OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 137 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, November 3, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 3, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 137 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 137 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 137 (Version officielle) 147 137 03 11 2014 2014/11/03 14:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members

(1405) [ English ] 26th Field Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women of the 26th Field Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery. This past weekend, the community gathered for its 66th annual military ball, which is the longest consecutive military ball in Canada. During this special evening, the 26th Field Regiment honoured its former commanding officer, retired Colonel Don Berry. Mr. Berry has a long and distinguished track record of both service in the 26th Field Regiment and to the community at large. He is the past chairman of the Brandon branch of the St.

John Ambulance and past president of the Royal Canadian Artillery Association. Southwestern Manitoba is blessed to not only have CFB Shilo as part of the community, but is honoured that many veterans choose to remain after their retirement. I want to thank Mr. Berry for his many years of service and pay tribute to the lives and accomplishments of our brave men and women in uniform from all generations and to those who proudly wear that uniform today.

[ Translation ] Job, Training and Entrepreneurship Fair

Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, the job shortage caused mainly by the policies of this government—which is offering no support to the region's industrial and manufacturing sectors—is having serious consequences. I have spoken about this in the past. The Conservatives also abolished 34 Health Canada positions in Shawinigan. Furthermore, the temporary closure of Lucyporc will add 300 people to the unemployment roll. Fortunately, on October 29, more than 1,500 people attended the job, training and entrepreneurship fair in Shawinigan. This event was a resounding success.

I would like to thank the members of the organizing committee—Monique Lamothe, Joëlle Gagné and Caroline Grondin—for their work on the job fair because it was a great success. All of this would not have been possible without the Shawinigan local development centre, the city's tourism and convention bureau and the many partners involved. Congratulations to all of you for your hard work. We should be proud.

[ English ] Climate Change

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presented its fifth report. This most recent report concludes that the warming of the planet due to emissions is “clear” and “unequivocal”. The report also concludes that without urgent action to reduce emissions, by the end of this century there is a high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible damage due to extreme heat waves, more intense weather events, mass extinctions, coastal flooding, and crop failures. Since 1990, the panel has presented five reports, each one ever more conclusive.

The scientists have done their work, now we must do ours. As a Conservative, I believe that we have a moral obligation to conserve our environment. I call upon this government to meet its commitment to reduce emissions and I call on all governments meeting next month in Lima, Peru, and next year in Paris, France, to work together toward a new global treaty to reduce emissions.

Canadian Medical Hall of Fame Inductee

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the latest inductee into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame, Dr. Julio Montaner of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. Julio has devoted his life to HIV/AIDS research, founding the B.C. Centre for Excellence with Dr. Martin Schechter in 1992, and was president of the International AIDS Society from 2008 to 2010. Julio's work led to the development of the highly active anti-retroviral therapy, HAART, which reduces the viral load, preventing HIV transmission. In 2000, the World Health Organization and the UNAIDS program adopted HAART as the global standard of therapy.

Brazil, Australia, the United States, China and France have implemented the therapy, yet the Canadian government has still not done so. Dr. Montaner has received many international awards, especially the Grand Decoration of Honour for Services to Austria. However, a prophet is not without honour, but in his own country and in his own house. The induction into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame finally recognizes Dr. Montaner's work in his own country. I hope the Canadian government will do the same.

Streetsville Overseas Veterans' Club

Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, on this Veterans' Week, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today and pay tribute to Branch 139 of the Royal Canadian Legion, the Streetsville Overseas Veterans' Club. Affectionately referred to as the Streetsville Legion, it was organized on November 11, 1925, to honour those who have served and made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and peace. The Streetsville Legion provides unparalleled support to youth in army, air, sea, and navy league cadets and has its doors always open to serve the wider Streetsville community.

On October 23, executive members of the Legion joined me in a moving wreath-laying ceremony at the Streetsville Cenotaph for Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Vincent. I look forward to joining them this and every November 11 as we honour our brave women and men who served and continue to do so. May their contributions always be appreciated and never be forgotten. Lest we forget.

Secrets of Radar Museum

Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Secrets of Radar Museum is a not-for-profit museum that preserves the stories and personal experiences of the men and women who served in the Canadian Forces radar division during World War II and the Cold War. These almost 6,000 Canadians deserve the recognition of the House. In a recent visit to the museum, I was able to see an H2X radar system used on B-52s, which improved the accuracy of bombing raids and allowed bad weather and night patrols. This changed the course of World War II for the Allies.

The H2X radar equipment at the Secrets of Radar Museum is thought to be the only completely intact radar system from that period in all of North America. It must be preserved for future generations. Sadly, the museum needs funding to preserve its many historical artifacts. We owe it to our radar veterans and all veterans to retell their stories, cherish their triumphs, remember their service and preserve our history.

(1410) North West Mounted Police

Mr. John Barlow (Macleod, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a Canadian icon. In the autumn of 1874, Colonel Macleod and his troop of red coats pitched camp on the banks of the Oldman River, establishing the first fort and first law force in what would become the province of Alberta. This hardy crew brought order to the then-North-West Territories of Canada and a settlement around the fort soon followed. On Oct. 13, we celebrated the 140th anniversary of the arrival of the North West Mounted Police in Fort Macleod in southern Alberta.

Fort Macleod quickly began to thrive, as it was perfectly poised as the gateway to the new frontier to the north and the Rocky Mountains in the west. The settlement that grew up around the fort is rooted in western resourcefulness and our frontier spirit. Although we are celebrating Fort Macleod's past, it is also an opportunity to celebrate Fort Macleod's future. The fort remains an interactive museum and is a beacon to the historic past of the North West Mounted Police. It is also a symbol of Canada's rugged pioneer spirit.

I encourage everyone to come together and celebrate the North West Mounted Police's 140th anniversary.

History Awards for Excellence in Teaching

Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate two teachers from my riding on receiving prestigious awards for teaching excellence. I was honoured today, to join Ryan McManaman and David Alexander at Rideau Hall as they received the Governor General's History Awards for Excellence in Teaching. These gentlemen are both history teachers at OSCVI in Owen Sound and are being honoured today for their dedication to teaching Canadian history through unique programs that encourage students to learn more about residents of the Owen Sound area who were involved in the First and Second World Wars.

In typical fashion, Ryan and David both thanked veterans during the awards presentation today. These teachers have shown a true commitment and dedication to teaching Canadian history, and I commend them both on a job very well done. Their students are very fortunate. On behalf of all residents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and indeed all Canadians, I congratulate Ryan and David on this tremendous achievement and wish them all the best in their future successes.

[ Translation ] South Shore Youth Foundation

Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, Nelson Mandela said that “the greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall”. For over 20 years now, the Fondation-Jeunesse de la Côte-Sud has been supporting organizations that help young people to integrate into society and escape poverty. Every year, the organization hosts an event to honour young people who have overcome difficulties in order to achieve their goals. On October 25, Gabriel Morin, the honorary chair, recognized the achievements of five young people from my region.

I would like to invite my colleagues to join me and the 200 guests who attended the event in congratulating Raphaël Fortin of Montmagny, Laurent Lacasse of Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, Jessica Mignault of Saint-Pascal, Noémie Dubé of Saint-Épiphane and Christopher Lee Ouellette of Dégelis on their success. To add to Mr. Mandela's words of wisdom, there is greater glory still in rising when life has been conspiring against you from day one. It takes great courage and perseverance for a troubled youth to succeed.

I would therefore like to close by thanking these wonderful young people, who gave us great hope and made us very proud on the evening of the event.

[ English ] Taxation

Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, under our family tax cut plan, all families with children will receive more money in their pockets, where it belongs. Low and middle-income families will receive two-thirds of the overall benefits to spend on their priorities. For example, Sandra has a two-income household with her husband John. She earns $96,000 a year. John makes $24,000 a year. Because of the Prime Minister 's announcement, through the family tax credit, Sandra and John will earn an additional $3,000 in tax relief. Our Conservative government is fulfilling its promise to balance the federal budget, and we are proud to be in a position to fulfill our promise to help Canadian families balance theirs.

[ Translation ] Canada Post

Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, on October 6, the Val-d'Or city council adopted a resolution calling on Canada Post to maintain home delivery services. A few days later, the Chibougamau city council adopted a similar resolution. A number of cities in Quebec and Canada have adopted similar resolutions. My constituents are concerned about this situation, and they have not hesitated to express their concerns. Several hundred voters in Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou have signed the petition started by the NDP in response to the announcement of the cuts at Canada Post.

It is shameful that under the Conservatives, Canada is becoming the first G7 country to have no home delivery. The Conservatives brag about their record, but they are not even capable of delivering the mail. Canadians deserve better than the Conservatives' pathetic attitude. When the New Democrats form the government in 2015, we will start delivering what is best for Canadians.

(1415) [ English ] National War Memorial Honour Guard

Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the hopes that all members of the House will join me in a standing ovation for a very special Canadian hero. Corporal Branden Stevenson stood beside and helped Corporal Nathan Cirillo that tragic day on October 22. I understand that today he has bravely resumed his post at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. When Corporal Stevenson resumed his post today, he did so not alone. He had the hearts of millions of Canadians with him who are astounded by his courage.

We shall always remember the sacrifice of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who shall live on forever in our hearts and minds. By defiantly refusing to be intimidated, Corporal Stevenson is exemplifying the very best of the Canadian Armed Forces. He has made us all very, very proud. Lest we forget.

[ Translation ] Patrice Vincent

Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent put his country above himself every day during his 28 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He served as a firefighter on bases and on ships. Patrice Vincent is remembered by his colleagues as never having sought praise, as someone who was always more than willing to help behind the scenes in any way he could. His family will remember him as a hero. Canada will remember him as one of our fallen sons. [ English ] He was mercilessly run down for no other reason than the uniform he wore proudly, a uniform that stands for duty and valour to all those who wear it.

His sister Louise said, “Patrice's message is to go home tonight, look at those who contribute to your happiness, to your life, and have gratitude for the love they give you, for the help they give you.” A whole nation is grateful to Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. He did his duty, and he did it well.

[ Translation ] Patrice Vincent

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, we lost a man who did not deserve to die. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent was just going about his day, a day like any other, as a law-abiding citizen and a soldier sworn to protect us, when he met a tragic end. We are still deeply upset and shocked by the tragic events that caused his death. I would like to pay tribute to this man, whom this country will not forget, and express my support for his family in their ordeal, an ordeal that saddens us all. His family gave our Prime Minister and other members of Parliament the privilege of honouring this exemplary man one last time. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent is very special to us, and we will never forget him.

Champlain Bridge

Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, Maurice Richard is a larger-than-life hero. No one would deny the importance of honouring his memory in some way or another. However, with his heavy-handed approach, the minister has already managed to get the Richard family all worked up. The main problem here is that the minister is putting the cart before the horse. Even though nothing has been settled, the question of a toll is still up in the air and the contractor has not even been chosen, the minister is already picking out his tie for the big day. In their haste, the Conservatives are about to trample on the memory of Samuel de Champlain.

Not only was Champlain the founder of Quebec City, he is the father of New France. For a long time, he was the only one who believed in establishing a French colony in North America, come hell or high water. To try to erase Champlain from our collective memory is to trivialize the contributions of francophones to the development of North America. The Conservatives are showing very little regard for francophones, Quebeckers and their symbols. The Conservatives have not changed, and the mess they have made of the Champlain Bridge project is proof.

They always have a lackey somewhere to try to get us to swallow anything.

(1420) [ English ] Taxation

Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister announced a historic plan to help make life more affordable for families, and all families with children would benefit. However, members do not have to take my word for it. Well-known economist Jack Mintz said:

The Conservative family tax package addresses a current inequity in the tax system, helping all Canadian families with kids”.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said a whopping 71% of its members support it, and the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada has praised it, too. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has applauded us and is among the many Canadian organizations that agree with our government's move to put money back into the pockets of hard-working families.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions

[ Translation ] Ethics

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's former parliamentary secretary has just been found guilty of electoral fraud. This is the same person who, week after week in the House, defended the Conservatives' manipulations and their fraudulent calls even though Justice Mosley clearly established that the Conservatives' database was at the heart of the robocall scandal. Once again, they are not obeying the law. Will the Conservatives admit that they have become masters at the art of electoral fraud?

[ English ]

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that any further measures with respect to this will be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As the House knows, it has a good ability to undertake these types of investigations. Recently it investigated the NDP's use of illegal satellite offices. I am confident that the procedure and House affairs committee can undertake a thorough investigation.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, after the Liberal sponsorship scandal, the Conservatives promised to do better, but they failed. Since 2006, there has been the in and out scandal, the fraudulent phone calls scandal, and the overspending in Labrador. Now, the hon. member for Peterborough has been convicted of electoral fraud and forgery. When will the Conservatives acknowledge that there is an elections law in Canada that must be obeyed?

[ English ]

The Speaker :

Order, please. I just want to caution the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster . I did not hear anything in that

preamble that touched on the administrative responsibility of the government. I have had to remind members that they need to bring their questions back to that realm. Issues about election activities or about an individual's current status are not directly under the administration of government. I do not know if the parliamentary secretary wants to answer the question, but I see he is rising, so I will give him the floor.

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, again, just to be clear, any further measures will be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As I mentioned, it obviously has been able to do this in the past. Of course, recently the NDP's illegal satellite offices were brought forward, and it did a thorough investigation of that. As the House knows, this is the government that brought in comprehensive accountability legislation, that same legislation that found that the NDP had accepted illegal union contributions. We are confident that the procedure and House affairs committee can get to the bottom of it.

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, this is about the Prime Minister 's judgment and who he chooses to administer the government. As we saw with the changes in electoral laws, the Conservatives will do anything to win, even violate the law repeatedly. The conviction against the member for Peterborough is just part of the culture around the Prime Minister . This is about the Prime Minister 's judgment. He hand-picked the member for very important positions in his government. In retrospect, does the Prime Minister think it was a good idea to appoint the convicted member for Peterborough as his personal parliamentary secretary and ethics spokesperson?

(1425) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, again, this is something that will be considered further by the procedure and House affairs committee. At the same time, we are very proud of the work we have been doing since we were elected in 2006 to ensure that the influence of big money and big unions is taken out of the political process. That was one of the first things we brought forward in the accountability act. It was the NDP, of course, that was found guilty of accepting I think was about $300,000 worth of illegal union contributions. We are proud of the fact that our legislation helped to ensure that those types of donations are no longer part of the political process.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, we will get away from the fiction for a minute and get back to the facts. The government said nothing when Justice Mosley found that the source of information for the robofraud was “the database maintained and controlled by the [Conservative Part of Canada]”. The government said nothing when the Conservative Party was forced to plead guilty in a court on the in-and-out scheme. Now the member for Peterborough says that a conviction for electoral fraud is just the “opinion” of the judge. This is a question of respect for the law. Does the—

The Speaker :

Order, please. There may be many forums where the hon. member may wish to raise those questions, but question period is for raising questions about the administration of government. I will give him the floor again if he has a supplemental. I hope he asks a question about the role of the government.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for you, and I have enormous respect for the law of this land. We are talking about whether or not the law of this land is applicable when it comes to the Conservatives. I note that the government suspended three senators who were just under investigation, yet we have a member who has been convicted of a crime. This is an issue for the House of Commons. Does the government believe that people who commit crimes should not be sitting in the House of Commons? Yes or no?

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, further measures will be reviewed by the procedures and House affairs committee. It has a very good track record in dealing with these types of issues. Recently the NDP was found guilty by both the procedures and House affairs committee and by the Board of Internal Economy of running illegal satellite offices to the tune of over a million dollars, so I have every confidence that the standing committee will take a further look at this matter.

Taxation

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, here is an important quote. “It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot and other parts of the Canadian population, virtually not at all.” That is what the late Jim Flaherty said of the type of income splitting announced last week. A single mother working as a nurse and raising an eight-year-old child would get nothing from income splitting. However, a senior bank executive whose husband stays home with their eight-year-old would get $2,000. How does that pass Jim Flaherty's test of fairness?

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I had the enormous pleasure of working closely with Jim Flaherty, the world's greatest finance minister. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the fantastic new family tax breaks and benefits address the concerns that he had. We are proud that every family with children stands to benefit from these measures introduced last week.

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the social development minister said, “...the majority of single parents are low-income, so income splitting would not benefit them.” However, it is actually worse. Whether they are low-income or high, single moms and dads get nothing, simply because they are single. Canada today has over 1.5 million single-parent families. In the words of Jim Flaherty, why does the government think it benefits our society overall to make those who cannot split pay for the more privileged who can?

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that they are better off under our Conservative government. Under our plan, every Canadian family with children would have more money in their pockets to help ends meet. That is over four million families. Under our plan, a single parent with two children who was earning $32,000 a year would receive over $1,500 per year. A two-earner couple with one child who were making $48,000 and $12,000 would see their tax bill reduced by 25%. Canadians know that our government will continue to take measures to put money back into their pockets.

(1430) [ Translation ]

Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2013, the Conservatives used Thomas and Colleen as a model, middle-class family with two children. They earned $45,000 and $75,000. Today, income splitting will not provide any benefit to their very definition of a middle-class family. However, the Prime Minister will get a $2,000 benefit. What makes the Conservatives think it is fair to give more money to the rich and nothing to the middle class?

[ English ]

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians are better off under our Conservative government. The median net worth of Canadian families has increased by 45% since we have come to office. For the first time, middle-class families here in Canada are earning more and are better off than their American counterparts. Under our plan, every Canadian family with children would have more money in their pockets at the end of the day to help make ends meet. Canadians would see an average of $1,140 more as a result of these measures.

[ Translation ] The Environment

Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, France will host the next United Nations conference on climate change. France's foreign affairs minister, who is trying to build a consensus, believes that now is the time for the international community to take immediate action. Has the Prime Minister spoken about this topic with President Hollande, and did he commit to putting an end to 10 years of Conservative inaction on climate change?

[ English ]

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, our government wants a fair agreement in Paris that includes all emitters and all economies. It is important that this agreement be durable, flexible, and effective. Meanwhile, Canada will continue to take concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economy strong. Canada emits less than 2% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, and our per capita emissions are now at their lowest level since we started recording in 1990.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, France understands the scope of this issue. The international community must take action and implement science-based policies. However, the Prime Minister responds by cutting funding to combat climate change, refusing to limit emissions in the gas and oil sector, and derailing the efforts of the international community. Communities across the country are already experiencing flooding and weather extremes. Why do the Conservatives revel in doing nothing?

[ English ]

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our record. We are a founding member of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. We have made significant investments to help support green energy and infrastructure internationally. We have provided $1.2 billion to developing countries to address climate change.

Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: inadequate Conservative measures just will not cut it. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said of this report, “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side”. Instead of acting to take on climate change, the Conservatives plan on cutting funding for climate change programs by 70% by 2016-17. Why are the Conservatives undermining climate science in Canada at a time when it is needed so much?

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to protecting the environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong. We are a founding member of, and a major financial contributor to, an international coalition taking action to reduce pollutants such as black carbon and methane. We have contributed $1.2 billion in fast-track financing to developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This funding supports over 100 projects in over 60 developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, just to name a few examples.

Taxation

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been pushing a wasteful and ineffective job plan that would create only a few jobs at an astronomical cost to taxpayers. Now they trot out their income-splitting scheme, which would do absolutely nothing for 86% of Canadian families, at a huge cost of $2.5 billion. Income splitting would do nothing for couples who earn equal amounts of money, would do nothing for couples with no children, and would do nothing for single-parent families. Why are the Conservatives spending so much money to make life so unfair for so many Canadian families?

(1435) Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, our government is bringing forward tax measures for families that would help put money back into their pockets. The New Democratic Party has a plan that would only help a small number of Canadian families. Our plan would give all Canadian families with children a choice. Unlike the NDP, which wants to force a massive $5 billion big, bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all child care program, we would be putting cash back into the pockets of Canadians so that they can make a choice for their own children.

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy faces the serious challenge of an aging workforce. As the boomer generation retires, we need to allow more Canadians, not fewer, into the workforce. The New Democrats' affordable and universal child care plan would do exactly that. It would boost women's participation in the workforce and help our economy, but the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme would undermine decades of efforts for women's equality in the workplace. Why are the Conservatives spending billions of dollars to try to turn the clock back on women's participation and equality here in Canada?

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, parents who are raising a family are working parents. Parents who are struggling to keep money in their pockets to put their children into hockey or into dance are working parents. Why does the New Democratic Party forget that under our plan, single parents with two children and earning only $30,000 a year would receive an extra $1,500 back into their pockets? Only our Conservative government knows that Canadian families know best how to raise their children.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' proposed income splitting plan creates additional barriers for women and their careers. Not only does their plan ignore the reality facing women and the labour market in the 21st century, but it will also only benefit the wealthy. Why are the Conservatives putting forward regressive policies that completely disregard 86% of families, including single-parent families, couples without children and parents with children in university?

[ English ]

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the enhanced universal child care benefit would provide $720 more a year for every child and $1,920 for a child up to the age of six. This monthly cheque would help Canadians make ends meet and pay for priorities like groceries, after-school activities for their children, and savings for post-secondary education. By giving cash back to Canadians, we are allowing parents to make the choice on what their priorities are for their families, not some government bureaucrat.

[ Translation ] Citizenship and Immigration

Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court of Appeal was clear in its ruling handed down Friday. The Conservatives must immediately reinstate the interim federal health program to the way it was before the 2012 cuts. That is exactly what the NDP, health care professionals and refugee rights advocates have been asking for from the beginning. Will the government comply with the federal court order and reinstate the refugee health benefits by tomorrow, or does it intend to contravene the court's decision?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, we are still disappointed with the court's decision. For that reason we are going to appeal. We will continue to protect the interests of refugees and Canadian taxpayers, and we will soon announce the details of our response to this decision.

Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the only response we want in this place is for the minister to reinstate the program to the way it was before the changes he introduced. Since July 2012, some legitimate refugee claimants no longer have access to health care. We are talking about asthmatic children or pregnant women who are diabetic, people who cannot get basic and essential health care. Furthermore, the government now wants to allow provinces to strip these refugee claimants of their social assistance. Why is the government continuing to punish these people? Why does it always go after asylum seekers? That is unfair.

(1440) Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. Refugees continue to have the same quality of health care as Canadians. We are disappointed with the court's decision. We will appeal and we will announce the details of our response to the court's decision soon.

[ English ]

Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, there is a clear pattern of behaviour here. The minister ignored the protests of doctors, refugee advocates, provinces, and parliamentarians and took health care away from children and pregnant women. He ignored the ruling of the Federal Court that said his cuts were “cruel and unusual”. Now he's lost another case, as the Federal Court of Appeal has emphasized the harm suffered by refugees without health care. Will the minister finally give up his lengthy assault on basic Canadian values?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, on our side of the House it is not among basic Canadian values to offer health care—often health care that went beyond that provided to Canadians—to those whose immigration and refugee claims have failed or to those who were deliberately fraudulent in their representations to the Immigration and Refugee Board. We will continue to stand up for the interests of taxpayers in that respect. At the same time, we are disappointed in these decisions. We are continuing our appeal and will announce the details of our reaction to the latest decision very shortly.

Taxation

Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, in an email last week referring to the Conservative plan for income splitting, the member for Durham said, “As a father of two amazing young children, I cannot tell you how excited I am.” There are a lot of proud parents of amazing kids in Canada, but very few—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker :

I think the applause may have been a little premature. I do not know if the hon. member was finished with her question. She still has the floor, so I would appreciate it if members could hold off until she has finished.

Ms. Chrystia Freeland :

Mr. Speaker, I am using my big girl voice. There are a lot of amazing kids in Canada, and their parents are proud of them, but very few of those parents are paid $180,000 a year, as the parliamentary secretary is. How can he justify a policy which helps his family, but leaves behind 86% of Canadians?

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, again, the Liberal Party fails to understand the basics of this very popular family tax cut plan. Under our plan, every Canadian family with children will have more money in their pockets to help make ends meet. That is over four million families. The majority of benefits will go to low and middle-income families. Our government made a commitment to provide tax relief to families, and it is keeping that commitment. We realize that the Liberal Party also has made a commitment, and that is to take that money and take it back to the coffers of Ottawa.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, parents with two children in university experience quite a bit of stress. They are helping their children pay for tuition, trying to save for their own retirement and, often, caring for their aging parents. However, since their children are over the age of 18, these parents do not benefit in any way from the Conservatives' income splitting scheme. Why has the government completely abandoned these parents?

[ English ]

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative Party has a low-tax plan. The family that the hon. member has mentioned is already benefiting from the low-tax plan of this party, the low-tax plan that they have appreciated. The Liberal leader has pledged that if elected he would hike taxes for Canadian families. According to the media, the Liberal leader is even looking at reversing the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit. He said that he believes he could convince Canadians to accept a tax hike. We reject that Liberal plan. We reject the Liberal leader's plan to raise taxes for families. This party is the only party that—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

(1445) Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, this weekend a Canadian citizen told the skills minister that he would prefer investments in health care over the Conservative tax cut. The minister told him that if he wants to see health care investments, he should donate to his local hospital. Does the minister think that it is the job of government to provide tax breaks to about 15% of Canadians and then hope that all Canadians will donate to the health care system?

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, no government in Canadian history has provided more funding to the provinces for health care, and it continues to grow. Unlike the old Liberal Party, which cut funding for health care, we have raised transfers to the provinces for health care by nearly 60%. We will take no lessons on health care transfers and on keeping taxes low from the Liberal Party.

[ Translation ]

Science and Technology

Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continuing their war on science. We have now learned that Health Canada spent $1,500 to publish scientific articles on a controversial Croatian website to avoid having the articles undergo peer review, a normal process for credible scientific journals. Why is Health Canada engaging in such questionable practices that undermine our scientists' credibility?

[ English ]

Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, nowhere is confidence in transparency and openness more important than when it comes to the health and safety of Canadians. Health Canada, in co-operation with its international partners, participates in these publication activities as a means of sharing important risk analyses in an open and transparent manner. I can tell the House that reports of alleged malpractice by the publisher are very concerning and the department is actively reviewing its relationship with this publisher.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it still does not answer the question. Instead of using a reputable publisher for its research, Health Canada is paying nearly $1,500 per

article to publish elsewhere. Unlike a peer review process that science journals follow, the publisher in question allows Health Canada to rubber-stamp its own research, so Canadians are left to wonder whether Conservatives do not trust other scientists to review Health Canada's research. Why has the minister allowed her department to become involved in such a questionable publication process?

Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada includes some of the leading research scientists in this country. In fact, we invest over $1 billion in health research across the country. We are the top investor when it comes to health research in this nation. As I have just indicated, we are quite concerned about the recent allegations and we are investigating.

Citizenship and Immigration

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is not just in the field of publishing that the Conservatives seem to be ignoring scientific process. Last week, the Conservatives announced a ban on visas for travellers coming from West Africa. The WHO and the World Bank have clearly stated that banning travel is not an effective way to protect us from Ebola. Why would the Conservatives implement such a ban when it is not backed up by expert scientific evidence?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Canada, like many of its partners, a huge number of partners in the international community, is absolutely committed to the international effort to contain the Ebola outbreak. That is why we announced new precautionary measures to make sure that we keep Canadians healthy and safe during this time of increased risk. Permanent resident visas will not be issued by visa officers unless and until they can prove that the candidates have been outside of Ebola-affected countries, those countries most affected, for three months or more. We will not issue new visas to those who represent a public health risk to Canada.

[ Translation ] Health

Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, Lyn Gilbert, an Australian expert on infectious diseases, believes that there is no reason for the visa ban proposed by the Conservative government and that this ban is not supported by scientific evidence. Rather than implementing cosmetic measures that have been rejected by the World Health Organization, why does the Conservative government not meet the needs of local governments who are calling for more staff and more equipment to fight the Ebola outbreak?

(1450) [ English ]

Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that Canada is actually a world leader when it comes to assisting the West African nations that are facing Ebola. I would also like to reassure all Canadians that there are no direct flights from the affected nations in West Africa to Canada. I am pleased to inform this House that all personal protective equipment has now been shipped to the West African countries. This includes 1.5 million gloves, 2 million masks, and 1.2 million gowns. Canada has been very generous in assisting the international relief efforts.

National Defence

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, according to video reports, about 50 members of the Albu Nimr tribe, a Sunni clan flighting ISIL in Anbar province to the west of Baghdad, were abducted by ISIL forces. Their fate is unknown, but they are believed to be the latest casualties of ISIL who have killed hundreds in mass executions in recent days. Can the Minister of National Defence please provide an update to the House on Operation Impact and the contribution that the Canadian Armed Forces has made to the fight against ISIL?

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, yesterday two CF-18 fighter jets, in coordination with our allies, attacked ISIL targets with laser-guided bombs in the vicinity of Fallujah, Iraq. The mission lasted approximately four hours and included air-to-air refuelling from a Polaris aircraft. All of the aircraft returned safely to base. The military continues to assess the damage and will provide a technical briefing tomorrow. We will continue to tackle the threat of terrorism. We will stand with our allies against ISIL's atrocities. I want to thank our men and women in uniform for their work on this very important mission.

International Trade

Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, as negotiations for the trans-Pacific partnership enter their final phase, the U.S. trade representative has singled out Canada and is putting pressure on us to dismantle supply management. In the past, Conservatives have sworn that they would protect supply management, but recently we have seen them roll over and make concessions that undermine our system. Will the minister assure farmers that he will not make any further concessions in the supply management system, especially behind closed doors?

Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that questions because it gives me an opportunity to remind this House that 98% of the trade access by Canadian exporters has been secured through Conservative governments. With respect to supply management, that 98% has been achieved while respecting the pillars of supply management. We go into all trade negotiations to make sure it is a win for all sectors of our economy, and that is the case with TPP.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, despite their promises, the Conservatives were unable to protect supply management. They promised to do so before reopening our market to European cheese producers, who are heavily subsidized. Now, it seems that supply management is back on the table as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. My question is simple. Will the Conservatives truly protect supply management or will they once again betray Canadian producers?

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, as is always the case, we will do what we said we were going to do, which is to protect supply management and promote it internationally. Next week, the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and I will meet with Quebec's dairy and cheese industry to hear their concerns. I want to reassure them by pointing to an important clause in the free trade agreement providing that if the producers ever lose money, the Government of Canada will compensate them. We will honour that agreement and our signature.

CBC/Radio-Canada

Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on Tout le monde en parle , we learned from Alain Saulnier just how cozy CBC senior management and the Conservative government really are. Not only is the board of directors already stacked with Conservative donors, but the former heritage minister also went so far as to interfere in the crown corporation's programming by communicating directly with the president, Hubert Lacroix. The public broadcaster is there to serve Canadians, not the interests of the Conservative Party. How can the government justify such political interference in CBC's programming?

(1455) [ English ]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the claims that the member opposite makes are completely and entirely false. The CBC is solely responsible for its day-to-day operations, including decisions with respect to programming and also human resources management. The member should know it, should understand it, and I hope he is going to stand up and ask another question on how he is misleading the House.

Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps telling us that she has nothing to do with the unprecedented crisis facing our public broadcaster. However, it is her government that has imposed cuts of $115 million to CBC. It is her government that is responsible for appointing the president and the board of directors, which surprisingly is now mostly made up of major donors to the Conservative Party. Why is the minister condoning such political interference and encouraging the slow dismantling of our public broadcaster?

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, we go from one misleading statement to another regarding the CBC. It is too bad that the members do not honour and respect it as much as they claim outside of the House. These changes are being made by the CBC as a result of declining advertising revenue and declining viewership in very key demographic areas. It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want and to fulfill its mandate under the Broadcasting Act.

[ Translation ] The Environment

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, the world's leading scientists have once again delivered a clear message, as President Hollande said, about the urgent need to fight climate change. The president also called on Canada to participate fully in the fight against global warming. Did the Prime Minister really hear what the president had to say? Will he finally take the necessary measures to enable Canada to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets? All of the experts agree: we are on track to fail.

[ English ]

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Canada is working diligently to reach an agreement in Paris that is fairer to Canada and includes all emitters and all economies. As well, Canada has one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world, with 79% of our electricity supply emitting no greenhouse gas. We have taken actions on the two largest sources of emissions in Canada, the transportation and electricity generation sectors. Canada also became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units. Canada's per capita greenhouse gas emissions are now at their lowest level since we started—

The Speaker :

Order, please, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

Citizenship and Immigration

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, when I heard that courts had rejected the government's request to delay restoration of a fair refugee health policy, my reaction was to thank goodness for the judges and the Charter of Rights; they are one of the few constraints on the mean-spirited actions of the current majority government. Will the minister respect the law and reinstate a decent refugee health plan tomorrow, which is what the court has demanded? Or, will he stand in contempt of the court?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, in response to that, thank God for this Conservative government. We are the only one in the House that can be relied upon to protect both refugees and the interest of Canadian taxpayers. We remain disappointed in this decision. We are appealing it. We will have more details to offer in response to the latest decision very shortly.

Canada Post

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is cutting home delivery to 5.1 million households. Mail delivery is a lifeline for many Canadians, especially seniors and people living with disabilities. Even with these major cuts, Canada Post has found the money to launch a major advertising campaign, all the while taking away door-to-door service. How much is Canada Post spending on this advertising campaign?

Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the member has rightly identified that two-thirds of Canadians in fact do not have door-to-door delivery. Currently in the Canada Post turnaround plan, which it hopes will put it on financial sustainability by 2020, does include a five-point plan to try to address that. The member should address her questions to Canada Post if she has any questions about the operational details.

(1500) [ Translation ]

Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the media was inundated with these expensive ads for Canada Post. In the meantime, 5.1 million households will no longer get home delivery. Canada Post's problem is not a visibility problem. It is a problem of mismanagement and a lack of vision. When a crown corporation created to deliver mail does not deliver mail, there is a problem. When will the Conservatives sit down with Canada Post officials to ensure that people get their mail at home?

[ English ]

Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is a crown corporation. It has a board of directors that sits down to precisely figure out those types of things about its operational decisions. The government does not do that. It is Canada Post as an arm's-length crown corporation. The member should know that. Right now it is working to ensure that we continue to have daily mail and to do so in an equitable way.

Taxation

Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, families in Leeds—Grenville are thrilled with the historic family tax breaks announced by the Prime Minister . Canadian families will see an average benefit of $1,140, and the vast majority of the benefits will go to low and middle-income families. Could the Minister of Finance please update Canadians on how many families will benefit and how the government approach differs from that of the Liberal leader ?

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian family with children will have more money in their pockets. That is over four million families. Each and every parent with children will benefit. That is over seven million parents. However, the Liberal leader is against giving money back to middle-class families and has said that he can convince Canadians to accept a tax hike. Unlike the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, we will not hike taxes on families. Our Conservative government is giving money back to those who know what is best for their children, and that is mom and dad.

Privacy

Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, information leaks revealed that the Communications Security Establishment of Canada spied on innocent Canadian air travellers and facilitated a massive U.S. spy operation on Canadian soil. Last November, Justice Mosley revealed that CSEC kept the courts in the dark on how it shared Canadians' private data with foreign intelligence agencies. Will Conservative MPs join us in standing up for their constituents' rights to privacy? Will the government commit to a free vote on Bill C-622 , which would help protect both the privacy rights and the security of Canadians?

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, nobody has struck a better balance between privacy and protection than this government. I would point out for the member that she is completely wrong. In his most recent annual report, the independent commissioner, the watchdog, concluded that CSEC continued to operate within the law and respected Canadian privacy.

[ Translation ] Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Professional Institute of the Public Service is calling on the Conservative government to investigate abusive contracting practices at Shared Services Canada. It seems that private companies are increasingly being used to get around the work usually done by our public servants. The Charbonneau commission showed that this type of privatization often translates into a loss of internal expertise and leads to the worst abuses. Will the minister agree to look into the abusive contracting practices at Shared Services Canada?

[ English ]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Shared Services Canada is transforming information and technology now that the government uses it for the government and it will save Canadian taxpayers $150 million by making government IT infrastructure safer and more responsive for Canadians. As this matter is currently before the Public Service Commission, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity continue to be our government's priority. Could the Minister of State for Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario please update the House on an important announcement he made in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke this morning?

(1505) Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to do that, and I want to thank my hon. colleague for joining me this morning in announcing that the Pembroke MDF manufacturing plant is officially reopened and ready for business. Thanks to this government's support of manufacturing and in particular this manufacturing plant, Pembroke MDF expects to create 160 high-quality full-time jobs. This government will continue to focus on the economy, create jobs and cut taxes like we have some 170 times, including increased benefits for Canadian families that we just announced last week.

[ Translation ] Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada told the Sainte-Thérèse-de-Gaspé port authority that its wharf will finally be rebuilt, except that it will be 42 metres shorter. That wharf is already being used at full capacity. Shortening the wharf by 42 metres means the loss of two fishing boats, at least six fishers and 40 plant workers. Why is the government killing Sainte-Thérèse's economy?

[ English ]

Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this government has spent more on small craft harbours, invested more in small craft harbours and communities across the country than any other government in history. I will look into the member's issue on a one-on-one basis and get back to him.

[ Translation ] Champlain Bridge

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.) :

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Infrastructure found a way to make the name of the illustrious Maurice Richard controversial even though the man detested controversy, according to his son. Everyone in Quebec knows what Maurice Richard achieved. He was larger than life and deserves the highest honour. However, true to form, the Conservatives have decided to thumb their noses at history and sow discontent. Does the minister agree with the mayor of Montreal and Maurice Richard's family that he should seek consensus and harmony before launching trial balloons or shooting at his own net?

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made about the name of the new bridge over the St. Lawrence, but the good news is that a new bridge will be built, 30,000 jobs will be created, and the project will stimulate economic growth across the greater Montreal region.

Taxation

Mrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, Ind.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is our job to make sure that available tax benefits really help Canadians meet their children's needs. However, it seems that the regulations are flawed. If parents are separated and one parent pays child support, the Income Tax Act does not allow that parent to claim his or her children as dependants. Among other things, that prevents parents of disabled children from claiming certain credits, thereby preventing those children from receiving the financial support they are entitled to. Moreover, families with just one child whose two parents pay child support cannot split the credits. When will separated parents who pay child support be treated equally in the eyes of the law?

[ English ]

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, our universal child care benefit is going to provide $720 more a year for every child under the age of 18, with $1,920 for those children up to age 6. This monthly cheque will help Canadians make ends meet. It will help them pay for priorities in their families, like groceries, after school activities and even saving for post-secondary education. The tax measures, the benefit measures, the universal child care enhancement are going to be measures that benefit families.

The Environment

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the IPCC spoke clearly and said that the world's scientists and indeed economists were telling us that we must move off fossil fuels entirely by the end of the century. Today, in this place, we gave a standing ovation to the President of France when he said that the world must move to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. We stood as one and applauded. Will the government, which so far in question period has offered the usual nonsense about how we are on track, accept the challenge?

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, our government's record is very clear. We have taken decisive actions on the environment, while we are protecting our economy. Everyone has to do their fair share, and we are seeking an agreement in Paris that would include all emitters and all economies. Currently, Canada emits less than 2% of the greenhouse emissions globally. Building upon our record, I also announced a number of actions to reduce greenhouse emissions and pollutants from vehicles recently. We have also announced our intent to regulate HFCs, one of the fastest-growing greenhouse emissions in the world. We are accomplishing this without the NDP and the Liberal carbon tax.

(1510) Presence in Gallery

The Speaker :

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the Governor General's History Awards: Connie Wyatt Anderson, Michael Berry, Laurie Cassie, Sharon Moy, Gérald Charron, Ryan McManaman, David Alexander, Manon St-Hilaire, James Daschuk, Michel Côté, Paul Carroll, David McAdam, Yvon Lirette, Linda Even, Mark Zuehlke and Matt Kelly.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings

[ English ] Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Government Operations and Estimates

Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP)

moved that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on Monday, June 16, 2014, be concurred in. Motion for concurrence

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I am first rising on a point of order. I rise on a point of order, because in going through the concurrence motions, it is quite difficult for any member of the House to be prepared to deal with any given motion brought to the floor with virtually no notification whatsoever as to which motion, out of 90 motions, it actually might be. The reason I stand in my place on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be more helpful if you could make reference by number to the report in question being tabled.

As a courtesy, it would be even better if the member who was moving the motion provided notice so that members would be able to properly address the report. I, for one, would like to address the report, and it would be helpful if, at the very least, the table officer could indicate the number as it appears on the order paper.

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for raising this. I will point out that all the motions that are moved under the rubric of motions, concurrence motions specifically, are on the notice paper. The member for Winnipeg North will be able to find it. I can send over a copy of that, and he can see all the types of motions that are eligible to be moved under this rubric, and then he can choose which ones he would like to speak to and be ready for that.

If he has a specific change as to how that might be dealt with, of course, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is studying the Standing Orders, and I am sure it would be interested in any suggestions he might have on how to better inform members as to which motions may be subject to debate. However, I do not think there is a point of order that would prevent us from dealing with the motion as moved. Is he rising now on debate?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

If the table could indicate the number of the motion on the actual order paper, that would be helpful.

The Speaker :

It is Motion No. 67. It is the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. If he is looking at the notice paper, I do not know if it has any more information than that. If he is looking for the substance of the report to help him speak to it, I do not think he will find it in the notice paper, but maybe he is able to infer a great deal from the title. The hon. member for Winnipeg North , now on debate.

(1515) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to speak. In terms of looking at Motion No. 67 and wanting to be as keen as one can be in terms of addressing reports that come before the legislature, I think it is helpful to state the number. Here is the reason. The motion that has been brought forward indicates that the fifth report of the Standing Committee—

The Speaker :

Order. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is now rising on a point of order.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, a motion or amendment the member for Winnipeg North brought forward was ruled out of order, which he should have known was out of order. On Friday, he was ruled out of order, because he did not speak to the relevant report. As the Speaker has pointed out, he has access to all committee reports tabled daily in the House. There has been a real problem with relevance. I fear that the member is wandering off, yet again, down some sidewalk that has nothing to do with the report we are considering now.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern, albeit for no doubt different motives. The NDP House leader rose on a point of order with regard to relevance. Even before he cut me off through his point of order, I made reference to the government estimates. That is what the report is all about. I am quite prepared to actually talk about the estimates of that particular department.

Hon. Julian Fantino :

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not doing it earlier. I do, in fact, have a report to table, if I may.

The Speaker :

Is there unanimous consent to revert back to tabling of documents so that the minister can table the ombudsman's report?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Veterans Affairs

Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the veterans ombudsman's report entitled “Advocating for Improvements for Veterans”.

Committees of the House Government Operations and Estimates Motion for concurrence

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

The Speaker :

I will just remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North to keep his remarks as relevant as possible to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, back in June, we had a great deal of discussion and debate in regard to the estimates and how government is actually spending its--

The Speaker :

Order, please. To assist the hon. member, I think in his response to the point of order, he mentioned that the fifth report was on the estimates. The fifth report is actually on open data and not on the estimates. Hopefully he can adjust his remarks accordingly.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, I like to think that I can be flexible at times. The report originated in June of last year, when the committee met to go over the importance of the issue of data. It is one of the unfortunate realities that, as much as possible, we want to ensure that there is a sense of openness, transparency, and accountability in government. The government operations and estimates committee is something that ultimately helps us facilitate that. At that particular committee meeting, there was a sense of value in the committee actually meeting.

This is an issue that is important to the Liberal Party, because we believe that our standing committees should actually be meeting. They play a valuable role in ensuring that there is a higher sense of accountability. That is one of the reasons that, back in June, a number of reports were tabled, based on the budget, by different committees. I would ask that the New Democrats be a little more flexible. It is important. We actually had a letter from the minister--

(1520) Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is doing the same thing he did on Thursday, and he was ruled out of order. Friday he was ruled out of order. He has some kind of bee in his bonnet. He knows that committees can meet. We have been urging chairs to have committees meet. Ultimately, he has to be relevant to the committee report. He was not on Friday. He was ruled out of order. It is not a question of the quantity of words. In fact, the members who have been most active in previous Parliaments, with the most words, are the ones who get defeated come election time. I think a lot of members in the House are looking forward to having Daniel Blaikie here in the House.

The Speaker :

I will agree with the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster on the point of relevance. I would encourage the hon. member for Winnipeg North that he may have other issues he may want to bring up, but now is not the appropriate time to do that. Now is the time, if he so wishes, to address the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Chair is a little weary of his tendency to touch on these other issues. I am just giving him a warning that the Chair's indulgence is being tested on that front.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the New Democratic House leader, who wants to avoid my being able to address issues, let me quote directly from the President of the Treasury Board . The minister had provided a letter, and the member will see that my comments are relevant. I made reference to the issue of transparency and accountability. Again, I ask my New Democratic friends to listen. This was brought to the committee in that very report. I will skip the first paragraph and go to the second paragraph, which states:

Open data is an important priority for the Government as it increases transparency and spurs innovation and economic growth.

I was talking about open government, transparency, and accountability, which is completely relevant to the report the NDP decided, at a moment's notice, to concur in today. It goes on to state:

Through its open data initiative, the Government has established foundational elements that enable the effective delivery of a federal open data. Our work with other Canadian governments and with our international colleagues in the G8 and the Open Government Partnership aims to foster consistency and standardization of open data services to the benefit of citizens around the world.

The Government welcomes the recommendations outlined in the Standing Committee's report for improving open data and open data services. They are consistent with feedback received through recent public consultations and will inform the implementation of these activities within the next version of Canada's Action Plan....

That is the action plan that members of the Liberal Party have called into question, everything from the content of the action plan to the excessive tax dollars being used to promote the action plan. Apparently the New Democrats do not have a problem with that. It continues that it will include:

...mandatory policies for driving the effective release of open data, initiatives to encourage Canadians to unlock the value of open data, and collaborative activities with other jurisdictions to align open data services.

Members should imagine how very important it is to ensure that there is a good sense of communication related to data internally, even between different departments. We often say that it is of critical importance when we set government policy that there is communication between departments. I do not know how many committees I have personally sat on that have talked about the importance of communication and the transferring of critical data. This is one of the things that not only this particular committee but a lot of committees deal with. A number of standing committees, many of which the New Democrats are not allowing to meet, would deal with this type of issue.

(1525) Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Speaker, there goes the member again. Not only is it irrelevant, it is false. He is misleading the House, because he knows fully well that all committees can meet. I again do not understand the reasoning behind the member for Winnipeg North and his insistence on wanting to take House time just to listen to himself speak. He has to be relevant and factual, and I hope that he will start factually addressing the report that is before us.

The Speaker :

Order, please. I thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster . Of course, the Chair will not wade into the question of whether something is factual, but I will tell the hon. member that I think the House's patience is being tested on these auxiliary issues he is bringing. I will tell him that if he is not able to speak to the report directly in a relevant way, then I think it would serve the House best if we moved on. I hope he bears that in mind as he concludes his remarks.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, the letter from which I was quoting came from the Treasury Board. The report itself is on open data. That is the letter on which I am commenting. I do believe it is completely 100% relevant and it is something that came up in the committee. When we look at the study overview, it is important that we recognize that governments collect and produce a wealth of data. Increasingly, governments worldwide have started to implement open data strategies to launch open data portals to enable the release of data in open and reusable formats.

In this context, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates adopted the following motion, and it is important that we recognize this motion. It reads:

That the Committee undertake, consistent with Canada’s signing of the G8 Open Data Charter, a study to assess and enhance the government’s Open Data practices; that this study include examining how Canadian businesses can better obtain and utilize high-value information with strong economic potential from the government and reviewing the processes and practices of other governments with respect to their collection, storage and transfer of Open Data; and that the Committee use its findings to provide the government with direction and advice focused on improving the way this high-value data is collected, stored and transferred to Canadians, resulting in access to useful and useable Open Data that will drive economic growth as part of an information economy.

Before I was interrupted, I talked about the importance of data and how it is that governments, even from within the different departments, need to ensure that there is a higher sense of communication. That is, in essence, what I believe is part of the driving force in this. It is just recognizing the need to try as much as possible to bring together the different stakeholders. The President of the Treasury Board has recognized the role that provincial entities have to play in this whole process, and we look to the Government of Canada to ultimately demonstrate leadership on the open data file.

One of the best ways to demonstrate that leadership is to have the committee meet to talk about it. This committee was asked to go ahead and prepare a report. At that particular committee, the motion I just finished reading ultimately led to the report that we have before us today. It is safe to say, even though I have sat through many committees, that at the end of the day, these committees play a very valuable and important role.

When we look at the committee in question that provided this particular report, it is important that the committee be allowed to continue to meet on a regular basis because of the type of content that it has to deal with. That is a principle that applies to all committees. They need to meet. We need to get back to work. Over the course of this particular study in committee, eleven meetings were held. It took eleven meetings. The committee heard testimony from federal, provincial and municipal officials. I did not even talk about the municipal officials. That is a very important level of government.

When we talk about the collection of data and information, we often have to refer to what the Canadian government does, but also our provincial and municipal governments. Other industry representatives, academics and other stakeholders as well as witnesses from the United Kingdom and the United States, each discussed the open data initiatives in their respective countries.

(1530) We need to be working with different countries of the world in developing this. It is in Canada's best interest, not only from an economic point of view but from a social point of view, and even with the issue of ISIL and so forth. The need for us to be able to ensure that we move forward on this particular file is virtually endless. The committee focused its study on users' needs in relation to the federal government's open data initiative, the best practices of other jurisdictions, and with respect to open data and the economic and social benefits associated with the use of open data.

I sat on the immigration committee, and I have had a good, thorough discussion regarding biometrics. I understand how important it is that Canada works with other countries in dealing with good solid policy on data. There, we were talking about biometrics. That committee has not met since June, but the point is that there was a point in time when the committee was meeting on a regular basis when we had the opportunity to talk about the issue of data. Data does matter. I am looking at this report, and I am glad that the New Democrats have decided to call this report—

[ Translation ]

The Speaker :

The hon. member for Sherbrooke on a point of order.

Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record, because the member said something that is completely false, once again. I listened patiently, because I myself am a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I can see now that he does not know much about the committee's fifth report. Worse still, he just said that we have not met since June; however, we had a meeting as recently as last Thursday. I would like him to correct what he said.

[ English ]

The Speaker :

The member for Sherbrooke may know that the Speaker will not weigh in on whether things are accurate. There will be time for questions and comments when the member has finished his speech in about three minutes. If he wishes to make that point then, I would be happy to recognize him on a question or comment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North .

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize. It is hard to tell, because I do not necessarily know which committees actually might be meeting. We have the aboriginal affairs committee, access to information committee, agriculture and agri-food committee, citizenship and immigration committee. The last time that committee met was in June. I just assumed that it might have been one of those committees. I apologize to the member. The point is that we just do not know whether the committees are meeting because of the action of the official opposition, or lack thereof.

When we take a look at the issue of privacy and confidentiality, the government data often includes personal information. We should all be concerned about that, not just the Liberal Party. All members should be concerned about that. This is one of the reasons why I try to ask the official opposition to be reasonable and provide opportunities for us to be able to have a good, solid debate on—

The Speaker :

I think I can predict what the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is going to raise, and I think, at this point, that it is best to move on. Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: On division. (Motion agreed to)

(1535) Petitions Dementia

Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many people from my riding calling on the government to pass Bill C-356 ,

an act respecting a national strategy for dementia.

Asbestos

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians who draw upon the House of Commons and Parliament here assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known and that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other occupational and industrial causes combined, yet they point out that Canada has not banned asbestos.

Therefore, these petitioners are calling on the government to ban asbestos in all of its forms, end all government subsidies of asbestos both in Canada and abroad, and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

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. 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667 and 669 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Text ]

Question No. 660--

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims :

With regard to Service Canada Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan call centres for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (

a) what was the volume of calls broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

b) what was the number of calls that received a high volume message, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

c) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent, broken down by year; (

d) what were the actual service level standards achieved for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

e) what were the service standards for call backs, broken down by year; (

f) what were the service standards achieved for call backs broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

g) what was the average number of days for a call back by an agent, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

h) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

i) what is the rate of sick leave use among call centre employees, broken down by year; (

j) what is the number of call centre employees on long-term disability; and (

k) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 661--

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims :

With regard to the Advisory Panel on Labour Market Information: (

a) which recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Labour Market Information Report have been implemented and what was the date they were put into place; (

b) which of the recommendations of the Report are in the process of being implemented and what is the timeline for completion; and (

c) which recommendations of the Report have not been implemented?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 662--

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims :

With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (

a) what was the volume of EI applications, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (

v) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

b) what was the average EI application processing time, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

h) what were the service standards for call backs at EI call centres broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

k) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

l) what is the rate of sick leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees, broken down by year; (

m) what is the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long term disability; (

n) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year; (

o) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; (

p) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; and (

q) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 663--

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims :

With regard to the Social Security Tribunal: (

a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section; (

b) how many appeals currently waiting to be heard pertain to (

i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (

c) how many appeals have been heard by the Income Security Section; (

d) how many appeals were heard by the Income Security

Section in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (

e) how many appeals were heard by the Income Security

Section relating to (

i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (

f) how many appeals heard by the Income Security

Section were allowed; (

g) how many appeals heard by the Income Security

Section were dismissed; (

h) how many appeals to the Income Security

Section were summarily dismissed; (

i) how many appeals allowed by the Income Security

Section pertained to (

i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (

j) how many appeals at the Income Security

Section have been heard (

i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; (

k) how many appeals at the Income Security

Section heard in person have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (

l) how many appeals at the Income Security

Section heard by teleconference have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (

m) how many appeals at the Income Security

Section heard by videoconference have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (

n) how many appeals at the Income Security

Section heard in writing have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; (

o) how many members assigned Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit cases have (

i) a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution, or a provincial or territorial licence in medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physiotherapy, or psychology, and how many have (ii) experience working on issues affecting seniors or people with disabilities; (

p) what is the Tribunal’s protocol with regard to urgent hearing requests for Canada Pension Plan Disability cases; (

q) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division; (

r) how many income security appeals currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division pertain to (

i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (

s) how many income security appeals have been heard by the Appeal Division; (

t) how many income security appeals were heard by the Appeal Division in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (

u) how many income security appeals were heard by the Appeal Division relating to (

i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (

v) how many income security appeals heard by the Appeal Division were allowed; (

w) how many income security appeals heard by the Appeal Division were dismissed; (

x) how many income security appeals to the Appeal Division were summarily dismissed; (

y) how many income security appeals allowed by the Appeal Division pertained to (

i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (

z) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division have been heard (

i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; ( aa ) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard in person have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( bb ) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard by teleconference have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( cc ) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard by videoconference have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( dd ) how many income security appeals at the Appeal Division heard in writing have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( ee ) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section; ( ff ) how many appeals have been heard by the Employment Insurance Section; ( gg ) how many appeals were heard by the Employment Insurance

Section in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; ( hh ) how many appeals heard by the Employment Insurance

Section were allowed; ( ii ) how many appeals heard by the Employment Insurance

Section were dismissed; ( jj ) how many appeals to the Employment Insurance

Section were summarily dismissed; ( kk ) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance

Section have been heard (

i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; ( ll ) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance

Section heard in person have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( mm ) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance

Section heard by teleconference have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( nn ) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance

Section heard by videoconference have been (

i) allowed and (ii) dismissed; ( oo ) how many appeals at the Employment Insurance

Section heard in writing have been (

i) allowed and (ii) dismissed; ( pp ) how many Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division; ( qq ) how many Employment Insurance appeals have been heard by the Appeal Division; ( rr ) how many Employment Insurance appeals were heard by the Appeal Division in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; ( ss ) how many Employment Insurance appeals heard by the Appeal Division were allowed; ( tt ) how many Employment Insurance appeals heard by the Appeal Division were dismissed; ( uu ) how many Employment Insurance appeals to the Appeal Division were summarily dismissed; ( vv ) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division have been heard (

i) in person, (ii) by teleconference, (iii) by videoconference, (iv) in writing; ( ww ) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard in person have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( xx ) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard by teleconference have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( yy ) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard by videoconference have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( zz ) how many Employment Insurance appeals at the Appeal Division heard in writing have been (

i) allowed, (ii) dismissed; ( aaa ) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section; ( bbb ) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section; ( ccc ) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Appeal Division; ( ddd ) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Appeal Division; ( eee ) of new Appeal Division members hired since May 2014, how many are (

i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; ( fff ) of new Income Security

Section members hired since May 2014, how many are (

i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; ( ggg ) of new Employment Insurance

Section members hired since May 2014, how many are (

i) English speakers, (ii) French speakers, (iii) bilingual; and ( hhh ) what is the Tribunal’s protocol with regard to requests for urgent hearings due to financial hardship?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 664--

Mr. Robert Chisholm :

With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 (year-to-date): (

a) what was the volume of EI applications broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (

v) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

b) what was the average EI applications processing time broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

h) what were the service standards for call backs at EI call centres broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

k) what was the number and percentage of term employees, and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, by month; (

l) what is the rate of sick leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees, broken down by year; (

m) what is the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long term disability; (

n) what is the rate of overtime and the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees, broken down by year; (

o) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; (

p) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by month; and (

q) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 665--

Mr. Glenn Thibeault :

With regard to funding applications submitted to the government, broken down by department and fiscal year, since 2003-2004, up to and including the current fiscal year: (

a) what is the total number of funding applications submitted to the government from the constituency of Sudbury; and (

b) what is the total number of successful funding applications submitted to the government in which money was allocated to an individual, business, or non-governmental organization in the constituency of Sudbury?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 666--

Hon. Ralph Goodale :

With regard to public private partnerships financed by the government: (

a) what are all the projects so financed; (

b) how long did it take to design the bidding process; (

c) what was the length of the bidding process from initial expression of interest to close; and (

d) what was the cost of a bid for proponents?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 667--

Hon. Ralph Goodale :

With regard to the former Environment Minister's intention stated on January 20, 2012, to “invest an additional $78.7 million over the next five years to further enhance weather and warning services across the country” and his intention stated on May 27, 2013, to invest “an additional $248 million over five years to further strengthen Canada's meteorological services”: (

a) in what manner have these commitments been fulfilled to date; (

b) what plans exist to implement these commitments in the future; and (

c) what are the details, in (

a) and ( b ), of each project related to the commitments including (

i) its title, (ii) a

summary of the project, (iii) its location, (iv) its estimated cost, (

v) its targeted start date, (vi) its estimated completion date?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 669--

Hon. Mark Eyking :

With regard to the Cape Breton Regional Municipality and Victoria County: (

a) what were the numbers of employees, broken down by all departments, working in that region in 2005; (

b) what are the numbers of employees, broken down by all departments, working in that region currently (in 2013, if current data is not available); (

c) how much will be spent, broken down by all departments, on infrastructure in that region in 2014 (in 2013, if current data is not available); and (

d) how much was spent, broken down by all departments, on infrastructure in that region in 2005?

(Return tabled)

[ English ]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski :

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers

Mr. Tom Lukiwski :

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker :

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege. I will recognize the members in the order in which I received the letters. I will go first to the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[ Translation ] Privilege Member for Peterborough Privilege

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about our question of privilege. Today we must deal with an unprecedented problem. The member for Peterborough , who was also the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, was recently found guilty by the Ontario Court of Justice, under the Canada Elections Act, of several offences connected with the 2008 federal election. [ English ] A judge found the member guilty of the following.

First, he was found guilty of personally paying an election expense and thereby wilfully exceeding his contribution limit contrary to subsections 405(1), 497(3) and 500(5) of the Elections Act. Second, he violated, by willingly incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense limit, subsections 443(1) 497(3) and 500(5). Third, he was found guilty of providing an election campaign return containing a false or misleading material statement in omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(

a) and 497(3)(

v) and subsection 500(5) of the Elections Act, and violating by providing a campaign return that did not substantially set out the required information by omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(

b) and 597(3)(

v) and subsection 500(5). This count was stayed at the Crown's request following the finding of guilt. [ Translation ] Each count carries a maximum penalty of $2,000, a year in prison, or both. I am sure the Speaker has already read the document dealing with this conviction. [ English ] These are extremely serious offences. By being found guilty of breaking the very electoral laws that put him in this place, the member has shown contempt for our democratic institutions and has undoubtedly tarnished the dignity of the House. The second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , Bosc and O'Brien, states at page 134:

Parliamentary privilege holds Members responsible for acting in character with the function they fulfil as elected representatives.

It also quotes Bourinot, 4th edition, page 64, stating that:

The right of a legislative body to suspend or expel a member for what is sufficient cause in its own judgement is undoubted. Such a power is absolutely necessary to the conservation of the dignity and usefulness of a body.

(1540) [ Translation ] Page 135 contains other references to Maingot, second edition, page 221, which states that expulsion is advised and “extends to all cases where the offence is such as, in the judgement of the House, to render the Member unfit for parliamentary duties.” Nothing exemplifies a member's unfitness more clearly than being found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act. [ English ] As I said before, this is an unusual matter. There have only been four cases since Confederation where members of the House were expelled for having committed serious offences.

We can look to the more recent events in the Senate where three appointees of the present Prime Minister were suspended without pay, and they have not even been found guilty of criminal acts in a court of law. [ Translation ] The second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice clearly sets out, on pages 244 and 245, all the details of the next steps to be taken by the House of Commons:

By virtue of parliamentary privilege, only the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership. Indeed, the House decides for itself if a member should be permitted to sit on committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat.

It also states:

The power of the House to expel one of its members is derived from its traditional authority to determine whether a member is qualified to sit.

[ English ] Mr. Speaker, with respect to our collective privilege that requires us both to act in a manner that upholds the dignity of the House as well as to regulate our own internal affairs and membership, I am asking that you agree that this matter constitutes a prima facie case of privilege and that you invite me to move the appropriate motion. Should you do that, Mr.

Speaker, I would propose a motion that would seek to immediately suspend the member for Peterborough , without salary, and refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study on the status of his membership in the House of Commons. [ Translation ] Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that a member of this government has faced charges of election fraud.

However, it is the first time that a member has been found guilty by the court of these offences and has publicly stated that he intends to keep his seat in the House of Commons, as well as all the inherent privileges. [ English ] The in-and-out scandal of the Prime Minister 's senior electoral advisors, the voter suppression through illegal robocalls by Conservative Party staff, the electoral fraud of the Prime Minister's disgraced former minister of intergovernmental affairs, and the spending scandal involving the Prime Minister's appointments to the Senate all advanced Conservative interests and asked the Canadian public to pick up the tab.

These are all cases that have been raised in this House. [ Translation ] However, this is the first time that a member has been charged and found guilty. In closing, although the Prime Minister expelled his former parliamentary secretary from the Conservative caucus as soon as he was charged with these serious offences, other measures are required now that he has been found guilty of four counts of election fraud. [ English ] Mr. Speaker, I hope you will agree that this matter constitutes a clear prima facie question of privilege, a question on which this House ought to debate and make a decision.

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, of course we on the government side have spent some time contemplating these very same questions, as they are matters of great import for this House. My concern is that in the point of privilege raised by my friend and his intention to ask in this House for an immediate suspension of the member, we are perhaps a bit premature. The reason I state this is because the current state of the judicial proceedings in this matter is that the judge, Justice Lisa Cameron, pronounced her verdict in the Lindsay provincial court on Friday. A sentencing hearing has been scheduled for Friday, November 21.

As those of us who are familiar with the law know, two of the alternatives on sentencing could theoretically give the member for Peterborough an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge. Subsection 730(3) of the Criminal Code explains the effect of a discharge:

(3) Where a court directs under subsection (1) that an offender be discharged of an offence, the offender shall be deemed not to have been convicted of the offence [...]

Going back to

section 502 of the Canada Elections Act, paragraph 1(

c) states:

Every person is guilty of an offence that is an illegal practice who [...]

(

c) being...a candidate...wilfully contravenes

section 443....

I have skipped some irrelevant words there. Subsection 3 provides that, “Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice...during the next five years...after the date of their being so convicted...”. That relates to the disqualification. It would appear that a discharge would have the effect of negating the condition and precedent under the act for disqualification. I have placed a new notice of our intention to raise a question of privilege today on this matter.

I believe the approach that I would put forward provides an elegant solution to the challenge we have, that sentencing has not yet occurred and that this option exists. It would allow us to take an appropriate action at this time without acting in a way that would legally be premature. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you reserve on this and that you please hear my question of privilege that I would like to raise.

(1545) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to be very clear on the point that a conviction has actually occurred. There is a great deal of interest throughout the country in regard to what is taking place here. We have a responsibility to ensure that we do the right thing. The Canada Elections Act is clear: a member cannot sit in the House for a minimum of five years if there is a conviction. Obviously there is a conviction here. Our primary concern should be dealing with whether the member should be able to sit and vote in the House. There appear to be some different possible opinions.

From the Liberal Party's perspective, we believe it is best that the member not sit in the House until there has been a decision made, based on a consensus as to where to go from here. Having said that, I would suggest that we reserve the right to add more comments to this particular point of privilege.

The Speaker :

On a point of clarification, is the hon. House leader requesting that I hear him on his point, and is he prepared to make those submissions now?

Hon. Peter Van Loan :

Yes.

The Speaker :

I will hear the hon. government House leader. Other members have added their contribution and I will hear him as well.

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we are discussing the question of privilege arising out of Friday's decision by the Ontario Court of Justice regarding the member for Peterborough . As I understand Friday afternoon's proceedings, you are in fact tracking down primary documentation. In the meantime, I would like to lay upon the table, in both official languages, a copy of the news release that has been issued by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada on the trial results. It is not the authoritative primary document that the court judgement would be.

However, it does provide us with more information than we had on Friday. As is noted in this news release, there were four guilty verdicts against the member for Peterborough , and three against his co-accused official agent. One pair of charges was stayed at the request of the Crown. Of specific importance to us is that the member was convicted of the offence of willfully incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense and contrary to subsection 443(1) of the Canadian Elections Act. Paragraph 502(1)(

c) of that act places that offence in the category of illegal practices. Subsection 502(3) then becomes the critical provision for us in relation to the offence of willfully exceeding the expense limit, and I quote:

(3) Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to a