3)(a), a motion to concur in the report is deemed moved, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred to Wednesday, April 1, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. Division deemed demanded and deferred

Navigation Protection Act Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) Bill C-662. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-662,

An Act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Burrard Inlet, Brunette River and Coquitlam River) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a private member's bill that would amend the Navigation Protection Act. It specifically focuses on three bodies of water, the Burrard Inlet, Brunette River and Coquitlam River. It would bring much needed protection back to these bodies of water that have been excluded from protection. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51 Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) Motion moved: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-51,

An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts , the Committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the Bill in order to: (

a) ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization; and (

b) enhance oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies. The Speaker : The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order. Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the proposed motion of instruction by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is actually out of order, I would submit, because it should be accompanied by a recommendation from His Excellency the Governor General.

Standing Order 79(1) instructs: This House will not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed. I will put to you, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this proposed motion seeks to do in its instruction. The purpose of Standing Order 79(1) is to incorporate into our Standing Orders and thus put within the jurisdiction of the chair the requirements of

section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which was known as the British North America Act back when I was growing up, and

section 54 reads very similarly to Standing Order 79(1): It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed. This requirement extends to motions of instruction in respect to bills. It is quite clear, as it says there, that it is not limited to simply bills.

It says “any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue”. Page 754 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, is actually quite authoritative and quite definitive on this. It refers to a motion of instruction, which is what we are dealing with here: A motion of instruction will also be ruled out of order...if it extends the financial prerogatives of the Crown without a royal recommendation for that purpose.

At this point it is already quite definitive that it is the case in fact that the member cannot move that absent a royal recommendation, and there is, of course, no royal recommendation forthcoming for the purposes he is asking the committee to amend the bill on instruction from the House. Following this citation offered for that authority, one can trace this proposition back to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Fitzroy of the United Kingdom House of Commons given on February 4, 1930, and recorded at column 1721 of the Official Report.

Coming back to Canada, let me quote citation 596 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , 6th edition, with respect to how legislative amendments intersect with the requirement for a royal recommendation: The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the Royal Recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.

In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the crown has demanded or recommended a charge. In this particular motion for instruction, both elements of it would contemplate an additional charge. Setting up an additional oversight agency would obviously create additional expenses for the government, an additional charge on the public purse.

Similarly, new programs of the type that are contemplated, above and beyond those which already exist for counter-radicalization, would also involve new charges, so in that sense, both aspects of the motion of instruction would require a royal recommendation. The committee would not be in a position to be able to amend it to create these powers without a royal recommendation. There is no such recommendation, and I think it is quite clear that none will be forthcoming.

I would submit that as a result, it is quite clear that both elements proposed are beyond the objects and purposes contemplated by the Governor General in His Excellency's recommendation as it exists on Bill C-51 . There is a royal recommendation there, but not for these additional powers that the motion for instruction seeks to establish.

(1010) A former principal clerk of the House, Michael Lukyniuk, wrote the

article “Spending Proposals: When is a Royal Recommendation Needed?” which appeared in the Spring 2010 edition of Canadian Parliamentary Review . This passage from page 30 speaks to the situation we face with the motion of the NDP House leader: To apply a consistent and objective approach to each case, the Speaker is guided by two basic principles: that the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation cannot be expanded upon, and that a new and distinct request for expenditure must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

It continues: Terms and conditions: The royal recommendation states that an appropriation of public funds must be made “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill to which it is attached. The terms and conditions of the royal recommendation are a specific expression of the financial initiative of the Crown and amendments may not propose measures which go beyond these qualifications. That is what I see is happening here. The

article continues: New and distinct requests for expenditure: This refers to measures which propose spending and are not supported by any existing statute. When considering a bill or amendment, the Speaker reflects on whether some entirely new activity or function is being proposed that radically diverges from those already authorized. The simplest examples are bills which propose the establishment of new offices, agencies or departments. Speakers have consistently ruled that such measures require a royal recommendation.

In this case, the committee is being asked to go in the direction of establishing an entirely new agency of oversight. That would require a royal recommendation. The member comes to the House with the motion absent such a royal recommendation. Later in the article, Mr. Lukyniuk writes at pages 32 and 33: When a legislative proposal envisages a new role or function for an existing organization or program, a royal recommendation is required because the terms and conditions of the original royal recommendation which created that organization or program are being altered.

It continues: In the first situation, the terms and conditions that established an organization or program are being altered so that a new and distinct authorization for spending is being permanently created. This initiative must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Paragraph (

a) of the NDP House leader's motion speaks to amendments which would “ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization”. Though ill defined as to who and how, it certainly speaks to a new and distinct element to be added to the statute book through Bill C-51 . In any event, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and his officials within the public safety portfolio, one which I also had the privilege of leading at one time, have been working and continue to work hard on developing and seeing through strategies to prevent Canadians from being radicalized by violent ideologies. Meanwhile, paragraph (

b) contemplates amendments which “enhance oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies”. Again, this sounds like a new purpose for Bill C-51 , either as a new or enlarged purpose for either an existing or new government entity, which was not contemplated in His Excellency's recommendation. Of course, as the House well knows by now, the key new powers in the anti-terrorism act, 2015 , are subject to judicial review and to prior judicial authorization. In other words, this will be the role of judges and our courts, and there is no better authority to review these matters. Legislative provisions similar to what is proposed in paragraph (

b) of the motion have previously been seen as turning on the financial initiative of the crown. For example, earlier this session, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra proposed Bill C-622 ,

an act to amend the National Defence Act (transparency and accountability), to enact the intelligence and security committee of Parliament act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which is almost identical to what is being sought here. Certainly, if we are to discern or divine from the repeated public statements of the opposition, that is exactly what it is seeking to do in this case.

On October 8, 2014, the Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole made the following statement at page 8414 of the Debates : As members know, after the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the new items so as to alert the House to bills that at first glance appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the crown. He continues: Accordingly, following the September 23, 2014, replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that there is a bill that gives the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions it contemplates.

It is Bill C-622 ...standing in the name of the member for Vancouver Quadra.

(1015) I would add that neither that hon. member, nor any other member, rose in the House on a point of order to make submissions rebutting the presumption established by the Chair at that time. Therefore, here we have a clear case in this Parliament in which the ruling has come from the Chair in which you sit, Mr. Speaker, that an effort to achieve something, like this motion seeks to achieve by way of a private member's bill, could not proceed without a royal recommendation. The same would apply to this motion for instruction.

Similar legislation was introduced by the previous Liberal government, when Bill C-81, the national security committee of parliamentarians act, was introduced in 2005. I will note that when the Liberals sought to establish a parliamentary committee with oversight, they never carried through with it, but it was proposed. It was not a bill they saw worthy of finally passing, but it was proposed. However, they did, with that bill, have a royal recommendation. There was a recognition, certainly by the Liberal government of the day, to take the step that this motion for instruction seeks to take.

Even if it is to be a committee of parliamentarians, that step would be a new initiative that would require a royal recommendation, again, one that is absent in this motion. Clearly, the Liberals think that this sort of step is properly accompanied by a royal recommendation. The financial initiative of the Crown in its constitutional standing, which I cited at the opening of my argument, has even been considered by our highest court. For example, in the unanimous 1991 judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan, Mr.

Justice Sopinka wrote: Under s. 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, a money bill, including an amendment to a money bill like the Plan, can only be introduced on the initiative of the government. The renowned constitutional expert, Peter Hogg, is unequivocal that the NDP leader cannot sidestep the Constitution with this cynical motion. On page 314 of the Constitutional Law of Canada , fourth edition, Professor Hogg writes: There is of course no doubt as to the binding character of the rules in the Constitution that define the composition of the legislative bodies and the steps required in the legislative process.

In closing, what the NDP leader is attempting to propose here is not just out of order, it is in fact unconstitutional. Though we normally say that constitutional questions are beyond the purview of the Chair, this is an important exception. Indeed, it falls to you, Mr. Speaker, to find that this motion is out of order.

Page 837 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , O'Brien and Bosc, addresses the Speaker's role on this type of unique matter of constitutional legitimacy: The Speaker has the duty and responsibility to ensure that the Standing Orders pertaining to the royal recommendation, as well as the constitutional requirements, are upheld. There is no provision under the rules of financial procedure that would permit the Speaker to leave it up to the House to decide or to allow the House to do so by unanimous consent. These imponderables apply regardless of the composition of the House. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, the authorities are quite clear that the motion before you is out of order and cannot be put to the House. I understand that we are at a point where your decision on this is fairly significant and important because of timing, because the committee is already at the point of contemplating amendments in moving forward on that. As such, although this motion was put on the order paper some time ago, by delaying moving it, you are a little bit wedged, if I can put it that way, by the timing selected by the opposition House leader. Therefore, I submit to you, Mr.

Speaker, that under the circumstances, if you do feel it necessary to suspend proceedings for a brief period of time in order to contemplate this issue in order to render your decision before allowing debate on this motion to proceed, we would understand and recognize that you have been put in a very difficult spot in terms of timing and that such a step may be necessary.

(1020) Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of sympathy for the government House leader. He would have seen the motion of instruction, and it is important to cite at this point a motion of instruction.

The bible that governs us, O'Brien and Bosc, not always followed by the Conservative side of the House but followed very exactly on this side of the House by the official opposition, says the following: Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of the bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, being no stranger to a motion of instruction, a motion of instruction may be moved in the House even after a committee has begun its deliberations on a bill. The government House leader sees this, knowing full well that this motion of instruction is perfectly in order, and he has to construct an argument. I have a lot of sympathy for him, which is why he, basically, created the massive paper tiger out on the front lawn of the Centre Block. He tried to say that the motion of instruction says things that it does not. He referred to an agency and government spending. As you know, Mr.

Speaker, what it says is very simple, that the committee be granted the power and that the scope be enlarged on this particular bill: ...to expand the scope of the Bill in order to: (

a) ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization; and (

b) enhance oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies. It is a permissive motion of instruction, it is not obligatory. That is, unfortunately, the word that the government House leader neglected to mention that makes the difference between this being in order or not. Very clearly, this motion of instruction is in order. One has to ask why the government House leader just took 20 minutes of House time to try to stop a debate that would have taken perhaps half an hour or 45 minutes. The reality is, Mr.

Speaker, as you know, there are two elements that the government House leader is acutely aware of, and that is why he wants to try to shut down this debate. The first element is public opinion. When Bill C-51 was initially proposed by the public safety minister, public support was in the range of 80%. That has dramatically fallen as debate has continued in committee. Now a minority of Canadians support the bill and a majority of Canadians disapprove of the bill. One of the key elements to that, of course, is the lack of oversight.

The other element that the government House leader is acutely aware of is the fact that 45 out of the 48 witnesses who appeared in committee said there needed to be enhanced oversight. This includes 25 of the 28 Conservative witnesses, where the Conservatives said they were their witnesses and would hopefully reflect the Conservatives' point of view on Bill C-51 . This is what was discussed in committee. This motion of instruction ensures that the committee, in a permissive way, can look at enlarging the scope of the bill.

This motion of instruction is absolutely in order and I think we can disregard the paper tiger that was constructed by the government House leader. He tried to imagine a motion of instruction that would be out of order and he has very effectively argued against that motion of instruction that he imagined in his mind. What he imagined in his mind is quite different from what we have put forward on paper. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you simply do what is the right thing in this case, which is to rule the motion of instruction in order so we can get on with the debate that Canadians are looking for.

(1025) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago when the government attempted to change a different bill in terms of its scope, when it was brought before the House. The government needs to realize that it cannot have it both ways. Back then, the government argued that it could use a private member's bill to take Canadian citizenship away from people who have dual citizenship. It had to deal with terrorism and other issues. The government then brought that issue to the floor of the House and argued why it felt it was important to change the scope.

That was the intent of the private member's bill. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. There is a huge demand out there that the government be sympathetic and act upon some serious amendments in regard to Bill C-51 . Now members of the committee are looking at the scope and whether or not some of those changes might be able to be made. For example, the leader of the Liberal Party and members of the Liberal Party have been very clear that we want to ensure that there is oversight. That is of critical importance. We want to institute mandatory legislative reviews.

Again, this is something that is very important to Canadians and the Liberal Party. We want to narrow the overly broad

definitions that are being put forward in Bill C-51 . Again, this is an issue that is very important to all Canadians. It is something that we in the Liberal Party have been advocating at the committee stage and during the debates inside the House. What we do not want is for the government to use the issue of scope at the committee stage. We do believe there is merit to the motion here today, so we can express some of the concerns I just put on the record. I do not do that lightly.

The leader of the Liberal Party and my caucus colleagues, particularly our critic, have been sitting through committee, listening to the presentations at committee, where we are hearing that there is a real need for change and amendments at the committee stage. The concern is that the government is not going to tolerate a number of those changes by indicating that they are beyond the scope of the legislation. At the end of the day, we do believe that there is some merit to having the debate today on the NDP motion that has been put before the House.

We would encourage you, as the Speaker, to allow that debate to occur so that Canadians can be better served in regard to the many concerns that have been addressed with respect to Bill C-51 . A number of the amendments are not only being brought forward by the Liberal Party, but I understand they are also being brought forward by the New Democratic Party. We do not want these amendments to be ruled out because of the scope of the legislation. This is a very important issue for the Liberals at the very least and, I would suggest, other opposition members and all Canadians. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments from the House Leader of the Official Opposition and from the member for Winnipeg North . While the comments were very interesting, neither of them actually addressed the point of order I raised. Both of them spoke to the question of whether this motion was out of order because of expansion of the scope of the bill. This is not the issue that I have raised. I have not spoken to the question of scope of the legislation whatsoever. What I have spoken to is the absence of a royal recommendation.

It is a fundamental principle in our system of legislative government in the Westminster system that the question of establishing any new spending, any new obligation upon the government that would require the expenditure of funds such as expanded oversight, which is proposed by this, or new programs for counter-radicalization above and different from those that already exist, would require a royal recommendation. Both of these would be new. That is the reason they are in this amendment.

As such, they are not things that are currently contemplated in legislation and, as such, to establish them, since they would place a charge upon the Crown, would require a royal recommendation. This is the point and the issue I am making, not one with regard to scope. The citation from the big green book from the House Leader of the Official Opposition is all very good, were I to be standing up here and saying that the motion for instruction was out of order because it sought to expand the scope of the bill. That is not what I am standing here saying.

I am saying it is out of order because it lacks the necessary royal recommendation to carry into effect that which it seeks to have the committee do for the expanded oversight and the additional new programming that it seeks regarding radicalization. I have also said that I am aware of no such intention on the part of the government to bring forward such a royal recommendation. Therefore, without any response from them to the royal recommendation argument, it is quite clear that I have laid before you, Mr.

Speaker, what I think is quite a black-and-white case as to jurisdiction and as to constitutionality, and the motion is simply out of order. It is seeking to have the committee establish new charges upon the Crown, new expenditures that it does not currently have the authority to do and for which there is no royal recommendation.

(1030) Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that a royal recommendation is required when it is a private member's bill that introduces legislation that would incur Crown expenditures. However, if a government presents a bill, which is what we are talking about with Bill C-51 , is not the royal accord to spend money implicit in that? I am rather baffled here that we would have that kind of an argument to oppose a motion such as the one that is before us today. The Speaker : I will go first to the opposition House leader; he was standing first.

If the government House leader wants to argue some of these points, I will give him the floor again. The hon. opposition House leader. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, this is very clearly a delaying tactic on the part of the government. Why are the Conservatives so concerned about having a debate around oversight in this House of Commons and having a motion of instruction? Why are they so concerned about that?

Canadians who are watching on television right now should be asking the question as to why they are so concerned with oversight when so many of their own witnesses before the Bill C-51 public safety committee actually said we need more oversight. I just wanted to counter what is the paper tiger that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has created. He has created this massive paper tiger that has nothing to do with the motion of instruction. He talks about programs. He talks about agencies. This is all a figment of his own imagination.

The royal recommendation argument, for a number of reasons including the argument that the member for Ottawa—Vanier has just raised, is absolutely irrelevant. The idea that there are agencies and programs in this motion of instruction simply does not hold water. It is easy to refute the government House leader because he has created a motion of instruction that does not exist. What is before us now is perfectly in order, and I hope the government will stop its delaying tactics and allow us to have the debate on oversight on Bill C-51 . Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, first, with regard to the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier , I will remind him that royal recommendations on government legislation are not implicit; they are actually explicit. The Crown has to decide to provide a royal recommendation, which applies to what is proposed in the bill. With regard to the opposition House leader, it is he who said that the reason he is seeking the royal recommendation is that the current bill does not do these things. It is his own words that make the case for the fact that it is a new charge. He is seeking to have things done that he said are not done now.

If his case is that the government already does provide enhanced oversight and has all the funding for it, and that the government already does the counter-radicalization program and the funding is there for it, then he need present no amendments. There is no need for this motion for instruction. That is not his case. He has said in his own words that these are things the bill does not do. That is why he is bringing them forward. These are new charges that are being created. These are not things that, if they are new, can be done without the expenditure of funds. In both cases that is what they require.

He may say that the government, in trying to defend the integrity of our system of controlling finances, is merely trying to delay. It is not surprising that an NDP member would make the case that expenditures should be allowed to happen in any way anyone wants, at any time, without paying any attention to the rules that have been in place for decades—nay, centuries—to protect the prerogative of those expenditures and protect the taxpayers. They are at the level of constitutional protections.

I know the NDP members would love to be able to run roughshod over the Constitution, over the prerogatives, over the royal recommendation, over all these conventions. They would love to be able to run roughshod over them to increase spending at any time. The fact is that these are very important institutions, conventions, and requirements of a constitutional nature. They are well beyond conventions; they are of a much higher order than that. They are, in fact, constitutional.

This is a matter of great seriousness, and I have heard absolutely nothing from the opposition other than arguments that in fact support the case that what they are asking for is not covered by any royal recommendation and therefore that this motion seeking to give instructions to the committee is out of order.

(1035) The Speaker : I will very quickly hear the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier and the opposition House leader, and then likely at that point I will have heard enough. The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr. Speaker, would it not be accurate to believe that the bill, which is a Crown bill—a government bill is a crown bill—ipso facto has the royal support for expenditures? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Speaker, what we are considering here is that the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization and enhance oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies. The government House leader has basically invented a fictional new motion of instruction and has brought forward arguments to counter that fictional motion of instruction. That is not what is before the House and that is not what you are being asked to rule on. The Speaker : I thank all hon. members for their interventions on this point.

I thank the hon. government House leader for raising it. As I read the motion of instruction, it does seem to me to be a permissive instruction; it is not a prescriptive instruction—that is, telling the committee exactly how to accomplish the aims of it. Were the motion to be adopted, it would be up to the committee to decide if it wished to exercise the powers given to it by the House and how it would do so. What is clear to me is that, in widening the scope of the bill, the committee would still be limited by the other rules of admissibility in relation to amendments, including Standing Order 79.

Clearly in that regard, the committee cannot adopt an amendment that violates the financial prerogatives of the Crown. However, it may well be that the committee may find a way to accomplish the goals stated in the motion of instruction without infringing on the royal recommendation. I do not believe the Chair should prejudge what steps the committee may take. Even though the government House leader was making arguments about what public statements may have been made, I do not know that that would put the Chair in a position to rule this out of order just based on those statements alone.

As I said, it may well be that the committee would find other ways to accomplish what is set out in the motion without infringing on the royal recommendation. For that reason, I believe the motion is in order, and I will allow it to proceed. Debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster . [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, we just had a 40-minute debate for a government that wants to prevent us from having these discussions in the House of Commons. Canadians will judge this government on its bid to prevent the debate we are now undertaking. Mr.

Speaker, I thank you for your patience considering all of the points of order that the government has raised over the past 40 minutes in an effort to prevent this debate from happening. I think it would be a good idea to reread the motion before us. That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-51,

An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts , the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to: (

a) ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization; and (

b) enhance oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies. As we all know, once a bill has been referred to the committee, the House of Commons has the right to instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill.

It is very clear that what we are talking about is indeed a proper motion, and it is in order. However, most importantly, it is about something that we absolutely have to talk about in the House of Commons. (1040) [ English ] I am going to start off by talking about why expanding the scope of Bill C-51 considerations is important. As members know, last October, we lived through a couple of tragedies in Canada, which resulted in the deaths of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. All Canadians should be concerned about public safety. There is no doubt about that.

Bill C-51 is purportedly a response from the government to issues of public safety. I will start off by saying that I am very skeptical about the Conservative government's aims and objectives. When we look at its actual safety record, we see cause for some real concern about whether or not the government actually takes the safety of Canadians seriously. We just have to look at the cutbacks in food safety, the tragedy of Lac-Mégantic because of lax rail safety standards, and the ongoing tragedy of 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women in this country, about which the government has refused to do anything.

That underscores for so many Canadians across the country some real skepticism about the government's concern about the safety of Canadians. Second, Bill C-51 , in many people's eyes, is seen as a highly partisan reaction. In a sense, Bill C-51 is being brought forward by the government, but not because it is really concerned about the safety issues and the number of times it has fallen far short of guaranteeing the safety of Canadians in the areas I have just mentioned, namely the missing and murdered indigenous women, food safety, and rail safety. This makes people skeptical about the real aims of Bill C-51 .

Many people believe it is a highly partisan reaction from a highly partisan Prime Minister , and what the Conservatives are trying to do is change the channel from what has been, according to the chief of the Bank of Canada, an atrocious economic performance on the part of the government. That is not for consideration today, but it is something that, to many Canadians' minds, underscores why Bill C-51 is so problematic. It is well documented. It has not just been the NDP that has opposed this, even though the Liberal Party is, tragically, supporting Bill C-51 .

It is also the fact that, across the country, we have seen an unprecedented outpouring of concern. Over 100 of Canada's leading law professors, 100 of the most skilled law professors in the country, those legal minds that in a very real sense train the future generations of legal scholars, have all come out in opposition to Bill C-51 . The Canadian Bar Association, tens of thousands of Canadian lawyers, has come out in opposition. Many human rights groups have come out in opposition. They have all raised similar concerns. It is important to note that the bill was rammed through the House of Commons.

We can recall that the government introduced closure after only a couple of hours of debate. The Conservatives wanted to ram it through as quickly as possible. Then it was brought to the public safety committee, where the committee used what can only be considered completely unparliamentary tactics to throw out the rule book, to throw out House of Commons Procedure and Practice , under which we are governed, the bible under which we are supposed to govern our actions.

They threw that out and basically imposed a very shortened witness list that did not even include people such as the Privacy Commissioner, who obviously has a real stake in bringing forward recommendations around how a bill might be treated. After all of that, the government only permitted a short list of 48 witnesses. That was perhaps a quarter of the number of witnesses who wanted to come before the committee. Of those 48 witnesses, 45 actually stated that oversight was a major problem with this bill. The lack of oversight was a fundamental flaw.

Of those I mentioned a little bit earlier, 25 of the 28 Conservative witnesses said the same thing. These were witnesses brought forward by the Conservatives. The Conservative side of the House recommended these witnesses. We know how narrow the scope is for Conservative witnesses at committee. The Conservatives only hear witnesses they believe are going to enhance their particular ideological world view. We had 90% of Conservative witnesses, 95% of witnesses overall, all saying the same thing, which was that oversight needed to be enhanced.

Many of those witnesses raised as well the concern around having the Canadian government actively working to counter radicalization. Even with that smaller group of witnesses permitted by the government, one-quarter of the witnesses that should have been brought forward to committee, they virtually all said the same thing, which was that we needed to enhance oversight and ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization. That is why the NDP, as the official opposition, is bringing forward this motion of instruction today.

What we are saying is that the committee, which has had a Conservative majority up until now, is almost certainly a rogue committee. It has thrown out the rule book. I have come before you before, Mr. Speaker, to raise concerns about how the rule book has not been followed.

They threw out the rule book, and I believe, and the NDP official opposition believes, that we, as a House, have to give very clear direction that permits the committee to look at expanding the scope of the bill to bring forward those two components: ensuring that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization and enhancing oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies. These are straightforward, common sense recommendations.

I would expect that members of the Conservative government would actually vote in favour of this motion of instruction, because it would actually say to the 25 of 28 Conservative witnesses who came forward that we listened to them, that Conservative government members brought them forward to committee, where they talked about enhancing oversight, and they actually listened.

(1045) The real test will be, when we vote on this motion of instruction, whether the government actually listens and walks the talk and votes to ensure that the committee takes into consideration, or can take into consideration, enhancing oversight. There is a reason, as I mentioned earlier, there has been such a fall in public support. In fact, this has probably been, certainly since you and I have been in Parliament, Mr. Speaker, one of the most dramatic falls in public opinion I have ever seen on any bill, whether for a government or a private member's bill.

I think it is fair to say, in light of October 22 and how all Canadians were feeling at that time about wanting to enhance public safety, that the government has not moved in all those areas I mentioned. It has not moved on food safety, rail safety, or dealing with the tragic loss of 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women. However, we thought there was some consensus about working on public safety. Instead, what we saw was what the government actually brought forward: a highly partisan reaction.

Initially, I think, Canadians, being very sincere and honest, right across the country, in how we interact every day, took the government at its word and said that the government must be sincerely looking at enhancing public safety. Therefore, initially, the level of public support was very high. Then the debate started in this House. As I mentioned earlier, within two hours, all of a sudden, the government said, “No, we are going to shut this down”, because we had very impassioned and learned members of the official opposition, the NDP, speaking against this bill.

Even though the Liberal Party is in favour and supports the Conservatives in this regard, the NDP spoke out on what we actually saw in the bill, what measures were there, what measures were not there, and what concerns we had, and we were joined by a growing number of Canadians from coast to coast to coast: 100 leading law professors, the Canadian Bar Association, human rights organizations, aboriginal organizations, and environmental organizations. They were all speaking about the same concerns. Subsequent to that, we started to see support for the bill erode in a rapid manner.

From 80% it went to 70%, from 70% to 60%, 60% to 50%, 50% to 40%, and the level of support is now below 40%. Most Canadians, and I am not saying that all of them are necessarily even Conservative, Liberal, or NDP supporters, have been following the debate over the past month or so and have said, “Hold on here. These are major concerns that are being raised by people who have a lot of credibility”.

What we saw subsequently was the fall in public support, and perhaps that is why we saw such opposition by the government House leader, who was trying to pull every procedural tool out of the toolbox and trying to accuse us of unconstitutional actions. I am surprised he did not accuse us of violating international law. Government members just seem to have a level of exaggeration and hyperbole that I have never seen brought for a simple motion of instruction that obviously was in order, but for 40 minutes they waged this procedural battle to try to shut down this debate. We can understand why.

It is because the Conservatives understand that not only is the public not with them any more but that they have lost that initial level of public support, when people accepted them at their word and initially said that this legislation must be necessary. Public opinion plummeted, because the government's own words and own actions raised real concerns in the minds of the public.

Very learned, respected people stepped forward and said that this is absolutely not the approach the government should take. in the public mind and in the minds of those who have been raising these legitimate concerns, repeatedly two areas have been brought forward that are the subject of this motion of instruction today: ensuring that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization and enhancing oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies.

(1050) I just wanted to raise, on both the oversight and the radicalization sides, some quotes that are very germane to the debate we are having this morning, despite the government's attempt to stop the debate. First, I would like to quote the current Minister of Justice , who, in 2005, obviously agreed with the NDP today. His 2005 comment was: ...when you talk about a credible oversight body, I would suggest...that a parliamentary body is going to have more credibility because of its independence and because of the fact that there is also parliamentary accountability that will be brought to bear.

To that end, I suggest that it would also cause a little bit more diligence on the part of the security agents themselves, just knowing that this oversight body was in place. That is the current Minister of Justice back in 2005, I guess when he could think outside the board and actually raise the kinds of concerns the NDP is raising today in 2015. In 2005, the Minister of Justice would have been agreeing with the NDP. Second, we have the Privacy Commissioner, who was denied the ability to go before the public safety committee to testify on Bill C-51 , which is absolutely shameful.

He said: ...the proposed changes to information sharing authorities are not accompanied by measures to fill gaps in the national security oversight regime.... This Act would seemingly allow departments and agencies to share the personal information of all individuals, including ordinary Canadians who may not be suspected of terrorist activities.... On radicalization, I know intimately what the lack of any real attempt to work with Canadian communities to counteract radicalization has meant. The mosque that is in my riding in Burnaby—New Westminster was the mosque the man who murdered Cpl. Nathan Cirillo attended.

I travelled to that mosque within a couple of days of what happened on October 22 here on the Hill. What the mosque members told me was quite stark. They said that they knew he had profound mental illness. They knew that he had a drug addiction. They tried to seek help, and there was nothing available. This is something we have heard from communities right across the country. It is just a common sense measure that the committee should be taking into consideration, and can take into consideration if we pass this motion, that would allow some ability to counter radicalization.

The committee should be working to ensure that. There are two quotes I would like to cite. The first is from a national security law expert from the University of Ottawa, Craig Forcese. He said: The literature suggests that when it comes to...radicalization, the best tool might actually be what are known as...programs designed to steer persons away from taking that one last step from radicalized worldviews to actual violence. That is something the committee should, of course, be taking into consideration. We have also heard from the White House.

President Obama has stepped forward to look to counter radicalization. He said: We have seen attacks over the last several years in which consumption of propaganda over, and communication through, the Internet played a role in the radicalization of the attacker. The Federal Government will work to make communities more resilient to these messages of hate by raising awareness and providing tools. Informed and resilient communities are our Nation's first and best line of defence.... That is what the NDP has brought forward today.

We have said that we should be enlarging the scope and that we should grant the power to the committee to expand the scope of the bill to ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization and to enhance oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies. The polls tell us that about 60% of Canadians support those measures and do not believe that Bill C-51 passes those tests at all. I would ask our Conservative members opposite, and the Liberal members that are supporting Bill C-51 as well, to take into consideration what the witnesses said before committee.

Ninety per cent of Conservative witnesses and 95% of all witnesses said that we need to enhance oversight. Many of them also said that we need to have the government working with communities to counter radicalization. These are common sense measures. I hope all members of the House will support this motion of instruction.

(1055) Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the official opposition House leader, as well as the debate on whether the motion was in order. I first want to point out for Canadians that what the NDP is trying to do, essentially, is change the Westminster processes for studying bills at committee. What the NDP is trying to suggest on Bill C-51 right now is beyond what we call the principle and scope of the bill. I would refer all members to

chapter 16 of O'Brien and Bosc, page 766.

(1100) Mr. Peter Julian : The Speaker has already ruled. Mr. James Bezan : I am talking about the issue the member brought before the House. I am talking to the Speaker. I would point out for everyone in the House, that on page 766 of O'Brien and Bosc it says— Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The ruling has already been made. It is very clear in O'Brien and Bosc that comments on a motion of instruction have to carry on the motion of instruction itself. The Speaker has ruled.

It is very clear in O'Brien and Bosc what the member should ask in his question, and I hope he will actually stick to the parliamentary rule book and follow the rules. The Deputy Speaker : I think I understand where the member is going, and he is not out of order. If he is going to moving toward the argument that was made by the government House leader, then, of course, he would be out of order since that has already been ruled on. I think I understand where he is going with it. It may be a bit of a stretch, but it is still relevant to the motion before us for debate. Mr. James Bezan : Mr.

Speaker, I am not challenging the ruling at all. That would be inappropriate. I am pointing out for everybody that the motion we are debating right now is trying to change the normal process at committee. Just so everybody understands, when a standing committee is studying a bill, it has to follow a process, which is called principle of scope. An amendment to a bill that is referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill at committee.

The NDP essentially is trying to go to a further process and provide the instruction from the House to committee, which the NDP was ineffective and unable to do at committee. It is trying to change the process. We have brought forward Bill C-51 that is about protecting Canadians at home. I know the New Democrats are struggling with that. They do not want to put the safety and security of Canadians first and foremost. I would again tell my colleagues across the way that we have a duty and responsibility to ensure that Canadians' safety is paramount to everything that we do in our country.

We need the ability to share information among departments to ensure we can enhance the no-fly list. There are so many good things in Bill C-51 that those members refuse to support, as most other members in the House are. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, “safety is paramount” for the government, which is what the member just said, yet it has made cutbacks in food safety programs that have put the safety of Canadians at risk. We saw the appalling lack of oversight on rail safety that led to Lac-Mégantic. What an incredibly appalling and irresponsible series of actions by the government.

There are 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women and the government has said that it will not take any actions, that it does not care, that there will be no public inquiry. Anyone on the government side of the House who says that safety is paramount to the government opens himself or herself up to the very simple series of facts that shows the government has not seemed to care at all about the safety of Canadians, and seems to prove it each and every day. That is tragic for Canadians. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to the issue of Bill C-51 , no one should be surprised by the types of issues being raised at the committee level. In fact, when the leader of the Liberal Party addressed the House on Bill C-51, he raised a number of concerns. What we are witnessing in committee is that time and again those concerns, along with others, continue to surface. We want the government to recognize the need to amend the legislation. That is why we support the motion put forward by the NDP. We do not want the Conservatives to use the issue of scope for not making the legislation better.

I know the member has already made reference to some of these. First, there has to be parliamentary oversight. Second, we have to institute mandatory legislative review. Third, the narrow, overly broad

definitions must be addressed. We hear that from stakeholders from all sides. Would the member not agree that the three items I listed are absolute musts in terms of the amendments? I believe there are literally dozens of others that in fact would make the legislation that much better and more acceptable to Canadians as a whole.

(1105) Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, of course we agree. That is why the NDP has brought forward a very comprehensive series of amendments that we would hope the government would look to adopt, if the government were being responsible. That is why we are bringing forward the motion of instruction today as well. However, there must be some sort of reflection on the part of the Liberal members. The Liberal members have heard the same witnesses who the NDP members have heard. They have seen the same outpouring from across the country of people opposing this bad legislation.

Yet, the Liberal members are saying that it is bad but they are going to vote for it. That simply belies any common sense approach to the legislation. As the Leader of the Opposition has said a number of times, principle has to count for something. The Liberals should be voting against the legislation. Until they say that they are going to fight for changes but if those changes do not come, they are going to vote against the legislation, they will have no credibility in their discussions around the bill. [ Translation ] Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, yes, terrorists do pose a potential threat. However, there is another, even more serious threat. How many jobs have been lost at Future Shop? How many families in Alberta and British Columbia know that they are going to suffer job losses? I think Canadian families are also terrified because they do not know whether the head of the household, the mother or father, will be able to pay the mortgage and continue supporting the family. My question for my colleague is this: does he think the government is trying to divert Canadians' attention away from their real problems?

The government has not even delivered a budget. It is using terrorism to divert attention away from the unemployment problems and the lack of jobs in Canada. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, the member for Honoré-Mercier is quite right. I applaud her work in the House. She does outstanding work on behalf of her constituents and she is very active on the ground in her riding. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada has described Canada's economic situation as “atrocious”. We have a government that has refused to deliver a budget for weeks now, even though some of the provinces have already done so.

The Minister of Finance is missing in action; he will not answer any questions in the House and he is not delivering the budget. Canadians are judging the government on this matter. The government is introducing bills and doing everything in a partisan way, but it is not ready to govern. We on this side of the House are ready to govern. On October 19, we will have the opportunity to form a responsible government that really puts the interests of Canadians first. [ English ] Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened attentively to the debate and I have a question for the hon. member. Bill C-51 is the most important national security legislation since the 9/11 era. It is designated for the post-9/11 era. We are seeing a resurgence of terrorist activities and radicalization similar to those seen in the mid-1970s by the Red Brigades in Italy and the Baader-Meinhof army faction in Germany. What does the hon. member fear about better protecting Canadians against insurgent terrorist activities? How is the motion in any way relevant to the immediate security and safety of Canadians? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Speaker, 25 out of 28 witnesses who were brought forward to the public safety committee by the Conservatives said that the member was absolutely wrong. They said that enhancing oversight was of fundamental importance. They raised the issue of ensuring that the government worked with Canadian communities to counter radicalization. I am beginning to see what a vast disconnect there is between members of Parliament from the Conservative Party and the witnesses they invited to the public safety committee. They are not even listening to their own witnesses, let alone the public.

They are listening to no one, and that has to change. That is why the Conservatives should be supporting the motion of instruction from the NDP. We have been listening to the public and we have even been listening to Conservative witnesses. We have been doing their job for them.

(1110) Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this important issue and to stand in opposition to the motion before us. Let us be very clear. Jihadi terrorists have declared war on us. They have specifically targeted Canada. They have urged supporters to attack what they call disbelieving Canadians in any manner, and they have vowed that we should not feel secure, even in our homes. As the government, we know that our ultimate responsibility is to protect Canadians from those who would do harm to us and do harm to our families.

That is why Canada is not sitting on the sidelines, as the Liberals and the NDP would have us do, and is instead a proud member of the international coalition fighting ISIL. The first duty of any government is to protect the safety of its citizens. That is why we introduced the anti-terrorism act, 2015, to ensure that our national security agencies have the tools they need to protect Canadians against the evolving threat presented by jihadi terrorists. The NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster has raised concerns regarding oversight and review of our national security agencies.

We believe that independent, non-partisan oversight of our national security agencies is a better model than political intervention in this process. Further, the key powers of the new legislation are subject to judicial review and judicial authorization. This is the role of judges. There is no better authority to review these matters. Judges in Canada already approve or reject applications from police and national security authorities to conduct certain activities to keep Canadians safe. This has been a long-standing practice in Canada.

CSIS will only be able to undertake this activity if a judge from the Federal Court believes it is necessary to keep Canadians safe and specifically approves it. This provides sufficient oversight and robust review. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is the jihadi terrorists who seek to take away our rights, and it is our national security agencies that are standing up to protect us. There has been much discussion about the legislation at the public safety committee. Many prominent Canadians have appeared to express their support for this legislation.

Louise Vincent, for example, the sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was the victim of a horrific terrorist attack last October, said: “If C-51 had been in place on October 19...Martin Couture-Rouleau would...have been in prison and my brother would not be dead” today. Marc-André O'Rourke of the National Airlines Council of Canada said, “The NACC and our member airlines understand the need to update Canada's passenger protect program in light of the evolving nature of security threats, and we continue to support the program under” Bill C-51.

Professor Elliot Tepper of Carleton University said: “Bill C-51 is the most important national security legislation since the 9/11 era.” He continued: [It] is designed for the post-9/11 era. It's a new legislation for a new era in terms of security threats. While it's understandable that various provisions of the legislation attract attention, we need to keep our focus on the fundamental purpose and the fundamental challenge of combatting emerging types of terrorism.

Barry Cooper, another witness, a research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute said: Bill C-51 is aimed at violent Islamic jihadi terrorists, and those are the persons against whom its provisions are to be enforced. The reasons are clear enough provided one makes reference to facts and events of the real world, today. [...] Unlike their critics, the authors of Bill C-51 are sensible enough to have recognized the danger.

(1115) Finally, another witness I will refer to, Professor Salim Mansur of the University of Western Ontario, said: Bill C-51 is directed against Islamist jihadists and to prevent or pre-empt them from their stated goal to carry out terrorist threats against the West, including Canada.... ...the measures proposed in Bill C-51 to deal with the nature of threats that Canada faces, I believe, are quite rightly and urgently needed to protect and keep secure the freedom of our citizens.

Therefore, it is clear that there is widespread support among Canadians to give tools to our national security agencies to combat the rapidly evolving threat of terrorism. That is why we will be opposing the motion introduced by the NDP. As members know, on February 23, the House voted to refer the anti-terrorism act 2015 to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This vote is an approval in principle of the legislation. There is a process in place for the committee to study the legislation, hearing from expert witnesses, of course.

However, there is not an opportunity to expand or change the scope of the legislation. Had the NDP members expressed a desire to do that, they could have moved a motion to refer the legislation to committee before second reading. They did not do so. Therefore, I think the motion before us is a purely procedural tactic to continue their opposition to a bill that will keep Canadians safe. We reject the argument that, every time we talk about security, our freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand.

Canadians expect us to protect both, and there are safeguards in this legislation to do exactly that. There have been many misconceptions surrounding this legislation, primarily put forward by members of the NDP. Some have alleged that the Conservative government is not correct in stating that the other allies allow their national security agencies to disrupt threats. Well, that is patently not true. In the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency can, pursuant to the National Security Act, conduct domestic threat disruption with an executive order. In the United Kingdom, MI5 can, pursuant to

section 1 of the Security Service Act, conduct any activity to protect national security. The Norwegian Police Security Service has a mandate to prevent and investigate any crime against the state, including terrorism. The Finnish Security Intelligence Service is mandated to prevent crimes that may endanger the government or political system and internal or external security, pursuant to

section 10 of the act on police administration. We must ensure that CSIS has the same tools to keep Canadians safe. Some have said that this will transform CSIS into a secret police force with no accountability, while also violating our basic freedoms and Charter rights. Everything about this statement is wrong. Bill C-51 would give no law enforcement powers to CSIS. CSIS cannot arrest any individual. It cannot charge any individual. What is proposed in Bill C-51 is efforts to stop terrorist attacks while they are still in the planning stages.

The NDP has said many times that choosing between liberty and security is a false choice, and we could not agree more. However, at every turn, the NDP chooses to vote against measures that increase our security. As we have said many times, without security there can be no liberty. That is why we will vote against this motion and continue the good work of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to pass this important legislation. I now move, seconded by the member for Selkirk—Interlake : Motion That the debate be now adjourned.

(1120) The Deputy Speaker : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1200) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 369) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Bergen Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 136 NAYS Members Adams Allen (Welland) Angus Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bellavance Bennett Benskin Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Freeland Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hyer Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Rafferty Rankin Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) St-Denis Stewart Sullivan Toone Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote Vaughan -- 114 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

The House will now resume with the remaining business under routine proceedings.

Petitions Asbestos Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament here assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known and that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined. They therefore call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms, end all government subsidies of asbestos, and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

Seafood Industry Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from thousands of people across the country who are concerned about overfishing and destructive fishing practices that are threatening marine life in the ocean. The petitioners say that over 120 million people are dependent on fish as part of their income but, over the last century, fish populations have dramatically declined.

They say that Canadian consumers want sustainable seafood options and that Canadian seafood industries are providing increased opportunities for consumers to make sustainable seafood purchases. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to declare March 18 as national sustainable seafood day.

Agriculture Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have noted that a number of members of Parliament across all party lines and from all parts of the country have been filing petitions with respect to the rights of farmers and their use, reuse, exchange and selling of seeds. I have another of those petitions, signed by various people across Saskatchewan, including a number in White City, Saskatchewan. The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell seeds.

The Environment Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on this day, the deadline for Canada to submit its climate action plan in advance of the Conference of the Parties in December of this year, I am pleased to present a petition with respect to the climate change accountability act. The signatories to this petition are concerned about the inaction of the federal government to address climate change and the impacts of climate change on their day-to-day lives. They call on the federal government to support the NDP's climate change accountability act, a law that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hold the government accountable.

Agriculture Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from the Margarees—East Margaree, Margaree Harbour, Margaree Centre—and Belle Cote. The petitioners have expressed a great deal of concern with multinational seed companies that are gradually replacing the immense diversity of farm seeds by industrial varieties. There was a ratification of UPOV 91, which further advanced the concern on this.

They call for the Government of Canada to adopt international aid policies and support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty. They want to advocate that the Canadian government present policies and programs that are developed in consultation with small family farmers to ensure there is a use and free exchange of seeds.

(1205) The Environment Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition to the Government of Canada on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to immediately act to prevent this new oil pipeline from proceeding through Burnaby. I read this on the same day that six municipalities are calling on the federal government to suspend the National Energy Board process because it is unfair, including to people from Burnaby who are signing the petition.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1047, 1048, 1050 to 1053 and 1057. [ Text ] Question No. 1047-- Mr. Sean Casey : With regard to the communications activities of the Prime Minister’s office: (

a) what is the source or provenance of each individual video clip, segment, or shot which was combined to produce the video entitled “24 SEVEN Exclusive: Canada stands strong and free”, which was posted on January 28, 2015; (

b) who owns the copyright or any other intellectual property rights in each such video clip, segment, or shot; (

c) for each such video clip, segment, or shot, was permission obtained to use the clip, segment, or shot; (

d) if the answer to (

c) is affirmative, when, how, and from whom was the permission obtained; and (

e) if the answer to (

c) is affirmative, was the permission obtained in return for payment or other consideration, and what are the details of that payment or consideration? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows: With regard to (a), the sources of each individual video clip, segment or shot used in the “24 SEVEN Exclusive: Canada stands strong and free” are the Canadian Forces Combat Camera, the House of Commons and 24 SEVEN footage.

With regard to part b), the Crown owns the copyright for the Canadian Forces Combat Camera and 24 SEVEN footage. The House of Commons owns the copyright for footage taken from proceedings in the House of Commons.

With regard to parts

c) to e), permission to use the material was sought from the House of Commons. The Prime Minister’s Office obtained permission to use the footage in March 2014. This permission was not obtained in return for any payment or other consideration. The Crown owns the copyright for Combat Camera, therefore no official permission to use the material was necessary. The audio-visual team of Combat Camera is aware of its use by the Prime Minister’s Office. Question No. 1048-- Mr. Ryan Cleary : With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Manolis L situation: (

a) since March 2013, what advice has the Department received from international experts regarding the situation; (

b) will a management plan be put in place; and (

c) is the government prepared to access a federal clean-up fund to address the situation? Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard remain committed to protecting our oceans from ship-source pollution. The government has made this clear through the ongoing implementation of a world-class tanker safety system. With regard to (a), since March 2013, the coast guard has received advice from international experts that confirms the effectiveness of ongoing operations.

As a response organization, the Canadian Coast Guard continues to look at all options; however, the cofferdam and the coast guard’s ongoing response plan for the Manolis L continues to be effective. The coast guard is prepared to move swiftly to respond if the current situation changes. With regard to (a), since March 2013, the coast guard has received advice from international experts that confirms the effectiveness of ongoing operations.

As a response organization, the Canadian Coast Guard continues to look at all options; however, the cofferdam and the coast guard’s ongoing response plan for the Manolis L continues to be effective. The coast guard is prepared to move swiftly to respond if the current situation changes. With regard to (c), under Canada’s existing ship-source oil pollution fund, cost recovery is limited to five years from the date of the original incident, which in this case refers to the vessel’s sinking. The government is reviewing long-term options for the management of the Manolis L . Question No. 1050-- Mr.

Ryan Cleary : With regard to National Defence and its Cormorant Search and Rescue helicopters: (

a) what are the details of a pilot project to be carried out this year regarding a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week uniform search and rescue response time; (

b) what is the expected completion date; (

c) what is the goal of the pilot project; and (

d) will the results be presented to Parliament? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, each year, search and rescue, SAR, crews and coordinators respond to approximately 10,000 marine, aeronautical and humanitarian incidents nation-wide. The three search and rescue regions, SRRs, in Victoria, Trenton and Halifax work together to oversee SAR operations across Canada, which includes over 18 million square kilometres of land and sea. SAR crews follow a

schedule of 40 hours a week of 30-minute SAR response time. Outside of the 40-hour week, SAR crews continue to respond immediately and must be airborne within two hours. With regard to (

a) to (d), the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, are not currently carrying out a project as described in the question. However, the CAF are in the final year of a project composed of a set of annual trials of SAR response times held over the course of three years. The purpose of this trial project is to adjust response times to better align with the hours and days during which SAR incidents are most likely to occur.

While the pre-existing response time will not change, this trial, which will vary for squadrons and aircraft, aims to align the 30-minute response posture with periods of greatest SAR activity based on historical data. The 2013 trial included the Trenton SRR and in 2014, was refined and expanded to include Victoria. This year’s final trial will be further expanded to include Halifax and will run from May 15 through September 7, 2015. Question No. 1051-- Mr. Ryan Cleary : With regard to International Trade: (

a) how did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development arrive at a figure of $280 million as compensation to Newfoundland and Labrador for anticipated losses incurred with the elimination of Minimum Processing Requirements as part of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) deal; (

b) when did the EU ask for Minimum Processing Requirements to be lifted as part of CETA negotiations; and (

c) for what concessions from the EU was the elimination of Minimum Processing Requirements exchanged? Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the historic Canada-EU trade agreement will deliver tremendous benefits for businesses, workers and their families in Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador raised significant concerns that the removal of minimum processing requirements, MPRs, would have a negative impact on workers in the fisheries sector.

Through discussions, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to cost-share an MPR fund that would be used to compensate those who can demonstrate losses as a result of the removal of MPRs. The Government of Canada looks forward to receiving the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's specific proposals for this fund, and to moving forward with this historic trade agreement that will present untold economic opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador.

With regard to (b), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information has been withheld on the grounds that the disclosure of negotiating information could be injurious to bilateral relations between Canada and the EU.

With regard to (c), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes cabinet confidences. Question No. 1052-- Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle : With regard to the Offshore Tax Informant Program: (

a) since the program was established, (

i) how many calls have been received, (ii) how many cases have been opened based on information received from informants, (iii) what is the total amount of the financial awards given to informants, (iv) what is the total amount of money collected by the Canada Revenue Agency; (

b) how many current investigations are the result of information received through the program; and (

c) how much money is involved in the current investigations? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, launched the offshore tax informant program, OTIP, on January 15, 2014. As of January 31, 2015, the OTIP had received 1,712 calls, 478 of them from potential informants.

With regard to (a)(ii), as of January 31, 2015, the OTIP had received 189 written submissions. Of these, 113 cases are being reviewed by the OTIP to determine program eligibility. There have been 76 cases that do not qualify under the OTIP. Those cases have been closed and where appropriate, referred to other areas within the CRA for possible compliance action.

With regard to (a)(iii), once the OTIP receives a submission, it is evaluated on its merits as to whether it warrants issuing a contract for the potential reward. It may take several years from the date of entering into a contract with the CRA until the additional federal tax is assessed, the taxpayer’s appeal rights have expired and the amount owing is collected. If the CRA assesses and collects more than $100,000 in additional federal tax, the reward will be between 5% and 15% of the federal tax collected, not including interest or penalties. The OTIP is currently engaged in the contracting phase with several informants. No rewards have been paid out to date.

With regard to (a)(iv), the CRA will report to Canadians on results of the OTIP, including the amounts recovered and paid out to informants, through the CRA’s annual report to Parliament, provided that this information does not have the potential to reveal the identity of confidential informants or disclose taxpayer information.

With regard to (b), the OTIP reviews the information provided by informants about potential international tax non-compliance for eligibility purposes. Only after a file is referred will a CRA compliance action potentially confirm whether a taxpayer has been non-compliant and, if so, the dollar amounts involved. The OTIP takes protecting taxpayer and informant information seriously. Given that the program is still in its early stages, disclosing operational information such as the number of compliance actions that may be under way could jeopardize the identity of an informant or compromise the CRA’s compliance actions.

With regard to (c), please see responses provided in (a)(iv) and (b).

Question No. 1053-- Mr. Randall Garrison : With regard to the Countering Violent Extremism Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: (

a) on what date did the program become operational; (

b) how many full-time equivalent staff are assigned to the program; (

c) how many RCMP members have received training through the program; (

d) in which municipalities is the program operating; (

e) what total budget has been allocated to the program; (

f) how many community associations and places of worship have been engaged through the program; (

g) which faith communities have been engaged through the program; and (

h) what is the planned duration of the program? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the RCMP is currently finalizing the implementation of the countering violent extremism, CVE, program components and anticipating that the program will be fully operational in late 2015.

The RCMP has started to provide CVE training to front-line law enforcement across Canada. With regard to (

b) and (e), the CVE mandate is part of the public engagement program that has eight full-time employees operating on a budget of $1.1 million. Throughout the course of the year, additional resources were pulled from various divisions and national headquarters for an additional $2 million. As a result, in fiscal year 2014-15, the RCMP is projecting total expenditures of $3.1 million on its CVE mandate.

With regard to (c), 18 RCMP members have received training through the program. In addition, 12 police officers from outside agencies have received training, from the Toronto Police Service, Vancouver Police Department, Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, Sûreté du Québec, Service de police de la Ville de Québec, Peel Regional Police, the Ontario Provincial Police and Ottawa Police Service. The RCMP also supported and facilitated the counter terrorism information officer program training for 400 front-line Toronto Police Service officers.

The counter terrorism information officer workshop delivery has also been leveraged to provide awareness of radicalization to violence. These workshops, a fixture of the RCMP’s counter terrorism training for nearly a decade with over 1,800 individuals trained to date, provide training to law enforcement and first responders to detect signs of radicalization to violence, build overall terrorism awareness and help serve as a basis for future terrorism prevention program training. In 2014-15, over 647 officers were trained through the workshops, significantly increasing the number of RCMP officers trained in how to detect signs of radicalization. With regard to (d), (

f) and (g), the RCMP CVE program is not aimed at specific individuals or communities. It is designed to work with individuals who have been identified by law enforcement based on a number of pre-determined, unbiased and objective criteria that are grounded in research, or by the community itself.

The RCMP works with all its diverse communities and does not focus on specific communities based on their ethnic background or religious faith. The RCMP is committed to building trust with all of the communities it serves to share mutual concerns and develop collective solutions. With regard to (h), in keeping with its mandate, the RCMP undertakes comprehensive national security outreach efforts to work directly with individuals, families, communities and as such, the CVE does not have a designated duration timeline. Question No. 1057-- Mr. Mathieu Ravignat : With regard to a procurement certification agreement between the Treasury Board and the Standards Council of Canada: (

a) does such an agreement exist; (

b) if the answer in (

a) is affirmative, since when; (

c) what are the details of the agreement; (

d) has the agreement been modified since the date identified in ( b ), and if so, (

i) what are the details of the changes, (ii) when did the changes take effect; and (

e) does the text of the agreement refer to training developed and offered by the Canada School of Public Service, and if so, what are the details of this training? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is no procurement certification agreement between the Treasury Board and the Standards Council of Canada.

[ English ] 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 Questions Nos. 1032 to 1037, 1039 to 1045 and 1054 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed [ Text ] Question No. 1032-- Mr. Rodger Cuzner : With regard to the International Experience Canada Program (the Program): (

a) does the government track data to determine if the Program is impacting the domestic labour market for young Canadians; (

b) if the answer in (

a) is negative, what are the reasons; (

c) if the answer in (

a) is affirmative, what are the details of any measurements used by the government to make such determination; (

d) how many Canadian employers employ foreign youth in the Program, broken down by (

i) total, (ii) industry, (iii) numbers as of each fiscal period ending from March 31, 2005 to March 31, 2014; (

e) does the government believe the Program is having any negative effect on the domestic labour market for young Canadians; (

f) if the answer in (

e) is affirmative, what are the details of any rationale for belief, data, metrics, reference numbers, dates of any documents produced by or for the government to support such a belief; (

g) what checks and balance are in place to ensure the Program is not negatively impacting the domestic labour market for Canadian youth; (

h) which countries did Canada have reciprocal agreements in place with and what was each agreed quota as of December 31, 2005; (

i) since January 1, 2006, how many new reciprocal agreements were signed, broken down by the (

i) date of agreement, (ii) initial quota, (iii) policy rationale and objectives for the initial quota agreed upon; (

j) since January 1, 2006, which reciprocal agreement quotas were increased from the initial agreement quota, broken down by (

i) date of quota increase, (ii) rationale for the increase; (

k) since January 1, 2006, what are the details of any analysis done when new reciprocal agreements were signed or agreement quotas expanded to determine impacts on the domestic youth labour market, broken down by (

i) report titles, (ii) dates, (iii) file numbers, (iv) results of any such analysis or study; (

l) if no analysis was done in relation to question ( k ), what are the reasons and what did the government rely on to ensure there would be no significant impact to increasing the number of foreign youth in the country through the Program on the domestic youth labour market; (

m) which countries does Canada have reciprocal agreements with, broken down by (

i) the quota, (ii) the number of youth in the Program as of each fiscal period ending from March 31, 2002, to March 31, 2014, (iii) the current number of youth; (

n) since 2007, what are the instances where the government became aware of potential abuses in the Program, broken down by (

i) description of the confirmed or alleged abuse, (ii) date, (iii) titles and file numbers of reports that investigated the confirmed or alleged abuse; (

o) what policies or procedures are in place to ensure foreign youth are not open to labour standards or occupational health and safety abuse by employers; (

p) are employers of foreign youth in the Program subject to workplace inspections; (

q) if the answer in (

p) is affirmative, how many inspections occurred in each fiscal period, from 2004-2005 to date; (

r) what was the primary policy purpose behind increasing the number of countries and quotas in the Program in each instance since 2006; (

s) is the Program associated with any specific policy to address labour and skills shortages in Canada; (

t) if the answer in (

s) is affirmative, when did that policy come into force and what was the rationale for it; (

u) does the government believe the Program is helping address labour shortages; (

v) if the answer in (

u) is affirmative, which part of the country are concerned and in what way; (

w) what were the budgeted and actual expenditures for the Program for fiscal year 2004-2005 to the current fiscal year; (

x) what was the cost of promoting the Program from fiscal year 2004-2005 to the current fiscal year, broken down by costs associated with (

i) foreign youth, (ii) Canadian youth; (

y) what was the cost to promote the Program to Canadian businesses, broken down by fiscal year from 2004-2005 to date; (

z) what are the policies or strategies used to promote foreign youth in the Program to Canadian employers; ( aa ) what are the dates and costs of trips or missions undertaken abroad to promote the Program to foreign youth since 2006, broken down by (

i) government officials, (ii) ministers; ( bb ) did the Department of Foreign Affairs have any concerns about the direction of the Program, the policy associated with it or its objectives since 2008; and ( cc ) if the answer to ( bb ) is affirmative, what were the concerns, broken down by (

i) date, (ii) title, (iii) file number of the documents that highlighted the concern? (Return tabled) Question No. 1033-- Hon. Gerry Byrne : With regard to the recognition of landless bands and the recognition of Indian Status of members of such bands under the Indian Act: (

a) how many landless bands have been recognized by Canada; (

b) what are the recognized names of such bands; (

c) by which legal instruments was each band recognized; (

d) on what date was each band recognized; (

e) what was the number of members of each band at the time of recognition; (

f) what is the number of members for each recognized band today; (

g) where were the original members of each band generally understood to have resided at the time of recognition; (

h) where are the members of each recognized band generally understood to reside today; (

i) for each band, did membership in the band result in a direct eligibility for enrollment with the Registrar of Indians for recognition of Status under the Indian Act; (

j) what were the original eligibility criteria established for each band at the time the recognition order was proclaimed; and (

k) what are the details concerning current eligibility criteria for bands to be recognized? (Return tabled) Question No. 1034-- Hon. Gerry Byrne : With regard to the operation of the federal Crown Corporation Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI) and the policy and operational oversight provided for MAI by Transport Canada: (

a) what is Transport Canada’s rationale for its decision to acquire or charter new vessels of approximately 200 metres in length to renew the MAI fleet, in light of the fact that the MAI Board of Directors had previously approved their consultant’s recommendation that vessels of 175 metres in length would be best suited to the service; (

b) what were the perceived advantages of the longer vessels that outweighed the increased likelihood that their operations would be inhibited by poor weather; (

c) what was Transport Canada’s rationale for establishing a four-vessel fleet for MAI, given the 2005 Report from the Minister of Transport’s Advisory Committee on Marine Atlantic Inc. that had recommended a three-vessel fleet; (

d) does MAI track delays that customers experience in order to make new bookings during peak times, (

i) if so, what are the details of such delays for June to September 2013, and June to September 2014, (ii) if not, why not; (

e) does MAI collect data on the delay between a customer’s preferred travel date and the date for which they are actually able to make a reservation for travel, (

i) if so, what are the details of such delays for June to September 2013, and June to September 2014, (ii) if not, why not; (

f) during times of traffic backlog (e.g., because of excess demand, mechanical failure or poor weather) is it MAI’s policy not to take new reservations, or allow vehicles to buy passage and enter the parking lots, until the backlog is cleared and, if so, why; (

g) in what ways do the new collective agreements signed between 2011 and 2013 for MAI employees allow additional operational flexibility and potential for labour cost savings to MAI, compared to the previous collective agreements; (

h) what measureable benefits has MAI received as a result of the new collective agreements; (

i) is the loan for the MV Leif Ericson still being paid out of the operating budget and, if so, why; (

j) other than the Canadian Forces Appreciation Fare, has MAI ever introduced any other fare options to give users more choice and increase fare revenue and, if not, why not; (

k) is it MAI’s current policy to give tractor-trailers loading priority over drop trailers and, if not, why not; (

l) did MAI apply to Transport Canada Marine Safety in order to be able to allow more drivers of tractor-trailers onboard restricted sailings and, if not, why not; (

m) has an independent ombudsman ever been appointed to receive customer complaints regarding MAI’s service and, if not, why not; (

n) how has the effectiveness of MAI’s maintenance management systems and practices improved since 2009; (

o) does MAI track the average time between equipment failures, (

i) if so, what trends have been observed in equipment performance measures since 2009, (ii) if not, why not; (

p) what objective indicators has MAI established with respect to vessel turnaround time; and (

q) what trends have been observed in the indicators mentioned in ( p )? (Return tabled) Question No. 1035-- Mr. Robert Aubin : With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) tax centre in Shawinigan-Sud: (

a) does the government plan to begin renovating this building over the next 24 months; (

b) if work is to begin, will it involve life cycle maintenance; (

c) if revitalization work is planned, as of what date does the department responsible expect this work to begin; (

d) does the CRA plan to move some or all of its activities from Shawinigan-Sud to another city and, if so, what are the details; (

e) over the long term, does the CRA intend to maintain in Shawinigan-Sud (

i) a processing centre for personal tax returns, (ii) a processing centre for business tax returns; (

f) will any jobs be transferred from the Shawinigan-Sud tax centre to other cities in Canada over the next 24 months; (

g) has Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) assessed the condition of the building where the Shawinigan-Sud tax centre is located at 4695 12th Avenue, Shawinigan-Sud; (

h) is PWGSC aware that the building mentioned in (

g) is approaching an advanced state of disrepair; (

i) is PWGSC planning a major revitalization of the building mentioned in (

g) over the next 24 months; (

j) does Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) plan to keep the 200 jobs at its service centre in the building mentioned in ( g ); and (

k) will any ESDC employees currently working in Shawinigan-Sud be transferred to other cities in Canada over the next 24 months? (Return tabled) Question No. 1036-- Mr. Frank Valeriote : With regard to government funding for each fiscal year from 2008-2009 to present: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Nipissing–Timiskaming, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (

v) department or agency providing it, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) 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. 1037-- Hon. Scott Brison : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Public Works and Government Services Canada since June 4, 2014: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? (Return tabled) Question No. 1039-- Hon. Lawrence MacAulay : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since March 28, 2014: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? (Return tabled) Question No. 1040-- Ms. Kirsty Duncan : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Shared Services Canada since March 31, 2014: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? (Return tabled) Question No. 1041-- Ms. Kirsty Duncan : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Public Safety Canada since March 31, 2014: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? (Return tabled) Question No. 1042-- Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada since May 30, 2014: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? (Return tabled) Question No. 1043-- Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia : With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Natural Resources Canada since May 30, 2014: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values? (Return tabled) Question No. 1044-- Hon. Irwin Cotler : With regard to the resettlement of refugees under the Government Assisted Refugees (GAR) program: (

a) for each of the last ten years, what was the annual admissions target; (

b) for each of the last ten years, what was the annual admissions target for GARs referred by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); (

c) what is the breakdown, by source country, of the targets in (

a) and ( b ); (

d) for the last ten years, broken down by source country, how many refugees have been resettled in Canada; (

e) for each of the last ten years, how many individuals has the UNHCR asked Canada to accept as refugees; (

f) what is the breakdown, by source country, of the individuals in ( e ); (

g) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country, how many of the individuals in (

e) have been (

i) deemed admissible by Canada, (ii) selected by Canada for resettlement, (iii) resettled in Canada, (iv) deemed inadmissible by Canada; (

h) broken down by year and source country, for the individuals in (

e) deemed inadmissible by Canada, (

i) on what grounds were they deemed inadmissible, (ii) who made the determination that they were inadmissible, (iii) how was that determination communicated to the UNHCR, (iv) how was that determination communicated to the individual; (

i) broken down by year and source country, how many of the individuals in (

e) were deemed inadmissible by Canada (

i) following an in-person interview by a Canadian visa officer, (ii) based on the results of a medical examination, (iii) based on the results of a security screening, (iv) based on the results of a criminal screening, (

v) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in a criminal organization, (vi) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in human rights violations, (vii) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in terrorism; (

j) based on what factors does Canada evaluate referrals from the UNHCR; (

k) who carries out the evaluations in ( j ); (

l) what changes have been made to the factors in (

j) over the past ten years; (

m) for each change in ( l ), (

i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) on whose authority was it made, (iv) what was its objective, (

v) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (

n) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country and organization, how many individuals were referred to Canada for resettlement as refugees by organizations other than the UNHCR; (

o) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country and government, how many individuals were referred to Canada for resettlement as refugees by foreign governments; (

p) for each of the last ten years, broken down by source country and organization, how many of the individuals in (

n) have been (

i) deemed admissible by Canada, (ii) selected by Canada for resettlement, (iii) resettled in Canada, (iv) deemed inadmissible by Canada, (

v) denied entry into Canada; (

q) broken down by year and source country, how many of the individuals in (

n) have been denied resettlement in Canada (

i) based on the results of a security screening, (ii) based on a finding that the claimant had engaged in criminal activity, (iii) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in a criminal organization, (iv) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in human rights violations, (

v) based on a finding that the claimant had been involved in terrorism; (

r) what is the standard of proof for finding a claimant inadmissible for reasons of (

i) criminal activity, (ii) involvement in a criminal organization, (iii) involvement in human rights violations, (iv) involvement in terrorism; (

s) for each of the last ten years, have there been countries, regions, or refugee camps from which Canada did not accept refugee claimants as a matter of policy; (

t) what are the countries, regions, or refugee camps in ( s ); (

u) based on what factors did the government decide not to accept the claimants in ( s ); (

v) who made the decisions in ( u ); (

w) from what countries, regions, or refugee camps does Canada currently not accept refugee claimants as a matter of policy; (

x) based on what factors has the government decided not to accept the claimants in ( w ); (

y) who made the decisions in ( x ); (

z) has Canada ever communicated to the UNHCR, formally or informally, that it would not accept claimants from particular countries, regions, or refugee camps; ( aa ) what are the countries, regions, or refugee camps in ( z ); ( bb ) when did Canada make the communications in ( z ); ( cc ) what was the response of the UNHCR to the communications in ( z ); ( dd ) how many requests has Canada received from the UNHCR to resettle refugees from the Camp Liberty or Camp Ashraf refugee camps in Iraq; ( ee ) when was each of the requests in ( dd ) received; ( ff ) how many of the refugees in ( dd ) has Canada (

i) accepted, (ii) resettled in Canada, (iii) rejected; ( gg ) based on what factors did Canada reject the claimants in ( dd ); ( hh ) for each of the last ten years, what groups has Canada undertaken to resettle via group processing; ( ii ) for each group in ( hh ), (

i) when did Canada decide to resettle members of the group via group processing, (ii) who made that decision, (iii) on whose authority was the decision made, (iv) based on what factors was that decision made, (

v) how many members of the group has the government undertaken to resettle in Canada, (vi) how many members of the group does the government intend to resettle in Canada, (vii) how many members of the group have been resettled in Canada; ( jj ) since the start of the ongoing conflict in Syria in 2011, how many refugees from Syria has the government committed to resettle in Canada; ( kk ) when, how, and to whom did the government make the commitment in ( jj ); ( ll ) who determined the number of refugees in ( jj ); ( mm ) based on what factors was the determination in ( jj ) made; ( nn ) what changes have been made to the factors in ( mm ) since the start of the ongoing conflict in Syria in 2011; ( oo ) for each change in ( nn ), (

i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) on whose authority was it made, (iv) what was its objetive, (

v) in what ways was that objective accomplished; ( pp ) since the start of the ongoing conflict in Syria in 2011, broken down by month, how many refugee claimants from Syria have been (

i) resettled in Canada, (ii) deemed admissible by Canada, (iii) deemed inadmissible by Canada; ( qq ) based on what factors were claimants in ( pp ) deemed inadmissible by Canada; and ( rr ) what accounts for any discrepancy between the number of claimants in ( pp ) deemed admissible by Canada and the number of claimants in ( pp ) resettled in Canada? (Return tabled) Question No. 1045-- Hon. Irwin Cotler : With regard to the process for appointing individuals to the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC): (

a) which individuals have been appointed to SIRC over the last ten years; (

b) for each individual in ( a ), (

i) when was he or she appointed, (ii) how long was the term for which he or she was appointed, (iii) when did he or she leave SIRC; (

c) for each appointment in ( a ), (

i) when did the government begin the appointment process, (ii) what did the appointment process entail, (iii) when did the appointment process conclude; (

d) for each appointment in ( a ), (

i) who was involved in selecting the appointee, (ii) who selected the appointee, (iii) who oversaw the appointment process; (

e) for each appointment in ( a ), what groups, individuals, or governments were consulted as part of the appointment process; (

f) for each appointment in ( a ), how many candidates (

i) applied, (ii) were considered, (iii) were contacted by the government; (

g) for each appointment in ( a ), what is the breakdown of the cost of the appointment process; (

h) how has the appointment process changed over the last ten years; (

i) for each change in ( h ), (

i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) what was its objective, (iv) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (

j) according to what criteria does the government evaluate candidates; (

k) how have the criteria in (

j) changed in the last ten years; (

l) for each change in ( k ), (

i) when was it made, (ii) who made it, (iii) on whose authority was it made, (iv) what was its objective, (

v) in what ways was that objective accomplished; (

m) what reviews of the appointment process have been conducted or commissioned by the government over the last ten years; (

n) what are the results of the reviews in ( m ); (

o) what were the objectives of the reviews in (m); (

p) in what ways were the objectives in (

o) accomplished; (

q) what reviews of the appointment process are (

i) underway, (ii) planned; (

r) what are the objectives of the reviews in ( q ); (

s) when will the reviews in (

q) be completed; (

t) when will the results of the reviews in (

q) be made public; (

u) if an appointment process is currently underway, (

i) when did it begin, (ii) who is overseeing or has overseen the process, (iii) who is or has been involved in the process, (iv) what group, individuals, or governments have been consulted, (

v) when will the process be completed, (vi) when will the government announce the appointee; (

v) how is the process in (

u) different from previous appointment processes; (

w) what is the breakdown of the cost of the process in (

u) thus far; (

x) what security or background checks are conducted on candidates; (

y) who conducts security or background checks on candidates; and (

z) for each appointment in the last ten years, (

i) who conducted security or background checks on the candidates, (ii) what was the cost of the security or background checks? (Return tabled) Question No. 1054-- Mr. Randall Garrison : With regard to the Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive: (

a) how many applications were received; (

b) how many applications were successful; (

c) what is the overall budget for the program by year; (

d) what was the total amount of grants distributed by year; and (

e) which organizations received grants, broken down by (

i) communities, (ii) amounts, (iii) year? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Safe and Accountable Rail Act Bill C-52. Second reading The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52,

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Beaches—East York had three minutes remaining in his presentation. The hon. member for Beaches—East York. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, increasingly, and I mean daily, the railways across the country are operating as virtual pipelines.

From virtually none in 2008, the number of barrels of oil moving across the country, through towns and cities, has grown exponentially. There were 200,000 barrels of oil shipped per day in 2013. This year an estimated 1 million barrels per day and next year an anticipated 1.4 million barrels will move through towns and cities, through farmland, by lakes and across rivers. When this began, we had one inspector for every fourteen tanker cars of oil. As of last year, there was one inspector for every four thousand tanker cars of oil.

Since the devastation of the Lac-Mégantic derailment, including the deaths of 47 people, Transport Canada has hired just one additional inspector. That is over a period of two years. This is not what concern for public safety looks like. It is quite the opposite. It is a demonstration of profound disregard for what has transpired, for the risks that confront us daily and increasingly, and for the prospects of a more and ever-greater catastrophe as trains full of oil roll through densely populated urban Canada with increasing frequency.

While the bill, by way of establishing minimum insurance levels and a pooled disaster relief fund, and by increasing the authority of rail safety inspectors, is a small step forward, we support the bill because we believe it is essential to immediately improve the liability and accountability regime of Canada's railways. In the aftermath of Lac-Mégantic, the Government of Quebec, and by extension the public of Quebec, has been left with a liability of close to a half a billion dollars.

The bill does not nearly come close to acknowledging the nature of the problem, the urgency posed by the risks, the enormity of the potential disaster, the concerns of Canadians and, most critically, it fails to acknowledge the government's unequivocal responsibility for ensuring the safety of the Canadian public.

(1210) Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with intent to the member opposite's expressed support on behalf of the New Democrats, the official opposition, for the swift passage of Bill C-52 , and I welcome that. I know the opposition House leader is close at hand. Will the member ask his House leader to let this bill pass as quickly as possible rather than talk the clock out on it? I know it is in the interest of everyone that we move this swiftly, at least to committee for the next stage.

Will the member help secure a swift passage of the bill so we can move on to studying it at committee? Mr. Matthew Kellway : Mr. Speaker, most assuredly the NDP is in favour of swift action and response to the frequency of train derailments, the concerns of Canadians for their safety and the safety of others, and the very real potential of looming disasters of derailments in the context of densely populated urban areas across the country. It is the government that is playing catchup on this issue. The bill comes forward fully two years after the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

There is no excuse for the government to have delayed the introduction of a bill like this to deal with the accountability issues for such a long period of time. I am happy to assure the House and the Canadian public that the NDP will ensure that we move swiftly to get the right bill put through the House and ultimately passed by the House. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York Sou