OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 027 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, November 29, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 29, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 027 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 027 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 027 (Version officielle) 147 027 29 11 2013 2013/11/29 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Government Orders Government Orders (1005) [ Translation ] Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act Bill C-13. Second reading The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-13 today, November 29. There are various reasons why it is important that we sit here today and discuss Bill C-13 . The most important reason is the respect that we all have for the fight against bullying, especially bullying directed at our youth.

No one in the House is against virtue or the idea that we must identify all the means and tools that could be used in the fight against cyberbullying. I will be using my 20 minutes to talk about cyberbullying specifically. That is what the title of the bill makes us think it is about. However, Bill C-13 unfortunately covers more than just cyberbullying. It talks about numerous other ways and means to address a number of aspects of online crime, in addition to other things that have nothing to do with cyberbullying. Allow me to explain.

If members take the time to really read what is in Bill C-13 , they will see that the

section on bullying is only two pages long. This bill is more than 50 pages long, and it is clear upon reading it that it is yet another Conservative omnibus bill. I will not hide my disappointment today at having to rise to speak once again to an omnibus bill. This is unfortunately not the first time one has been introduced in the House. We have had several omnibus bills in the past two parliaments—indeed, since this government won a majority. This is a sorry state of affairs, for many reasons. The latest budget bills introduced by the Conservatives are examples of such omnibus legislation.

We had bills comprising hundreds of pages that affected thousands of our laws totally unrelated to the budget. We had to deal with those. They were shoved down our throats. We tried to divide the bills into different parts, so they could be studied in the appropriate committees, but we did not succeed. As an example, one of the budget bills contained a measure, introduced by the Conservatives, providing for the removal of protections for lakes and rivers in Canada. Someone on the other side of the House will have to explain to me how removing the protections for our lakes and rivers relates to the budget.

We tried to divide this

section of the bill to send it to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where it should have been studied. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused. Every time we have tried to introduce amendments to omnibus bills or divide them by seeking the unanimous consent of the House, the Conservatives have flatly refused. I am extremely disappointed that Bill C-13 does not go deeper into cyberbullying, which is a sensitive issue that requires so much attention. It does not just affect young people, as we have seen in the high-profile media stories in recent years.

Cyberbullying affects a large segment of the population. I will come back to this later in my speech. It is extremely disappointing to see the Conservatives playing cheap political games in the House with legislation that should be passed unanimously. They are trying to add items and make us say yes to things that are in no way related to cyberbullying. It is incredibly disappointing to see the other side of the House engaging in petty politics. In Bill C-13 , the part on cyberbullying is a pretty close copy of what my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced last June.

That was a private member's bill, and everyone agreed with the principle of the bill. However, instead of examining it together and passing it quickly, the Conservatives decided to take part of what my colleague was proposing in Bill C-540 and add it to Bill C-13 , along with some other elements. Instead of concentrating on a bill on cyberbullying that was properly divided, the Conservatives opened up the floodgates and added some other things. They have made Bill C-13 into quite the concoction. I also wanted to talk about another bill today.

A few months ago, my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord moved a very interesting motion on cyberbullying. I cannot elaborate on it too much, because the motion had to do with more than just cyberbullying. However, I know my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord worked very hard on that motion. Almost all experts and public interest groups agreed that it was a very important motion. Unfortunately, the only party that voted against the motion was the Conservative Party.

It is so sad that the Conservatives are refusing to discuss the private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour , which focused solely on cyberbullying, and that they so easily dismissed the idea of debating and adopting the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. Cyberbullying boggles my mind. Honestly, it is so sad. No one can claim they have never encountered bullying. It is impossible. When I was attending Horizon Jeunesse secondary school in Laval, we had pagers. Cellphones did not exist yet. I am lucky because I was never bullied in high school.

I was more of a social butterfly. I had all sorts of friends. I was never directly affected by bullying at school. However, I have friends who were bullied at school. It is serious. My brother was bullied. He would often have his lunch stolen. He was embarrassed and did not want to talk about it with my parents. Today, my brother is six feet tall and as strong as an ox, but, unfortunately for him, that was not the case when he was in high school. He was very cute and very nice. Perhaps he was bullied because he was too cute and too nice. Those were the early days of the Internet.

We did not have a computer at home. We had to do our research on the computers at the library. We could not afford a computer. We did not have to deal with cyberbullying, but bullying was all around me and part of my daily life. I saw what an impact bullying could have. Unfortunately, some students who were bullied at Horizon Jeunesse committed suicide. Bullying at school is one thing, but when we are at home, we are protected. We are in a bubble. However, cyberbullying follows us 24 hours a day. We go home and use social media. Almost everyone has an iPhone or a BlackBerry in their pockets.

We have access to Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. We can access a host of social media very quickly. The impact is immediate and it follows us day and night. There is no break from it. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a victim of cyberbullying when there is no getting away from it. It is very serious. My colleague from Gatineau raised an extremely important point this week. She asked for the unanimous consent of the House to split the bill. I think this would be a way to show respect for people who are victims of bullying and cyberbullying.

As far as cyberbullying is concerned, the consent is practically unanimous. As parliamentarians, we have to be respectful of the people we represent. We must split the bill. I sincerely believe that all members of the House want what is best.

(1010) The best thing to do in this case would be to split the bill, since there is unanimous consent on one part of the bill and because this is an omnibus bill with several parts that have nothing to do with each other. Let us focus on cyberbullying and fix that problem. Let us make sure that the authorities have the tools they need to address this problem. We can then come back to the rest of the bill the government has handed us—a rehash of the former Bill C-30 —which addresses the completely different topic of privacy. Let us focus on the two pages on cyberbullying out of the 50-some pages in Bill C-13 .

Let us pass these measures so that the authorities can make use of them as quickly as possible. That is how we can combat cyberbullying together. Before I talk about privacy in more detail, I want to say that Laval does a lot of good things and I like to brag about them. A Laval organization called Volteface has found a unique way to address bullying and especially cyberbullying in Quebec. I cannot speak for the other provinces, regions or territories in Canada, but this is the only program of its kind in Quebec.

Volteface is an alternative justice organization that finds ways to help build harmonious relationships by offering preventive activities and alternative conflict resolution mechanisms. It works with teenagers, victims, the general public, parents, schools and the community. Volteface created an innovative tool as part of its “Ultimatum < Échap > LA CYBER INTIMIDATION” project. The organization is actually based in Shawinigan, but it operates in Laval. It has developed a partnership and focuses on high schools. The guide is intended for high school students, their parents and school staff.

It offers information on how to prevent cyberbullying and talks about what kind of action is appropriate. This project focuses especially on youth and has been operating in Laval since Volteface created it. It is a very worthwhile program. They are targeting young people because a number of studies indicate that, although people of all ages can be affected by cyberbullying, youth 12 to 14 are at greater risk. My daughter is seven months old, and I am already worried about the tween years.

I do not know what social media will be like then, but I say to myself every day that time is flying by, and it seems as though she will be 12 or 14 so soon. The research also shows that girls are at greater risk of cyberbullying than boys, as proven by some studies. I can name them: there was Sengupta and Chaudhuri in 2011 and Tokunaga in 2010. Unlike traditional bullying, boys are more likely than girls to be involved in acts of bullying. We have the facts. This is extremely important.

I applaud a Quebec organization that is finding tools to fight cyberbullying and that is trying to engage groups most at risk of being bullied or bullying. We must educate both sides, those who are bullied and those who bully. It is extremely important. With respect to the protection of privacy, which we have to talk about, this bill deals almost exclusively with that issue. Many experts believe that Bill C-30 is being brought back to Parliament disguised as Bill C-13 . I will quickly talk about that.

(1015) Bill C-30 contained measures that were considered extremely serious infringements of privacy. I remember that the public safety minister at the time, Vic Toews, who is no longer in the House, said that if we did not side with him, then we were siding with pedophiles. That was absolutely ridiculous because Bill C-30 was another omnibus bill. Come on. At some point, we must call a spade a spade. We are therefore concerned about the protection of privacy. Oddly enough, the Privacy Commissioner was not consulted on any of the privacy-related measures contained in Bill C-13 . There was no consultation.

Moreover, the commissioner is saying that she is very concerned about the measures in Bill C-13 . The commissioner is most concerned about the new powers that will make it possible to obtain information about people's private lives and the high number of government employees who will have access to that information. This is a direct attack on privacy. However, I think we all agree that privacy is a fundamental right.

I would also like to take some time to speak about OpenMedia.ca, a digital media lobby, which: ...welcomed the measures on cyberbullying but expressed concern that the new legislation makes it easier for the government to spy on the activities of law-abiding Canadians. After reviewing the bill, OpenMedia.ca indicated that the bill contains only 2.5 pages about cyberbullying and 65 pages about online spying. It is unbelievable, particularly since, yesterday, extremely serious allegations were made in the House against the Canadian government. Let me explain.

Yesterday, we learned that, while on Canadian soil, the Americans allegedly spied on all the heads of state who attended the G20 summit in Toronto, with the consent of the Prime Minister and this Conservative government. The Conservatives were therefore aware that this espionage was taking place and they approved of it. However, now they are saying that these are allegations and that they were not aware that this was happening. Espionage is already being carried out with the Conservative government's approval, and now this bill will give the government even more ways to spy on law-abiding Canadians.

I know that many of my colleagues opposite really like to say that we have to respect Canadians' privacy, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. The right to privacy is a fundamental right. Why are these measures reappearing in Bill C-13 ? Why is the government looking to put them back in when every group said that they were a terrible part of Bill C-30 ? We also spoke about Bill C-13 yesterday. The Conservatives told us that they deleted the worst parts of Bill C-30 and put the least objectionable parts into Bill C-13 . It is frightening to hear such things.

These measures are yet another attack on peoples' privacy. What has the government done? As usual, no one was consulted. The worst

part is that the Privacy Commissioner is raising some extremely important points and some were already raised in relation to Bill C-30 . The Conservatives wanted to stop talking about it. They said that it was over, that things had gone too far. However, those measures are resurfacing in Bill C-13 . I am extremely disappointed. I do not have much time left, so I will wrap up. I am disappointed that the government did not decide to split this bill in two and focus specifically on cyberbullying.

If the government insists on bringing back measures from Bill C-30 , it should create another bill that does not address cyberbullying. Then we would have two separate bills. The government has come up with another omnibus bill. This demonstrates a lack of respect for victims of cyberbullying. I believe that our work as parliamentarians is extremely important. The committee study must be non-partisan. I look forward to seeing what will happen when this bill is studied in committee, but I am not overly confident.

(1020) I want the government to take the time to think about all those who have been affected by cyberbullying, reverse its decision and split this bill in two. [ English ] Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I know it is rather unusual for me to ask a question when it comes to anything regarding the Internet and computers because I do not use them. However, many of my colleagues and friends and my two daughters use them on a regular basis as well, and there is no question that cyberbullying is a very serious issue.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague from the NDP, who is a long-term future prospect of the New Democratic Party and should be a long-term MP in the House of Commons with the great speech that she has just given. Now, as a new mom, having a beautiful daughter herself, what type of conversations does she anticipate that she and her partner will have with her daughter when she starts using the computer for a variety of things?

What types of conversations should parents and legal guardians be having with their children in regard to this very serious discussion we are having today? (1025) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his excellent question. When I was a student at the Horizon Jeunesse high school, in Laval, my family had no computer and no cell phone. Today, 15 years later, everyone has a pocket computer, except for my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore , who does not carry one.

I am sure, however, that his daughters, his family and his colleagues all have pocket computers. Things change very rapidly. Twenty years ago, we had no computers or smart phones. They did not exist. Movies from that era show long telephones that practically had parabolic antennae. Things change very rapidly. What will it be like when my daughter is 12 or 14 and most likely to fall victim to cyberbullying? I have no idea, and that scares me. I fear that we are not addressing the real problem. My colleague raises a very important point.

It is the duty of parents and guardians to raise children, a very important task. I have the same responsibility towards my daughter. We have a duty to teach our children how to use the Internet properly, to avoid any unintentional bullying. Indeed, some of these events start by accident and quickly snowball. Photos and messages go back and forth at the speed of light. It is mind-blowing. People do not always realize how their online behaviour can impact others. They think everyone will just forget what they have done, but some actions can really hurt others.

We have seen serious cases, including in Nova Scotia, where Rehtaeh Parsons took her own life because of cyberbullying, and in British Columbia, where Amanda Todd's story received extensive media coverage. These are serious events. Young people end up killing themselves because of cyberbullying. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to provide the authorities with the tools they need to take action. Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on her speech.

She mentioned the fact that this is another one of those omnibus bills that, in some ways, ends up drowning out the central issue, in this case cyberbullying, by including a number of other measures the Conservatives want to bring forward. She underscored the need to address the issue head on and to enact this cyberbullying bill as swiftly as possible. I would like to know her thoughts on the link she made between the bill and the motion introduced by our colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to establish a national anti-bullying plan. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert for her excellent question, which covered several issues. It is important to go back and discuss those points. First, the bill should focus primarily on the fight against bullying. This is in the title of the bill, but only two out of over fifty pages deal with this issue. Obviously, bullying is not being taken seriously. My colleague talked about how the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord asked that we develop a national anti-bullying plan including not only cyberbullying, but also any type of bullying targeting our young people.

In addition, young people are not the only victims of bullying. The groups most at risk of being bullied or bullying someone are women, young women and teenagers. We must therefore focus not only on young people, but also on all victims of bullying. It is shameful that the members on the other side of the House did not support this motion and that they again introduced an omnibus bill that contains only two pages dedicated to cyberbullying. That does not even represent 10% of the bill, although cyberbullying is part of its title. It is frightening that the Conservatives are seeking to pass such things.

As my colleague from Saint-Lambert knows, this is not the first time they have done this. Indeed, this is not the first time they have introduced a bill and practically forced us to vote for it. If we do not do so, they will say that we are refusing to fight cyberbullying. They often say that we voted against such and such a measure. However, these are small-scale measures included in gigantic omnibus bills with hundreds of pages. We cannot agree to everything they contain.

Since we seek to properly represent Canadians, we have asked that these bills be divided and studied in committee, and that amendments be proposed. We do everything in our power to ensure that these bills make sense, but the Conservatives reject everything. For example, we have previously introduced amendments to correct the punctuation of a bill, specifically commas and periods, but the Conservatives rejected our amendments. There are many more stories like these. It is difficult to keep our faith in government, to have hope and remain optimistic, when all our efforts are rejected.

We were elected to make the best possible legislation. Like my colleague from Saint-Lambert , I am extremely disappointed with how the Conservatives are handling the cyberbullying problem.

(1030) Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, Mr. Speaker. There are several points I would like her to expand on. I am the father of three preteens. Understandably, cyberbullying is of great concern to me. Like all kids their age, my children are very comfortable with technology. Unlike us at their age, kids today can be bullied even in their bedrooms. They have computers and access to the Internet. They can therefore be bullied at home as well as in school. It is of the utmost importance that we take measures to address cyberbullying.

Like my colleague said, not many provisions in the bill actually deal with cyberbullying. When the government introduced Bill C-13 , it said it wanted to address the issue of cyberbullying. However, few of the bill's provisions actually do so. I would like my colleague to comment on the attitude of the government—I am really trying to use parliamentary language here—that often puts on a dog and pony show about bills that, ultimately, are pretty hollow. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for his question.

As the father of three preteens, he is undoubtedly very concerned about the bullying that many children face on the Internet and in school. It must be very worrisome for parents to watch as their children get to that age. It is no secret that adolescence is a rough time for everyone. It is a difficult stage in life, yet it is perfectly natural. That is why I cannot imagine what it must be like to be the victim of bullying.

[ English ] Suspension of Sitting The Speaker : We will suspend to the call of the Chair. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 10:34 a.m.)

(1110) Sitting Resumed (The House resumed at 11:12 a.m.) The Speaker : We will move on to statements by members.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Taite Boomer Memorial Brain Tumour Foundation Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an incredible young man from my constituency, who was taken far too soon, and the legacy that lives on in his name. On September 2, 2012, Taite Boomer passed away when he was only 20 years old, after a short but courageous battle with a very aggressive and rare form of brain tumour. Taite was a smart and caring individual who is deeply missed by his family and friends.

After his passing, his family established the Taite Boomer Memorial Brain Tumour Foundation. It is estimated that 55,000 Canadians are living with over 120 different types of brain tumours, making effective treatment very complicated. The foundation raises funds for awareness of brain tumours in honour and memory of Taite. In its first year, the foundation succeeded in raising enough money to fund a two-year brain tumour research studentship. It is their sincere hope that the funds raised will lead one day to a cure for such a debilitating condition.

I ask all parliamentarians to commend Taite's family for increasing awareness about brain tumours in response to his tragic passing.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, January 31 of next year will be very sad day for veterans and their families from across this country. That is the day the government announced for the closure of all eight district affairs offices for veterans and their families across the country. However, the government has a plan, and I love this. It will take one person from each office and will put them in a Service Canada office. In Sydney, Cape Breton, for example, which Mr.

Ron Clarke pointed out, an honoured veteran from Cape Breton, what took 13 officers to do the job will now be done by one person in a Service Canada office. That is simply unconscionable. We ask the government to reverse these hazardous cuts and to reopen those offices to ensure that all our veterans and their families, and RCMP members and their families, get the one-on-one service they so rightfully deserve.

Robbie's Rainbow Ms. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Robbie's Rainbow, a charity founded by a brave and courageous 11-year-old boy living with Crohn's disease. After witnessing another child suffering from this terrible disease, Robbie Murray, of Oakville, founded a charity dedicated to raising money to support children with Crohn's disease and their families, when he was just eight years old. In two short years, Robbie's Rainbow has raised nearly $30,000 and has helped over 60 families live stronger and healthier lives.

Robbie's Rainbow is an example of what can be done when people care. They have been raising money through hockey tournaments and by reaching out to our community. Robbie's generosity and inspiring story should give us all pause to reflect on the important role and tremendous value charitable organizations play across the country. During this holiday season, I encourage all members to generously support and recognize local charities like Robbie's Rainbow in our communities.

(1115) Montreal Council of Women Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this evening, the Montreal Council of Women will celebrate its 120th anniversary.

Since 1893, the council has brought together organizations and individuals from the Montreal region to improve the quality of life of women, their families,and communities. [ Translation ] The Montreal Council of Women has 30,000 members from diverse backgrounds who work together in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. [ English ] In the last few months alone the council has advocated for improved public transit, raised awareness about bullying in schools, and honoured the important contributions of women to the field of journalism, while as an affiliate of the International Council of Women, it has continued to concern itself with the plight of women worldwide.

As a proud member of the Liberal women's caucus, I congratulate the Montreal Council of Women on 120 years of activism, advocacy, and good works that have benefited all Montrealers, and I wish them every success for the next 120 years.

Teaching Excellence Mr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mrs. Colleen Yoshida of Assumption junior high in Cold Lake, Alberta for receiving a certificate of achievement from the Prime Minister . It is no surprise that a teacher from northeast Alberta would receive such high praise, as we have so many dedicated educators in the Lakeland region. Whether it be a younger teacher in Ashmont, such as Jeninne Poirier, who thrives on learning and teaching new methods; the dedication and experience of Corey deMoissac, at St.

Paul Regional; or the work ethic and skill of Ryan Morey, at the new Mennonite school in Two Hills. The Lakeland is truly blessed with talented educators who care. On behalf of our community, I would like to thank each and every one of them. The extra hours they put in truly make a difference. The development and future success of our children is truly their legacy.

Canada Labour Code Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate when it takes a tragic event to bring attention to a deficiency in legislation or public policy. On November 1, 2011, Andy Ferguson was killed in a head-on collision while returning home following two consecutive 16-hour workdays. Andy was completing a broadcast diploma at NAIT, and as part of that program was completing an unpaid internship at Astral Media. In addition, Astral radio paid Andy to do location spots, contest promotions and various other assignments.

It was the accumulation of the paid and unpaid hours at the radio station that led to his fatigued condition, and ultimately this tragic accident. When Labour Canada did its investigation, it rightly concluded that his paid hours of work were within the allowable limits and it had no authority to investigate the unpaid hours because Andy was a post-secondary student and therefore that matter fell under provincial jurisdiction.

This tragedy highlights the regulatory gap that exists with respect to unpaid interns and the need to amend the Canada Labour Code to account for the combined hours, paid and unpaid, to protect these vulnerable and young workers. I ask the federal government to act.

[ Translation ] Maryse Drouin Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Maryse Drouin, the director general of the Corporation de développement communautaire de Longueuil, the CDC. After more than 20 years of doing community-based work, including 12 years at the head of the CDC, Maryse is retiring today. In Longueuil, her hard work battling glaring problems associated with poverty, social exclusion and inequality will continue to serve as an example of dedication and conviction for the team at the CDC, everyone in the community, and me and my team.

Without a community network, our society would suffer. It is people like Maryse Drouin who have the vision and perseverance to campaign and fight for social justice in order to ensure that our community is stronger and the less fortunate have a decent life. See you soon, Maryse. Now you can take some time for yourself. I wish you a happy retirement and, on behalf of everyone in Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, thank you.

[ English ] Canadian Constitution Foundation Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on several previous occasions I have reported to the House regarding a website administered by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which I have been helping to build. The website, PrimaryDocuments.ca, is intended to be a fully searchable repository of all primary documents relating to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. Today I can report that this repository includes 277,000 PDF images of pages from 2,162 distinct primary historical documents.

A team of 11 full-time and part-time individuals are presently working on the project. Because I coordinate these efforts out of my office, there is reason to be concerned that if care were not taken that parliamentary funds might be expended on what is not a parliamentary project. That is why I have been in regular contact with the Speaker and his staff to ensure that no government funds are used on this project. All of us must take care to be good stewards of the public funds. I am grateful for the co-operation that I have had from the House staff in this matter.

(1120) Collateral Damage Project Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and thank a great Canadian who is visiting Ottawa today, Scott Chisholm. Scott is the founder of the Collateral Damage Project, training the front line to deal with suicidal behaviours. I have often said in this House that preventing suicide requires an entire community. I am proud of the work that Scott has done in training teachers, nurses, and members of first nations to recognize and treat suicidal ideation.

While society still struggles to talk about suicide and mental health, Scott is one of thousands of Canadian heroes struggling to protect the most vulnerable. One of the hidden costs of suicide is the damage to survivors. Their pain is often beyond their ability to express; they suffer in silence. The Collateral Damage Project shatters that barrier with positive stories of how those who have struggled with the loss of loved ones to suicide have channelled their pain into something positive.

Canadians struggling with suicidal thoughts or coping with its aftermath should visit the Collateral Damage Project, at www.leftbehindbysuicide.org. Do not lose hope.

[ Translation ] Carolanne Leblanc Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to congratulate Carolanne Leblanc, a woman who has been working very hard to set up a multi-service shelter in Mirabel. The centre that she hopes to set up would support homeless people and other disadvantaged individuals, providing them with food, shelter and a place to wash up. This would be the first such place in Mirabel, which is larger in area than the city of Montreal. We need to address all aspects of homelessness.

Although homelessness and poverty are less obvious outside large urban centres, the needs are just as pressing in rural areas. It is time to recognize those needs and support the organizations and stakeholders that are working so hard to provide front-line services. I wish to thank Carolanne for her initiative and her efforts to get this centre off the ground. She has my admiration and full support.

The Economy Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about how proud I am, as a Quebecker, to have a Minister of Finance who will be able to balance Canada's budget. That is what it means for a government to act responsibly and be fair to future generations. Today, Statistics Canada reported that the Canadian economy grew for the ninth consecutive quarter, another sign that the Canadian economy is on the right track. Although we are not immune to struggles elsewhere in the world, we can count on our Conservative government to take us in the right direction and stay focused on the priorities of Canadian families.

World AIDS Day Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize World AIDS Day, which will be held on Saturday, December 1. It is a day to take stock of a serious situation in Canada. The number of people in Canada living with this virus continues to grow. More than 71,000 people are affected. The spread of HIV knows no socio-economic or geographic boundaries. HIV has a serious impact on homosexuals, heterosexuals, aboriginal peoples, rich, poor, women, men, young and old. The fact remains that those affected by HIV suffer a great deal of stigma and prejudice.

World AIDS Day is also an opportunity to learn about Canadian initiatives to raise awareness about AIDS and fight this disease. Organizations such as the Canadian AIDS Society are doing a lot for our society. The decline in the number of new infections in Canada attests to the education and prevention efforts made by these organizations. This world day also gives us an opportunity to remember those who have died as a result of AIDS and reminds us that the fight is not over and that many people are working hard to stamp it out.

[ English ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Veterans Transition Advisory Council met in Toronto. I would like to thank the members of the council for their commitment and dedication to assisting veterans to connect with organizations that can benefit from their skills. Our government understands the importance and the challenges that veterans face in making successful transitions from military to civilian life.

The Veterans Transition Advisory Council provides an important opportunity to work together with the private sector and corporate Canada so that we may support veterans and their families through this important phase in their lives. We will continue to reach out and collaborate with veterans and stakeholders who share our goals of helping veterans transition to find meaningful secondary careers following their service.

(1125) Luc Baronette Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, day in and day out, members of Parliament benefit from the hard work of many people who work for the House of Commons and the Senate. Constable Luc Baronette was one such person. Constable Baronette had worked on Parliament Hill since 2001, both in the security service and as a fire prevention officer. He was a well-known and well-liked individual. He was also known for his humour, his laughter and for his loyalty to friends and family. This week, Constable Baronette passed away, succumbing to brain cancer at the very young age of 33.

We mourn the loss of this very young man with a full life still ahead of him. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and my leader, I wish to extend our sympathies to all those who knew him and worked with him on Parliament Hill. In particular, we extend our thoughts and prayers to his wife Nicole, and Luc's young daughters, Adèle, age four, and Danika, who is just two years old. May they find comfort and peace in the difficult days and months ahead.

Sri Lanka Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our government's principled stand on human rights, the rule of law and freedom of religion, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka. I represented Canada. Sri Lanka has gone through years of terrible civil war, culminating in the defeat of the terrorist Tamil Tigers. Since then, Canada has been calling on the Sri Lankan government to initiate steps toward reconciliation and accountability on human rights.

My trips to Jaffna and Colombo unfortunately painted not only the lack of reconciliation, but an increasing disregard for Commonwealth principles. I met with key players of the Sri Lankan society, including the chief minister of Jaffna, all of whom reaffirmed this disturbing trend. Canada will continue to call upon the Sri Lankan government to uphold key Commonwealth principles. While I was in the northern Jaffna peninsula, I laid a wreath at the Elephant Pass, on behalf of Canadians, in memory of all innocent Sri Lankans who were killed in the conflict.

[ Translation ] Ethics Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there was not one political observer, regardless of his affiliation, who did not criticize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 's sorry spectacle. That speaks volumes about the judgment of the Prime Minister , who chose this member as a parliamentary secretary. You know things are bad when you starting missing the member for Nepean—Carleton 's antics. The party in power is facing serious criminal allegations. People could go to prison, and he is clowning around.

He is mocking the very idea of accountability and transparency. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is insulting the intelligence of his constituents, Canadians and his colleagues. This has become clear in the House. Members who have not yet sold their souls to the amateur wheeler-dealers in the Prime Minister 's Office are not very comfortable with the idea of applauding their colleague. I encourage my colleagues who still have some respect for the House, for our institution, to join me in telling the parliamentary secretary to stop his antics and answer the questions.

[ English ] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices make clear that: To ensure we maintain our independence, we do not pay for information from a source in a story. When CBC's The National aired a report about U.S. activities during the G8 and G20, neither Peter Mansbridge nor Greg Weston disclosed that they had paid their source, Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald is a Brazilian-based former porn industry executive, now assisting Edward Snowden to leak national security information. CBC only admitted to its cash for news scheme after The Wall Street Journal forced it out. CBC is trying to justify the violation of its own ethical standards by claiming that Greenwald is a freelancer. Greenwald has strong and controversial opinions about national security. Of course, that is his right.

However, when CBC pays for news, we have to ask why furthering Glenn Greenwald's agenda and lining his Brazilian bank account more important than maintaining the public broadcaster's journalistic integrity?

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions (1130) [ English ] Ethics Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister share with the Canadian public how much it will cost taxpayers to have three high-priced, Bay Street-linked law firms defending the PMO? Why does the Prime Minister need experts in courtroom litigation? Is that where the Prime Minister expects to find himself soon? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, a clear answer is that the

article the hon. member refers to is actually inaccurate. Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the week began with the PMO accusing itself of a cover-up and ended with Conservative senators blocking an investigation into whether Conservative senators tried to cover up an expense scandal involving yet other Conservative senators. No wonder the member has so much trouble explaining his government's actions. Yesterday, Deloitte claimed there was no interference with their audit, so how did a PMO staffer know on March 21 what the audit said about Mike Duffy weeks before it was released? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as Deloitte said yesterday, quite correctly, that the utmost in confidentiality was maintained as this audit was undertaken. I trust Deloitte. It has a fabulous reputation for the work it does, and as Deloitte said, full confidentiality was maintained at all times. Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, PMO staffer Patrick Rogers sent an email on March 21 saying that the Deloitte audit will “...state that Duffy's lawyer did not provide information when requested.

They were asked to complete the work by the end of March....” How can the Conservatives claim the PMO did not know anything when a staffer was emailing about the contents of the audit in March? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the audit was actually undertaken by Deloitte and not by the Prime Minister 's Office. Deloitte has maintained that the audit was done with the utmost in confidentiality, and Deloitte supports that audit.

Canadians can have full confidence that the work that was done with respect to the audit was done confidentially and is an appropriate report. Based on that, of course, that is why this government and the Conservative senators moved to have these three senators expelled from the Senate without pay. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, how much is the Prime Minister 's Office planning to spend to hire three expensive law firms to defend itself in the Senate affair?

Are the Conservatives hiring litigation experts with taxpayers' money because they expect they will soon have to defend themselves before the courts? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, Mr. Speaker, the headline is completely inaccurate. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday Deloitte claimed that there was no interference or collusion in its audit of Mr. Duffy's expenses. If that is the case, why did one— The Speaker : There is a translation problem.

It has been fixed, it is working now. The hon. member for Saint-Lambert has the floor. Mrs. Sadia Groguhé : Mr. Speaker, yesterday Deloitte claimed that there was no interference or collusion in its audit of Mr. Duffy's expenses. If this is the case, why did one of the staffers in the Prime Minister 's Office know about the report's findings on March 21, several weeks before the report was released? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Deloitte was in front of the Senate committee just yesterday.

From what I understand, the three auditors who undertook this audit on behalf of the Senate maintain that full confidentiality was maintained at all times and that Canadians could have, and should have, confidence in the work that they did. [ Translation ] Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the RCMP to investigate a serious infringement of the Parliament of Canada Act. The role played by Senator Gerstein and the Prime Minister's Office concerning the repayment of money to a senator contravenes this act.

When, and not if, the RCMP begins its investigation, will the government finally stop protecting Senator Gerstein and remove him from his position as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce? (1135) [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Senator Gerstein is not the subject of any investigation right now. The RCMP documents clearly outline that it is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are being investigated by the RCMP for a number of infractions.

As we have said constantly, we will continue to assist the RCMP as they move forward with this investigation. The Prime Minister , as I have said also on a number of occasions, went back to his office and to ensure that the Prime Minister's Office co-operates and assists with the RCMP in this investigation and will continue to do so. I think that is the standard that Canadians expect, and that is the standard that they will continue to see from our government. l Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary maintains that there are only two people under investigation, and he disputes how many law firms have been hired by the Conservatives to defend. My question for the Parliamentary Secretary is this: how many law firms have been hired, and which one is going to defend Senator Gerstein for his role in the cover-up in the PMO? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. On a daily basis, I am asked to get up in the House and I am asked a lot of questions.

When I answer, on occasion the opposition gets all upset and some in the press get all upset with the way I answer questions. However, when there is a question like that, how can one answer a question like that, a question that is so completely disrespectful of this place? There are two options: I could answer it back just as disrespectfully, or I could do what I am about to do and ignore it. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there we have a model of respect for the institution. Under

section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is an offence to offer or promise compensation to a senator “for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence any member of either House”. In light of this, could the Attorney General explain why he has not asked the RCMP to investigate the actions of Senator Gerstein and certain former PMO staffers, as I have? Why do I have to do his job for him, and what are they hiding over there? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is an odd question.

The RCMP have been investigating this for a number of months. The RCMP have put in a number of documents, which have been referred to by the opposition on a number of occasions. Those same documents show that the RCMP is investigating Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy, Nigel Wright for repaying expenses that Senator Duffy accepted but did not incur. Those are the people who are under investigation at this time. The documents quite clearly indicate that, and they also indicate the RCMP has been at this for a bit. Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, yesterday testimony at the Senate confirmed that Irving Gerstein contacted Michael Runia about changing the Duffy audit, and then, yes, Michael Runia contacted the auditors, asking them to alter it. That makes Michael Runia perhaps the most important witness to the allegations of interference with the Duffy audit. What possible justification could the Conservatives have for blocking the attempt to have Michael Runia testify under oath what he knows about blocking the Duffy audit? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, of course, that is not what the senators heard yesterday in front of the committee. The senators heard from the three Deloitte auditors who confirmed that the audit was done with the utmost confidentiality, that no rules were broken, and that Canadians could have confidence in the work that they did. I can only assume that the Senate decided, after hearing that from the people who actually did the audit, that nothing further was required to confirm the veracity of what was done by Deloitte. Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Michael Runia contacted the Deloitte auditors, presumably to strong-arm them on behalf of the PMO into changing the Duffy audit. How can they claim that because of the so-called Chinese wall that Deloitte held, there is no harm, no foul, in attempting to interfere with the investigation into wrongdoing, the improper expense claims, and then the audit into them? How low have their ethics sunk if they do not see what is fundamentally wrong with picking up the phone and trying to interfere with the work of an independent auditor into investigation of Senate claims? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, he is referring to the Senate committee yesterday. The Senate brought Deloitte in front of it to ensure that there was no interference, that the work that it did was kept in the utmost confidentiality, and that Canadians and the Senate in particular could also have trust in the work that Deloitte did. Those three auditors went before the Senate yesterday.

My understanding is that they confirmed that no information was given to anybody, that the work they did was done in full confidentiality, and, again, that the Senate could have confidence in the work that they did. I suspect that is why they decided that no further action was taken. (1140) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, does the government believe that Senator Irving Gerstein was wrong to try and change the findings of the Deloitte report on Mike Duffy's illegal expense claims, with internal help from Michael Runia? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what is very important, first and foremost, is that the audit that was done was not compromised in any way. We heard yesterday from Deloitte that was in fact the case. On Senator Gerstein, I know Senator Gerstein, as a number of us do. I know him to be a very hard-working senator, someone who takes his job very seriously. I am very proud to serve in caucus with Senator Gerstein, and I hope I do so for many years to come. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, talk about inconsistent Senator Mike Duffy was thrown out of the Conservative caucus, yet there have been no consequences for his fellow senators who were complicit in this scheme to repay his illegal expense claims. Why have Senators Gerstein and Stewart Olsen still not been disciplined? Why have they not accepted any responsibility whatsoever for their involvement in this scandal? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau were removed from the Senate or suspended from the Senate without pay because they accepted expenses that they did not incur. As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions in this place, that is not a standard that we accept on this side of the House. That is why Senator Duffy was removed from the Conservative caucus and that is why the Senate then voted to have Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau suspended without pay from the Senate. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that he was informed on May 15 of the initial plan concerning the Conservative Party payment to Mike Duffy. Why did he not bother to tell the House before Mike Duffy spoke about it in the Senate five months later, on October 28? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, he is quite correct that the Prime Minister did say on May 15 that he found out about this. The RCMP documents confirm that the Prime Minister did not know about this.

The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that had he known, he would have put a stop to it. Nigel Wright himself stated quite clearly the people he brought into his confidence with respect to the fact that he was repaying Senator Duffy's expenses. I think that is all very clear in the documents that were deposited by the RCMP with respect to affidavits filed by Nigel Wright and, of course, the documents recently filed by the RCMP. [ Translation ] Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister was informed of the Conservative Party cheque to Mike Duffy on May 15. Despite all of the questions we asked him, the Prime Minister never bothered to tell the House. We want to give them another chance at being transparent. What other similar information that they may or may not have shared with the RCMP have the Conservatives decided to keep to themselves? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, allow me to correct the hon. member. The Conservative Party did not pay Mr.

Duffy's expenses that he did not incur. As we know, it was Nigel Wright who repaid those expenses. I think that should have been clear by the number of questions that the opposition has asked on this. I just wanted to make sure that she was correct on that. Of course, the Prime Minister 's Office will continue to assist the RCMP in this investigation going forward. [ Translation ] Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, according to the RCMP, there is an email that clearly shows that the Prime Minister 's lawyer, Benjamin Perrin, was involved in the deal between Duffy and Wright, but that email was deleted along with hundreds of others. Who deleted those emails? Who gave the order to delete them? Does the RCMP have that information? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are Treasury Board guidelines that are in place which outline how emails are managed by employees when they leave offices.

With respect to the amount of emails that were turned over, the RCMP, in its filing, quite clearly identified that thousands of emails were turned over. There were about 2,600 that were of interest to the RCMP and being reviewed as part of this investigation. The Prime Minister has said that he will continue to ensure that his office assists going forward.

(1145) Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians really need the truth about this issue. For weeks we have been getting farcical answers about lemonade stands and pizza delivery. I will ask a question and I hope I can get a straight answer. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister told the House that he first became aware of the Conservative Party's Mike Duffy payoff on May 15. Therefore, why did the Prime Minister not tell the House about the payoff until five months later when Mike Duffy brought it up in the Senate on October 28? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the question defies some form of logic because what the member suggested was that the Conservative Party paid off Senator Duffy's expenses and, of course, we did not. I think it is quite clear that it was Nigel Wright who paid off the expenses of Senator Duffy. We know that was not right. That is why the Prime Minister , as soon as he found out, ordered his office to assist the RCMP. Let us be clear. It is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are being investigated by the RCMP right now. Ms.

Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is word today that several members of the Conservative caucus will be bringing forward legislation to limit the power of the Prime Minister's Office. These MPs are joining others with growing concern about the conduct of the Prime Minister's Office. A recent access to information disclosure has even revealed that there may have been inappropriate political interference with RCMP operations during emergency response. When will the Prime Minister start addressing these concerns and rein in his office? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it has been great to have been missed by my friends across the floor, but I am not sure it will last more than 30 seconds. The Prime Minister is the most democratic in Canadian history. Let me state the facts. This is the first prime minister to reinstate the practice of a mandatory vote in Parliament before committing our troops into harm's way. The Prime Minister is the first ever to have created a parliamentary process so members of Parliament, including opposition, can vet Supreme Court appointments.

We have had more private members' bills passed than any government in the last 40 years. The Globe and Mail did a study and found that of all the votes that happened on the floor of the House of Commons, Conservative members were far more likely to vote independently from their party. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in its cover-up scheme, the fraud squad in the PMO tried to corrupt a forensic audit that Deloitte was conducting on Mike Duffy: Wright instructed Rogers; Rogers enlisted Gerstein; Gerstein pressured Runia, the senior partner in a venerable firm.

Runia should have told Gerstein to get stuffed, but instead he meddled with auditors actually doing the work and attempted to breach the ethical walls. Does the Prime Minister want to know how this corruption came about on his watch? Why does he not? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what Deloitte said yesterday in front of the Senate was that its audit was in no way compromised at all, that the utmost in confidentiality was maintained and that the Senate could have confidence in the work that Deloitte had done.

That is actually what Deloitte said. Now, the hon. member can say whatever he wants and cast all kinds of aspersions on all kinds of people, but the facts are that Deloitte maintained confidentiality and the Canadian people and the Senate, more important, can also be confident in the work it did. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in an email on March 8, Patrick Rogers in the PMO wrote this about Senator Gerstein, “The stage we're at now is waiting for the Senator's Contact”, that would be Mike Runia, “to get the actual Deloitte auditor on the file to agree.

The Senator will call back once we have Deloitte locked in”. That is attempted tampering. Before Mr. Runia has to face the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario on a professional complaint, will the Prime Minister give him the chance to testify to this Parliament under oath? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the Prime Minister to decide; it is up to committees to make that decision. I note that yesterday the Senate brought forward the three Deloitte auditors who participated in and undertook the audit.

The auditors said that their work was done with the utmost and strictest confidentiality and that all the rules were followed. Upon hearing that, I suspect that is why the senators decided that no additional witnesses were required.

(1150) Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, corruption in the PMO is destroying a great many people. Former business leaders like Wright and Gerstein, lawyers like Perrin, Hamilton and others, now auditors like Runia, are all bending to the will of one man, the Prime Minister , who demands cult-like obedience. The fraud squad in the PMO drank the Kool-Aid, it broke every rule in the book and the police are closing in. Will the Prime Minister show some respect for the office he holds and allow Runia and Gerstein to testify to this Parliament under oath? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is another question from the opposition that brings the value of this Parliament down. I am sure the members opposite will complain about my answer. I know the good people in the press gallery will get all upset with me because I refuse to answer such a ridiculous question.

[ Translation ] National Defence Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is avoiding answering questions about spying on Canadian soil during the G20 summit, which only raises more concerns. We know that Communications Security Establishment Canada cannot legally spy on Canadians. We also know that it cannot ask its partners to violate Canadian laws. The question that the Conservatives refuse to answer is simple. Did they allow the United States to conduct surveillance operations in Canada, yes or no? [ English ] Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we cannot comment on specific foreign intelligence activities or capabilities. However, what I can say is that all of this organization's activities, as was already alluded to by the member, are reviewed by an independent watchdog, the Commissioner of Communications Security Establishment, who has access to all the documents related to the operations of this agency and also its personnel.

For 16 years, the commissioner has reported that CSEC continues to act lawfully and conduct all of its current activities under the law. This organization is prohibited from targeting Canadians at home and abroad. Furthermore, CSEC cannot ask our international partners to act in any way that circumvents Canadian law. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government is ducking the most obvious and important question here.

The issue is whether Canadian intelligence agencies, or anyone in the government, authorized or assisted the United States National Security Agency to spy on Canadian soil during the G8 and G20. It is pretty simple. The question is this. Did the government allow a foreign agency to spy within Canada's borders? We need an intelligent answer on intelligence. Could it provide us that at least? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, under the law, this organization is prohibited from targeting Canadians.

All of this organization's activities are reviewed by the independent watchdog, the Commissioner for CSEC, who has access to all the documents and who, for 16 years now, has reported that it is operating underneath all Canadian laws. CSEC cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.

International Trade Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, trans-Pacific partnership negotiations are ongoing, but the intellectual property

chapter has recently been leaked to the public. We now know that countries, including the U.S., Australia and Japan, are pushing aggressively for measures that would restrict open access to the Internet and raise the price of prescription medicines in Canada. Canadians deserve to know what their government is putting on the table on their behalf. Could the minister update us on the government's position on these important TPP issues? Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada is at the table to show that we are a trading nation.

We did that in opening up a 500 million person market with the Canada-Europe trade deal. We are at the table with the trans-Pacific partnership talks where a potential market of 800 million consumers will be to create jobs and economic opportunity in Canada. All important sectors, including intellectual property principles, are part of our strategic negotiations. As the Prime Minister and minister have said, Canada will only make a deal if it is in our national interest. Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, in the United States, lawmakers of both parties are being allowed to read the actual TPP negotiating text. However, in Canada, parliamentarians have to rely on WikiLeaks for information. Accountability and transparency are not just words; they are essential, and Canadians have a right to know what Conservatives are putting on the table on their behalf. The U.S. government is allowing the legislators from Congress to see the TPP text. Why will Conservatives not do the same in Canada?

(1155) Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the trade committee for his participation in our discussions in Halifax this week, talking about job creation and the billions of dollars that the Canada-Europe deal will bring for Canadians. It is inappropriate to comment on leaked documents, much like the collective bargaining process that my friends from the other side will understand.

A lot of these discussions are taken in secret, but I have to reiterate, we are there to build opportunity for Canadian job creators. We are there to sell our goods and services to a growing market in Canada and we will make a deal that is a winner for Canada.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, our government and our High Commissioner in London, Gordon Campbell, announced an exciting plan to consolidate Canada's diplomatic presence in London by revitalizing and renovating historic Canada House in the heart of London, Trafalgar Square. At the same time, in order to finance this revitalization, we announced a plan to sell the Macdonald House at Grosvenor Square and move all of Canada's team in London to Canada House. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please update the House on this development? Hon.

John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are very excited. We have been in Macdonald House for only 50 years. Canada House has been sitting vacant, by and large, since we left more than 50 years ago. We have an exciting plan to revitalize Canada House in Trafalgar Square to make it the face of Canada in one of the most exciting places in the world. Through the leadership of Gordon Campbell, our High Commissioner, we have obtained more than half a billion dollars for this property.

We have bought another building right beside Canada House and we will be able to integrate the two, get the entire Canadian team working together. It is a good deal for taxpayers and a great face in Trafalgar Square for Canada.

[ Translation ] Intergovernmental Relations Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week we learned about the lavish lifestyle led by the president of Tourism Montreal and a former Liberal minister, Charles Lapointe. Limousines, an outrageous severance package and inflated salaries: nothing was too good for Mr. Lapointe. Ottawa provides funding to Tourism Montreal every year. Will the federal government hold Tourism Montreal accountable for this mismanagement by a notable Liberal? 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, we support this organization's marketing efforts abroad in order to attract international tourists to Canada, as we do for many other organizations. However, we do not finance the organization's operating costs or salaries. Economic development is a top priority here on this side of the House. We take the management of public funds very seriously, and we will be watching this issue closely. Mr.

Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, $2 million in federal subsidies go to Tourism Montreal. This matter must be taken seriously. Mismanagement problems are increasing in organizations under federal responsibility. Today it is Tourism Montreal, but a few months ago, it was the Old Port. Instead of simply reacting after each problem occurs, what measures will the Conservatives bring in to prevent such problems? 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, we support this organization's marketing efforts abroad to attract tourists to Canada. However, we do not finance the organization's operating costs or salaries, and we will be watching this issue closely.

Quebec Bridge Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, like the people of the greater Montreal area, the people of Quebec City have concerns about their bridge. The last report was published in 2008. It indicated that this national historic infrastructure was deteriorating at an accelerated pace. Nevertheless, Transport Canada refuses to answer any questions about this. What is the government doing to ensure that CN does its part and that the bridge is properly maintained to keep the people who use it safe?

(1200) 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, I would like to remind my colleague that the Quebec Bridge does not belong to the Government of Canada. Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe it. Are the Conservatives going to wait until they are in same situation that Montreal is in with the Champlain Bridge before they start taking this seriously?

Using the dispute over paint with CN as an excuse to refuse to answer questions is not a good attitude. The Minister of Transport has to reassure the people of Quebec City. Does the minister have any documents on the state of the Quebec Bridge that are more recent than the 2008 Delcan report? If so, when will she share those with the rest of us? 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, I would like to remind my colleague that the Quebec Bridge does not belong to the Government of Canada.

[ English ] Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the AFN national chief has rejected the government's education proposal and highlighted the absolute need for a funding guarantee for first nations children. However, the government has refused to talk about it. Shockingly, the PMO memo in the RCMP Duffy-Wright scandal complained about investing heavily in aboriginal education, saying it contradicted the government's messaging. I ask the minister to do the right thing today and commit to equitable funding for children of first nations. Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, she is obviously dreaming in colour and believing her own dreams. The fact of the matter is that the Government of Canada funds elementary and secondary education on reserve and has been doing so for years under a policy framework. Now we are proposing that this be statutory based, that there be a statute casting an obligation on the part of the Government of Canada, on the minister, to pay those costs to first nations, which will have control over their education systems.

I hope that we can continue our dialogue with first nations and move forward on this file positively.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is failing farmers. The Auditor General's report says over one-third of farmers are forced to wait for months to receive their disaster assistance. This money helps farmers get back on their feet and back to business quickly after they are hit by drought, disease or other unforseeable events. The Auditor General directly contradicts the government's boasting about supporting farmers. Is it the government's position that the Auditor General is lying? Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since the implementation of the agrirecovery program by the government, producers know that when a disaster strikes, we will be there for them. Agrirecovery is jointly administered by both the federal government and the provinces, and requires agreement by all levels of government to respond to disasters in a timely fashion. The member should recognize that two-thirds of producers surveyed by the Auditor General said that agrirecovery was delivered in a timely fashion.

Under growing forward 2, the agrirecovery program continues to be an effective tool to help farmers during times of unforeseen market volatility or natural disaster.

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, too many of our valiant veterans have to fight for the benefits and the services they are entitled to. The Conservatives have closed nine regional offices and slashed hundreds of thousands of dollars from Veterans Affairs' budget, thus forcing veterans to use online services instead of being given the personal help they deserve. How can the Conservatives be so indifferent towards our veterans? [ English ] Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government has made substantial investments to support Canada's veterans, including almost $5 billion in new additional dollars since taking office. This funding has been put towards improved financial benefits, world-class rehabilitation and tuition costs to help veterans transition to civilian life. While our government is making improvements to veterans' benefits, the Liberals and the NDP voted against this new funding for mental health treatment, financial support and home care services. Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary would like to tell Kim and Blair Davis of Lawrencetown, Nova Scotia that, because they have sent us all a very disturbing email about what is going on in the Veterans Affairs office in Halifax. For weeks and weeks, they have tried to get assistance but to no avail. Mr. Davis is in a very precarious situation. His wife Kim is very worried about her husband. In fact, she even fears going back to work when she does not know the state of mind he may be in. The parliamentary secretary is fully aware of this file.

Can he please advise the House exactly what the government is going to do to assist this family and this hero of our country to immediately get the help he needs?

(1205) Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for bringing this issue to my attention. Veterans Affairs officials were immediately directed to undertake a review of the circumstances. I can assure the House that, today, directions have been given to the Veterans Affairs officials to reach out to the veteran and his family. We will continue to ensure that veterans have the programs and services that they need, even if the member opposite and his party continue to vote against every measure.

Sealing Industry Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some confusion in the Liberal ranks. This week, the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte wrote in a Newfoundland newspaper that he does not believe Ottawa should appeal the World Trade Organization's decision to uphold the seal ban. Apparently, he did not consult with the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor , who earlier this week said the Liberals would in fact support the government initiative.

It is disappointing that a member from a province where the sealing industry is so vital would suggest that our government not take action. Could the minister please update the House on the government's intention to appeal the WTO decision? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the WTO decision was not based on scientific evidence, rather on what the WTO calls “moral grounds”.

This sets a dangerous precedent and essentially sets up one culture to be morally superior to another. This in unacceptable. The Liberal member's attitude of “just because we are not guaranteed success, we will not try” is appalling. On this side of the House, we will continue to stand with aboriginals and Canadian coastal communities to defend their traditional practices and livelihoods. The Liberals will not hold the WTO to account, but northerners and Canadian sealers can be assured that— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis .

[ Translation ] International Development Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, World AIDS Day is at hand and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is holding its replenishment conference on Tuesday to continue the fight against these dangerous infectious diseases. The United States has promised to contribute $1.6 billion to the Global Fund, and Great Britain has doubled its contribution. Our government, however, has remained silent. The lives of the most vulnerable around the world are at stake.

Will the government commit today to increasing its contribution to the Global Fund? [ English ] Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, indeed, the refunding conference is taking place in Washington on Monday and Tuesday, and Canada will have a representative there. It is a little bit like Christmas, though; we have to wait until the day comes before we make that announcement. While I have the floor, I would like to take a moment to thank Canadians for the incredible generosity that they have given to the Typhoon Haiyan relief fund.

That matching fund has been extended by our Conservative government until December 23. I urge Canadians to continue to generously contribute.

[ Translation ] Taxation Mr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, at a time when its public service cuts are forcing more and more Canadians to rely on charitable organizations, the government continues to refuse to acknowledge the importance of this sector to our economy. Charities account for more than 7% of our GDP, generate more than $100 billion in economic activity every year and create thousands of jobs. Will the government commit to making it easier for the charitable sector to access assistance for businesses? [ English ] Mr.

Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is alluding to the charities and we should be clear that the rules regarding charities and political activities are long-standing. Our Conservative government has always supported charities and their ability to exist within the tax rules in Canada. Economic action plan 2012 provided the CRA with additional tools and resources to increase transparency in the charitable sector.

(1210) Multiculturalism Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we enter the Christmas season, I hear a lot about political correctness and wishing someone merry Christmas. There are those who will say, “do not say merry Christmas; say happy holidays”. Political correctness is deluding Christmas in a well-intentioned but unnecessary attempt to be inclusive. After all, we deck the halls of Parliament with Christmas trees, not holiday trees.

As we spread holiday cheer this Christmas season, I ask the Minister of State for Multiculturalism if he considers it an offence to wish someone merry Christmas during the holiday season? Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as a non-Christian myself, I do not find this offensive at all. Canada has a long tradition of pluralism and it is truly wonderful that people of all faiths are able to practice and celebrate their traditions openly in Canada. During this season of Hanukkah, we wish our Jewish friends, Chag Hanukkah Sameach .

During Vaisakhi, we wish Sikhs, Vaisakhi diyan lakh lakh Vadhaiyan . True diversity means respecting the traditions of all Canadians, including those of Christian Canadians. I ask all members during this Christmas season to wish our Christian friends a very merry Christmas.

[ Translation ] International Trade Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, Quebec's milk and cheese producers protested yesterday. They are demanding that the federal government deliver on its promise to compensate them for the huge losses they will incur as a result of the European free trade agreement. Under this agreement, 17,770 additional tonnes of European cheese will be imported. As the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec said, “The concession represents more than the total production in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, which is huge”.

When will Quebec's cheese producers be compensated? [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, the Dairy Farmers of Canada appeared before our trade committee. With a riding with dairy farmers, I have been talking about the opportunity CETA holds to open up the entire cheese market of 500 million Europeans to our cheese manufacturers.

With cheese growing at 6,000 tonnes per year, the phase-in of this agreement means that it will likely have no impact on production levels for our top level dairy farms in Quebec and Ontario. It will be a win for all sectors, a win for Canada. [ Translation ] Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, cheese producers are still waiting for compensation, but exactly one month ago, the federal government gave $280 million in compensation to Newfoundland fishermen, who were also affected by the free trade agreement.

Why is it so easy to find millions of dollars for Newfoundland, but not so easy to find money for Quebec's cheese producers? [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about fishermen. Our trade committee was just in Halifax this week, where we talked about the tremendous opportunity the European deal has for the seafood industry in all of Atlantic Canada. In fact, lobster has a tariff rate of 8% for fresh lobster, but in the 20% range for processed seafood.

This will be a win, not only for the fishers on our oceans, but the processing industries in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland will be huge winners when these tariff walls come down.

Government Accountability Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, last spring the Auditor General showed that the government was unable to account for some $3.1 billion allocated to combat terrorism. Then the AG stated that the opaqueness of the entire system was making the tracking of the money virtually impossible. However, after six months, it appears that the Treasury Board now believes that it can account for all of the money. Some of it was improperly tagged or labelled in wrong envelopes. Some of it had apparently lapsed or was not spent and was returned to the general revenue fund.

My question for the President of the Treasury Board is this. What has the government, elected on a promise of accountability, done to promote transparency and to prevent such accounting debacles in the future? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the money the hon. member is speaking of was money that was allocated between 2001 and 2009 and was dedicated to combatting terrorism and making sure that Canadians were safe from terrorism, so it was money well spent.

He is absolutely correct, the Treasury Board did undertake a process to reconcile all of the money that was spent, $12.9 billion over that nine year period, and to ensure that this was accounted for. In fact, it was accounted for. In terms of his question, I would only say that we now have online budget accounts, by department, by program, available to parliamentarians and available to citizens.

(1215) Points of Order Employment Insurance Points of Order Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to table a document with respect to the connecting Canadians with available jobs initiative, consequent to an item that came up in yesterday's question period. The Speaker : Can I ask the hon. minister if the document he wishes to table is in both official languages? Hon. Jason Kenney : Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker.

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 30 petitions.

Committees of the House Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to the study of supplementary estimates (B) 2013-14.

National Defence Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Motion Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it, you shall find unanimous consent for the following motions. First: That, in relation to its study of care of ill and injured Canadian Armed Forces members, twelve members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Petawawa, Ontario, in the Fall-Winter of 2013, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. (Motion agreed to)

International Trade Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Motion Second: That, in relation to its studies on the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Benefits for Canada of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), twelve members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Vancouver, British Columbia, in the Winter of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Income Tax Deductions for Tradespeople Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I table a petition from the residents of Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, and Tofield, Alberta. The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that many out-of-work tradespeople currently have to finance their own travel and accommodation if they have to move to another region to obtain a job, which is, of course, what the government is trying to encourage.

The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to support private member's Bill C-201 , tabled by the member for Hamilton Mountain , which would allow tradespeople and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so they could secure and maintain employment at construction sites more than 80 kilometres from their homes.

Pensions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I table today a petition from many residents in Winnipeg North who are calling upon the government to recognize the importance of our old age pension. In particular, the petitioners say that people should be able to continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65 and that the government should not, in any way, diminish the importance and value of Canada's three major seniors' programs: OAS, GIS, and CPP.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is signed by dozens of citizens from my riding concerning genetically modified alfalfa. The petitioners note that contamination from genetically modified alfalfa is inevitable. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa.

Income Tax Deductions for Tradespeople Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Bill C-201 regarding the right of tradespeople and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income. I have many friends in the building trades who I know would support this petition, and I really urge the government to take it seriously.

(1220) [ Translation ] Extractive Sector Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of Quebeckers who are calling for the creation of an extractive sector ombudsman. [ English ] While much of Canada's extractive sector demonstrates exemplary corporate citizenship, the international activities of certain Canadian companies are deeply troubling from a human rights perspective. The ombudsman called for by this petition would help ensure the corporate accountability of Canada's extractive industry at home and abroad.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5, 6, 12, 21, 29, 42, 44 and 60. [ Text ]

Question No. 5--

Mr. Paul Dewar :

With regard to residency questionnaires for citizenship applications: (

a) what is the total number of questionnaires sent out by Citizenship and Immigration Canada for each of the last five years; (

b) what is the total number of questionnaires sent to citizenship applicants living in the riding of Ottawa Centre for each of the last five years; (

c) what is the total number of questionnaires sent out by province for each of the last five years; (

d) if the use of questionnaires has increased, what is the rationale; and (

e) what are the names of all documents describing the criteria of assessment used to determine whether a residency questionnaire will be administered to an applicant?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), prior to May 2012, the issuance of residency questionnaires, RQs, was not systematically tracked by the department; therefore, data are unavailable for the last five years.

With regard to (b), Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, does not compile statistics by constituency and therefore cannot identify the total number of RQs sent to citizenship applicants living in the riding of Ottawa Centre.

With regard to (c), prior to May 2012, the issuance of RQs was not systematically tracked by the department; therefore, data are unavailable for the last five 5 years.

With regard to (d), prior to May 2012, the issuance of RQs was not systematically tracked by the department. In May 2012, CIC introduced a new version of the RQ. The RQ is issued in cases where additional information and documents are needed in order to assist in determining whether or not an applicant meets the residence requirement for citizenship. The RQ is not a new feature of the citizenship application process. It has been used in one form or another for several decades.

CIC takes the issue of fraud in the immigration and citizenship programs very seriously. Our intent is to apply the full strength of Canadian law, and where evidence permits, to strip permanent resident status or citizenship, seek removal, and/or refer the matter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP, for a criminal investigation. It is a much simpler process to be able to prevent those who are involved in residence fraud from becoming citizens in the first place than to try to revoke citizenship after they have already acquired it.

With regard to (e), the RQ is issued at various stages of the processing of applications in cases in which additional information and documents are needed in order to assist in determining whether an applicant meets the residence requirement for citizenship. The tools used to decide whether an RQ is issued are investigative tools, and as such cannot be released by CIC.

Question No. 6--

Mr. Paul Dewar :

With regard to the property owned by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) at 250 Lanark Avenue in Ottawa: (

a) is the property designated as surplus; (

b) if so, is the property designated as surplus strategic or surplus routine; (

c) does PWGSC intend to dispose of the property; (

d) if so, what is the planned timeframe for the disposal of the property; (

e) how is the green space at the property currently being used; (

f) what are the reasons for restricting public access to the green space at the property?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the property owned by Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC, at 250 Lanark Avenue in Ottawa, with regard to (a), yes, the property is designated as surplus.

With regard to (b), the property is designated as surplus strategic.

With regard to (c), yes, PWGSC intends to sell the property.

With regard to (d), PWGSC plans to sell 250 Lanark Avenue to Canada Lands Company in 2014 for strategic disposal.

With regard to (e), although the federal occupants of the site do not actively use the green space at 250 Lanark Avenue, the green space is managed as grounds associated with an occupied office building.

With regard to (f), public access to the green space remains restricted, as the grounds are associated with an office building that continues to be used for office accommodation. Furthermore, as the department continues to move towards the disposal of the property, PWGSC does not wish to further encumber the property and impact the disposal negotiations with Canada Lands Company.

Question No. 12--

Mr. Sean Casey :

Regarding the measures “totaling two billion dollars” contained in the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, tabled by the government in November 2010: (

a) over what time frame is this money to be spent; and (

b) how much of the $2 billion has already been spent?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the enhancements to the new veterans charter, in regard to (a), the $2 billion is the accrual cost estimate of the additional amount that will be paid to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans because the approved program changes over the life of the program--i.e., it is defined as the period up until the last eligible program recipient dies.

In regard to (b),it is not possible to calculate how much of the $2 billion has already been spent because a portion of the $2 billion liability is paid down each year as benefits and services are paid to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans. Because the funding announced in November 2010 was incremental funding for previously established programs, it is not possible to identify separately how much of the $2 billion has already been spent.

Confirmation can be provided as of August 31, 2013 that 2,717 veterans now have access to increased monthly financial compensation through the earnings loss benefit, 590 veterans have increased access to the Permanent Incapacity Allowance, and 202 veterans have access to Exceptional Incapacity Allowance.

Question No. 21--

Ms. Laurin Liu :

With regard to the Indirect Costs Program: (

a) what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005; and (

b) in the case of McGill University and l'Université Laval, what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005?

Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the indirect costs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council does not require universities to differentiate between indirect and direct costs when reporting expenditures to Industry Canada.

Question No. 29--

Mr. Peter Julian :

With regard to the 267,000 cubic meters of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes that are stored above ground in concrete containers at the Chalk River Laboratories: (

a) what is the long-term plan for the containment and safe storage of these wastes; (

b) how has the safety of these containers been demonstrated and what is their design life; (

c) how has their long term performance been (

i) evaluated, (ii) verified; (

d) is there an update on the proposed deep geological repository at the Chalk River property and what is (

i) the project description, (ii) the project scope; (

e) how much will the deep geological repository cost; (

f) how has the long term performance been evaluated for the proposed deep geological repository; (

g) has a post-closure safety assessment been done; (

h) what has been the process for public participation in this project’s development to date; (

i) what are the future plans for public participation; and (

j) what is the peer review process for this proposed deep geological repository?

Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at Chalk River Laboratories, CRL, is safely and securely stored and managed in a number of above-ground and in-ground waste management structures and areas at the site. Several options are being considered for the long-term management of these wastes. The range of options being considered includes surface, near-surface, and deep geologic facilities. The investigations are currently in the option assessment stage. Feasibility studies are under way or planned to inform decision-making on the types of long-term waste management facilities required to safely manage these wastes over the long term.

With regard to (b), all low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at CRL, including that stored in above ground concrete structures, is maintained in a safe and secure condition, as required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, licence conditions. The integrity of this storage is verified on an ongoing basis through appropriate monitoring of the containment and the surrounding environment. This waste will be maintained in secure storage until permanent disposal facilities are available. The design life for the above-ground concrete storage structures, commonly referred to as shielded modular above-ground storage, or SMAGS, is 50 years.

With regard to (c), long-term performance is evaluated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, via monitoring to confirm that the wastes continue to be stored safely, and the results are reported to the CNSC. The first Canadian SMAGS was constructed in 1982 by Ontario Hydro on the Bruce nuclear site and has been in service, without issue, since that time. AECL has two such facilities in service at CRL, as well as an earlier-generation facility with less shielding, which is for low-level radioactive waste only.

With regard to (d), a number of long-term management options are being considered for AECL’s low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, including the possibility of a deep geologic facility. AECL is currently conducting a site suitability assessment of the CRL site for a deep geologic facility for its intermediate-level radioactive waste. The study is part of AECL’s efforts to define the infrastructure required for the long-term management of radioactive waste at CRL. The site suitability assessment is not yet complete and, as such, neither a project description nor a project scope has been developed.

With regard to (e), the cost assessments completed to date have been high-level estimates for possible deep geologic facility concepts and are not sufficiently developed for public release. The high-level estimates are, however, in line with estimates for other similar proposed facilities.

With regard to (f), a long-term performance assessment would be part of a formal plan. As there is no decision to proceed with a deep geologic facility, a long-term performance assessment has not yet been completed. Such an assessment would be an integral part of the safety case that would be required to license such a facility.

With regard to (g), a post closure safety assessment would be part of a formal plan. As there is no decision to proceed with a deep geologic facility, a post-closure safety assessment has not yet been completed. This assessment would be an integral part of the safety case that would be required to license such a facility.

With regard to (h), public awareness of the feasibility study has been promoted through interaction with the local environmental stewardship council for CRL and presentation of results at conferences.

With regard to (i), should the site suitability study indicate that a deep geologic facility would be feasible for the Chalk River site, directed public consultations would proceed on the options for managing Chalk River’s low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste over the long term. This would include the possibility of a deep geologic repository. The process would involve the local community, aboriginal groups, stakeholders, and the broader public. If a decision was made to proceed with a deep geologic facility, an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, would be required, providing further opportunities for public involvement.

With regard to (j), as no decision has been made on whether to proceed with a deep geologic facility, no peer review process is in place. It would be important to include a peer review process if the project moves ahead.

Question No. 42--

Mr. Scott Simms :

With respect to interactions between the government and any citizens or residents of Canada, what interactions have taken place since January 1, 2010, broken down by (

a) government department; (

b) number of interactions by type per month; (

c) minimum time between initial request and closure of the file; (

d) maximum time between initial request and closure of the file; (

e) average time between initial request and closure of the file; (

f) number of the interactions that were satisfactorily resolved; (

g) number of interactions that were closed without being resolved; (

h) number of interactions that remain open and unresolved; and (

i) what policy or policies govern these interactions?

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

Mr. Speaker, in order to produce information on all interactions with citizens and residents of Canada to the level of detail requested, organizations would be required to manually verify each and every file they maintain. Organizations do not necessarily maintain records on interactions employees may have had with citizens or residents of Canada. For these reasons, as well as because of the extraordinary volume involved, it is not possible to produce the information requested.

Question No. 44--

Ms. Judy Foote :

With regard to search and rescue and Canadian Coast Guard ships (CCGS) in Newfoundland and Labrador (N.L.): (

a) does the government plan to replace or provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in Burin and Burgeo, N.L., (

i) if so, how many new lifeboats will be allocated to each town, (ii) is the replacement of lifeboats in Burin and Burgeo part of the $488 million announcement by the Honourable Peter Mackay, P.C., M.P. on June 26, 2013, (iii) was the announcement scheduled to take place prior to the date referred to in (ii) at any time, (iv) what was the reason for changing the day of the announcement, (

v) when will the boats be delivered, (vi) are there any delays in the delivery of the boats, (vii) if so, why are there delays in the delivery of the boats, (viii) does the government plan to replace or provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in other communities in Random—Burin—St. George’s, (ix) if so, which communities will have their lifeboats replaced or be provided with additional lifeboats, (

x) when will the announcements for other communities take place, (xi) when will the lifeboats in these communities be delivered; and (

b) what is the reason for placing the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell on lay-up, (

i) has the government consulted stakeholders on the impact to search and rescue of this measure, (ii) if so, which stakeholders were consulted, (iii) what were the positions of each stakeholder group on this measure, (iv) how many hours will it take for the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell to return to operational status in the event of an emergency, (

v) does the government intend to decommission the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell, (vi) has there been any discussion about decommissioning the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell, (vii) what tasks did the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell perform, (viii) what is the government’s plan to replace this performance, (ix) which vessels will be equipped to immediately respond to an oil spill while the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is in lay-up, (

x) which vessels will be equipped to immediately respond to major oil installation fires or fires on coastal and transatlantic vessels operating in water adjacent to the coast of N.L. while the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is in lay-up?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), yes, the government is planning to replace the existing search and rescue lifeboats in Burin, NL, and Burgeo, NL. Each will be replaced by a newly built search and rescue lifeboat of a more modern design.

With regard to (a)(i), one search and rescue lifeboat is planned for each location.

With regard to (a)(ii), yes, the replacement of the Burin and Burgeo search and rescue lifeboats will be financed as part of the $488 million announced by Minister MacKay.

With regard to (a)(iii), the answer is no. In spring 2013 different scenarios and dates were contemplated, and the Mari-Tech 2013 Conference was chosen as the optimum time and place.

With regard to (a)(iv), question (a)(iv) is not applicable.

With regard to (a)(v), delivery of the vessels is forecast from 2015 through 2018. However, this preliminary forecast will be updated through consultations and contracting with industry.

With regard to (a)(vi), no, there are no delays in the delivery of the vessels.

With regard to (a)(vii), question (a)(vii) is not applicable.

With regard to (a)(viii), no, there is no plan to provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in other communities in Random—Burin--St. George’s.

With regard to (a)(ix), (a)(x), and (a)(xi), the questions are not applicable.

With regard to (b), the department realigned resources with current fishing efforts and compliance rates, which reduced the overall requirement for CCG ship time. Two new vessels, CCGS G. Peddle S.C. and CCGS Corporal McLaren M.M.V., will conduct six months of midshore fisheries patrol. Other vessels will be assigned to deliver Coast Guard programs.

With regard to (b)(i), there is no impact to search and rescue. All CCG vessels are search and rescue vessels, and will be assigned tasks according to program needs.

With regard to (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), the questions are not applicable.

With regard to (b)(iv), it will take approximately three weeks to reactivate the vessel.

With regard to (b)(v), the vessel is in cold lay-up and may be reactivated to cover off duties of other vessels as they are taken out of service for extended periods of time.

With regard to (b)(vi), no decision has been made at this time.

With regard to (b)(vii), the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is a patrol vessel that is used to carry out various Coast Guard and Department of Fisheries and Oceans programs.

With regard to (b)(viii), other vessels will be assigned to carry out Coast Guard Services, such as the CCGS Leonard J. Cowley, the CCGS Cygnus, or the CCGS Earl Grey.

With regard to (b)(ix), all Coast Guard vessels can respond to oil spills. CCGS Ann Harvey and CCGS George R. Pearkes have capacity similar to CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell.

With regard to (b)(x), firefighting is not part of the Coast Guard’s mandate.

Question No. 60--

Mr. Ryan Cleary :

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the 2007 citations issued by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) inspectors to vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area: (

a) has the government been informed of any penalties or fines imposed by the vessels’ home countries; (

b) has the government inquired about any penalties of fines imposed by vessels' home countries; and (

c) were the fines or penalties paid by the vessels that were fined?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 2007 citations issued by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, inspectors to vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada has in some cases been informed of penalties and/or fines imposed by the vessels’ home countries. In other instances, the cases are currently pending or under investigation or have been closed.

With regard to (b), no formal inquiries were made, as this information is reported to NAFO members on an annual basis.

With regard to (c), when fines or penalties were imposed after conviction, information related to whether they were paid or not was not made available to NAFO members until subsequent years.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if Questions Nos. 9, 11, 16, 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, 37 and 43 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker : Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 9--

Mr. Glenn Thibeault :

With regard to the importation of consumer electronic products and devices, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-2007: (

a) what is the total value of consumer electronic devices and other products imported into Canada under tariff codes (i) 8519.81.29, (ii) 8521.90.90, (iii) 9948.00.00; and (

b) how much was paid in tariffs for the importation into Canada of consumer electronic devices and other products under tariff codes (i) 8519.81.29, (ii) 8521.90.90, (iii) 9948.00.00?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 11--

Hon. Mauril Bélanger :

With regard to the Translation Bureau: (

a) how many words were translated from French to English and from English to French for the years (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012, (v) 2013; and (

b) what was the Bureau’s baseline budget, how many permanent, term and contract employees did it have, and what amount did the various federal institutions allocate for translation in the years (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012, (v) 2013?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 16--

Hon. Geoff Regan :

)With regard to the government's September 2007 announcement of a “one-time, tax-free, ex gratia payment of $20,000 related to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick during the summers of 1966 and 1967”: (

a) how much money was budgeted for these payments; (

b) how many payments were issued; (

c) how much of the money budgeted was not paid out in ex gratia payments; and (

d) what was done with the money that was not paid out?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 19--

Ms. Élaine Michaud :

With regard to the Translation Bureau: (

a) what was the total number of translator, interpreter and editor positions at the Bureau, per year, since 2005-2006; (

b) what is the Bureau's total number of client institutions; (

c) what was the total number of client institutions, per year, since 2005-2006; and (

d) what is the total amount invoiced to these institutions for (

i) translation or editing services, (ii)

interpretation services?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 23--

Mr. Peter Stoffer :

With regard to Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans who have exhausted all their redress options at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) and pursue their right to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review of the decision: (

a) how many veterans pursued their right to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; (

b) what is the total amount of money spent by all departments and agencies, including all costs associated with the work of the Department of Justice, for judicial reviews of VRAB decisions from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; (

c) what is the average cost to the Crown and government for a judicial review case, including a breakdown of average costs including salaries, court transcription services, courier fees, witnesses, and other items; (

d) what was the cost for each judicial review from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; and (

e) what is the average amount of time it takes for a judicial review decision from start to finish?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 25--

Mr. Massimo Pacetti :

With regard to the Department of National Defence: between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012, how many investigations were initiated by the National Investigation Service (NIS), which the Office of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) or the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff (VCDS) ordered, directed, requested, enjoined, required, instructed, commanded charged, told or requisitioned the Provost Marshal or the Commanding Officer of the NIS to (

i) conduct such an investigation and (ii) to report back or keep the Office of the CDS or the VCDS generally appraised of the conduct or outcome of the said investigation, and for each investigation, what was the date the NIS investigation was initiated, the rank of the Canadian Forces member being investigated, the general nature of the investigation and the date upon which the NIS investigation was concluded?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 26--

Mr. Massimo Pacetti :

With regard to Canadian Forces (CF) health issues: (

a) how many CF members reported suffering from symptoms of Lyme disease for each of 2006-2012 inclusive; and (

b) for each reported case, what is (

i) the date of the suspected occurrence, (ii) the location of each occurrence, (iii) the rank of the injured CF member, (iv) whether the member was treated and returned to full duty?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 30--

Mr. Peter Julian :

With regard to the 23,000 liters of highly enriched uranium (HEU) waste that will be transported from Chalk River to the United States: (

a) will the government subject this plan to outside scrutiny to discuss the environmental and safety concerns; (

b) how much highly enriched uranium waste is currently being stored at Chalk River; (

c) how has the safety of the HEU waste been evaluated, including current and proposed waste management approaches; (

d) what are the containers and transportation aspects; and (

e) what is the government’s plan for the remainder of this HEU and the waste in the future?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 31--

Mr. Peter Julian :

With regard to the government’s pledge to end the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to produce medical isotopes by 2016: (

a) what is the progress of producing medical isotopes without HEU; (

b) what is the cost and plan for decommissioning the National Research University reactor at Chalk River and what is the management plan for decommissioning wastes; (

c) how much money will the government save through the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL); (

d) does the government have a plan if it does not meet its 2016 pledge to stop using HEU to produce medical isotopes; (

e) how will the government handle cost runs related to the short, medium and long term management of nuclear wastes?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 36--

Ms. Judy Foote :

With regar