OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 072 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, April 9, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 9, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 072 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 072 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 072 (Version officielle) 147 072 09 04 2014 2014/04/09 14:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for St. Paul's. [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] SMILE Canada Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last Friday night I attended the sixth annual SMILE Canada Fundraising Gala at the Swagat Banquet Hall in my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville, which was attended by many families supported by this program.

During National Volunteer Week, I wish to pay tribute to SMILE, which is 100% volunteer run. SMILE Canada is an organization dedicated to supporting children and their families from minority communities who are living with a disability and/or critical illness. Through a very active volunteer framework, SMILE offers a support system, integrative events, educational workshops, scholarships, and a buddy program that supports children with different abilities. I encourage people in the community to help support SMILE through a donation of time, talent, or resources. Go to www.smilecan.org.

Our communities are only stronger when we all make the effort to help each other. This organization rightly says, “We all smile in the same language”.

[ Translation ] Battle of Vimy Ridge Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to rise today to commemorate the anniversary of one of the Canada's most significant military victories, the Battle of Vimy Ridge. After three years of unsuccessful attempts at taking control of the ridge, French and British troops looked to the Canadians in the hope that we could succeed where they had failed. For the first time, the four Canadian divisions worked together to win a battle that most considered unwinnable.

Answering the call of duty, soldiers such as Georges Vanier, William Milne, Lance-Sergeant Sifton, Captain MacDowell and Private Pattison fought to take Vimy Ridge. A total of 3,600 Canadians gave their lives on the battlefield. Their resourcefulness and courage scored a victory, and that battle marked the moment that Canada became a nation, carved out its own identity and gained recognition as a country. Let us pay a glowing tribute to all of those who took up arms in Canada's defence, risked their lives and paid such a great price for peace and liberty.

[ English ] Pete McGarvey Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to one of Orillia's most prominent citizens and a great Canadian, James A. “Pete” McGarvey, who sadly passed away last month. Pete started his stellar career in radio journalism with Orillia's CFOR radio in 1947, where he would stay for nearly 20 years before moving to CFCO in Chatham and then on to CKEY in Toronto. As a journalist, he reported from Moscow, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Washington, Jerusalem, and Beirut, and he received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Radio-Television News Directors in 2004.

However, Orillia was always home for Pete. He served there for 10 years on town council and was part of the 1950s campaign to restore the summer estate of Stephen Leacock. He was one of the founders of Orillia's Mariposa Folk Festival in 1961, which remains one of Canada's best each season. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I extend our heartfelt condolences to Eileen and sons Peter, Will, and Doug and their families, with the full knowledge that Pete McGarvey's memory and his legacy will live on for generations.

Daffodil Month Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, April is Daffodil Month for cancer awareness. We all know someone who has been affected by cancer: members of our families, friends, or colleagues. The daffodil is a symbol of strength and courage, and each year, volunteers throughout the country raise funds for the Canadian Cancer Society by selling fresh daffodils or daffodil pins. The funds raised through this campaign go toward prevention, research, and support for those living with cancer, and by raising these funds, we will find a cure.

By wearing this pin, we offer our thoughts and support. Those fighting cancer know they are not alone in their fight. We also wear it in memory of those we have lost to this disease. Every three minutes, cancer changes the life of another Canadian. Wear a daffodil in honour of someone.

Halvor Moorshead Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour and remember my dear friend Halvor Moorshead, who was a strong-spirited, community-minded man and a true friend to all. This past March, Stouffville lost a dedicated community leader and volunteer. Halvor held a lifelong passion for genealogy and cutting-edge technology, which he was happy to share with anyone who was interested. Throughout his life, he was a dedicated magazine publisher in the fields of genealogy and technology.

After a successful career as an editor and publisher, Halvor retired from publishing in 2008, and to Stouffville-ites, he came to be known as a voice of WhiStle Radio, where he served as chair of the board of directors and as a community host. Halvor had a great passion for our local community radio, and I was glad to have been able to share time with him both on and off the air. Halvor will be sadly missed by all who knew him, but I am personally honoured to have called him a friend.

(1410) [ Translation ] Michel Picard Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to the career of Michel Picard, a Radio-Canada mainstay whose voice inspired confidence in the Outaouais since he first arrived here in 1976. He spent over 40 years in radio and television, and all of those who worked with him will tell you how much they respect and appreciate his passion and integrity. He is our own Bernard Derome. Michel Picard also spent four decades deeply involved in teaching, in social causes and in the region's cultural scene.

He will forever be remembered by the people of Gatineau and Ottawa. I had the honour and pleasure of interacting with him over the years, both during our many interviews and when we worked together to make things better for local people. Every time we got together, I was touched by his great respect for others and his compassion. Today, we would like to express our admiration and our appreciation for his unwavering dedication. I invite all of my colleagues to wish Michel Picard a happy and well-deserved but never restful retirement. Thank you, Michel.

[ English ] The Environment Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last week, the IPCC, the UN group that since 1990 has been gathering evidence on our warming planet, issued its most sobering assessment yet. The government should be acknowledged for the action already taken to reduce GHGs in coal-fired electricity, passenger cars and light trucks, heavy-duty vehicles, and renewable fuels. These actions will result in meaningful reductions in GHGs. However, more needs to be done.

I encourage the government to roll out the rest of its climate change plan and to introduce regulations for the oil and gas sector and for other large final emitters. Now, it is true that many are still skeptical of the science of climate change, but it is also true that governments can convince the public. As former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said this week: Leadership is the process, not only of foreseeing the need for change but making the case for change. Leadership does not consist of imposing unpopular ideas on the public but of making unpopular ideas acceptable to the nation.

Kraft Hockeyville 2014 Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are great things done under Albertan sun When people stand together In support of a town whose arena came down in the worst of winter's weather. The Sylvan Lake lights have seen queer sites But the queerest they ever did see Was that night on the street when Lakers did meet For a photo in minus 40 degrees. Now this tale that I weave, most wouldn't believe If you'd asked them a few weeks ago But opportunity knocked, Sylvan volunteers rocked When Kraft provided some hope.

Those who played in this game, I'll call them by name For victory belongs to them They gave it their all, no task was too small And if I've missed any, please forgive. Here is to Parsons and Rosie, who worked for the trophy, Along his lovely wife, Kim Brenda Dale, Jared Waldo were easy to follow What was started by Kevin Putnam. Jas, Kelly and Kris also took

part in this Dale and Crystal, well they never tired Nor Diane, Megan, Steve, and the one in the lead Inexhaustible Mayor McIntyre. For those who work in the news, and give us their views I give credit where credit is due You provided air time, never charging a dime unto you goes a worthy salute. The Sylvan Lake lights have seen many great sights But the greatest that they ever will Was that Saturday night amidst cheer and delight Sylvan Lake won Kraft Hockeyville.

[ Translation ] Quebec City Cable Co-operative Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to commend the excellent work done by the Coopérative de câblodistribution de l'arrière-pays in the Jacques-Cartier RCM. This co-operative, which provides local television programming, has been nominated in four categories at the national level for the “I heart local cable” awards. These awards, presented by the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance, celebrate excellence in cable television, community spirit and the development of national content.

By showcasing the region's culture, history and heritage, while providing access to high-quality local information, the Coopérative de câblodistribution de l'arrière-pays has distinguished itself and put the Jacques-Cartier RCM on the map. I would especially like to commend Chloé Patry-Robitaille for her nomination in the “best local cable personality” category for her program, On parle de vous . Over the past few months, I have seen how seriously Chloé takes her work and how much energy she puts into it. This nomination is certainly well deserved.

Once again, I wish to congratulate the entire team at the Coopérative de câblodistribution de l'arrière-pays on their four nominations and on their outstanding commitment to the community in the Jacques-Cartier region.

[ English ] Battle of Vimy Ridge Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today is Vimy Day. Like many members of this House, I wear my Vimy pin to recognize the sacrifice of those who fought at Vimy but also the unique achievement the Battle of Vimy Ridge represented for a young country. Last night at the Canadian War Museum, Canadian Forces members, veterans, sponsors, and guests gathered for the First World War Centenary Gala to raise money for the museum's Operation Veteran program and the Royal Canadian Legion's poppy trust fund.

It is our duty to remember the 425,000 Canadians who served overseas in the Great War, the 66,000 who gave the ultimate sacrifice, and the 173,000 who returned to Canada wounded. On the road to 2017, a year that represents the 150th anniversary of Canada and the 100th anniversary of Vimy, I urge Canadians to understand our past, commemorate these achievements, and thank our veterans.

(1415) [ Translation ] Abortion Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a Conservative member again announced his intention to reopen the abortion debate. Every once in a while, the Conservatives attack women's rights and we in the NDP must stand together to fend off those attacks. If this Prime Minister is sincere when he says that the right to abortion is not threatened in Canada, then why do his members keep attacking that right? The NDP knows that the vast majority of Canadians believe that women have the right to choose.

We are the only party in the House that voted unanimously to uphold that right. We are calling on the Conservative government to move on and do something tangible to ensure women's equality. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre may want to live in the past, but we know that today, every woman decides for herself what to do with her body.

[ English ] St. Elias the Prophet Ukrainian Catholic Church Mr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, St. Elias the Prophet Ukrainian Catholic Church in Brampton tragically burned to the ground. I have attended services at St. Elias many times. It was an exceptionally beautiful and striking church. The woodwork and craftsmanship were extraordinary. Anyone who attended a service there will attest to the solemn and angelic hymns that seemed to lift one to a heavenly place. When people take

part in celebrations or services at St. Elias, they are filled with peace. Father Roman Galadza of St. Elias, who I am privileged to call a friend, demonstrated great wisdom and leadership amidst this tragic event. He told his parish not to grieve; that they will build again. He reminded them that the temple of God lives in each of us, so despite losing the building, they have not lost their church. If the devotion and faithfulness of the Ukrainian Catholics at St. Elias are any indication, St. Elias will be rebuilt and again be the magnificent and holy place it once was.

Battle of Vimy Ridge Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on the 97th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, we commemorate the role Canada played in this victory and remember the more than 10,000 Canadians killed or wounded in this battle. [ Translation ] Four divisions of the Canadian Corps, fighting together for the first time, launched an attack under intense machine gun fire, in the snow and sleet, and stormed enemy lines.

They succeeded where thousands of others had failed. [ English ] Vimy became a symbol for our unity as a nation and for the extraordinary skills, sacrifice, and courage of the Canadians that captured the ridge. As Brigadier-General Ross declared after the war, “…in those few minutes [we] witnessed the birth of a nation”. Although I was quite young when I visited Vimy, the impact of standing in that hallowed place has never left me. [ Translation ] N'oublions jamais . Lest we forget.

Battle of Vimy Ridge Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on this day 97 years ago, during the First World War, there began a four-day battle that would culminate in the capture of Vimy Ridge in France. This battle for peace and freedom is a turning point in our history. It marked Canada's birth as a nation. However, this feat was accomplished at a price. Almost 3,600 Canadians lost their lives. Our government will never forget the service and the sacrifices of our veterans, and we have tremendous respect for all those who continue to serve our country.

I am proud to rise in the House to salute the courage and bravery of the Canadian soldiers who won this ridge, where we now find the Canadian National Vimy Memorial. Lest we forget.

(1420) [ English ] Democratic Reform Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once heaped praise on Marc Mayrand, calling him “a strong and energetic manager...particularly well suited to take on this important position”. Now he sends his Minister of State for Democratic Reform to launch a blistering personal attack on Mr. Mayrand for having the temerity to do his job. In the words of Sheila Fraser, “…if this was to continue, we will all pay because no one will have faith in government, in chief electoral officers, or our democratic system”.

Our laws should defend voters and show respect for our officers of Parliament. Instead, Conservatives are crafting laws that help themselves and savage any officer of Parliament who dares to oppose them. To any Conservative colleagues across the way who have a shred of respect left for Parliament, its traditions, and our democratic institutions, I say this to them: Their Prime Minister is leading them off a cliff on this issue, but it is not too late to do the honourable thing: to stand up, speak out, and join the crowd opposing the unfair elections act.

Battle of Vimy Ridge Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to all those who served and sacrificed in service to Canada during World War I. Today marks the 97th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, where 3,600 brave young Canadians lost their lives and 7,000 more were wounded. Ninety-years later, Canadians still regard the Battle of Vimy Ridge as more than a much-needed victory in the First World War. Many also proudly point to it as Canada's coming of age as a nation. It is our national duty, as Canadians, to ensure that the memories of those who died that day live on forever. Lest we forget.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Democratic Reform Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let me read a quote: …using time allocation for electoral law, doing it quickly and without the consent of the other political parties, is the kind of dangerous application of electoral practices that we are more likely to find in third world countries. Who said that? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP decided, itself, before reading the bill, that it would oppose changes to the electoral act.

The government has brought forward important modifications that we believe have the support of the Canadian people, in particular the idea that one should not vote without being able to produce any ID whatsoever. We are strongly committed to this legislation. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that quote was from the Prime Minister , of course. That is what he used to say.

Does the Prime Minister still stand by his statement that ramming this type of bill through Parliament without the support of any other political party is a tactic fit for a third world dictatorship, not for a democracy like Canada? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as you know well, the legislation before this Parliament has been, and will continue to be, subject to considerable debate and considerable scrutiny.

Obviously, I encourage all members to examine the provisions carefully, and I believe we will arrive at the conclusions that this legislation is certainly in the best interests of Canadians. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, not only does he not have the support of any other political party but yesterday when I asked the Prime Minister if he could name a single expert in Canada who backs this bill who is not connected to the Conservative Party, he could not name one. Can he name one today? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Once again, Mr.

Speaker, the leader of the NDP continues to try to avoid debate on the substance of the legislation. Of course, the substance here is that we believe, and Canadians believe, that people should be able to produce some identification to prove who they are before they vote. I hope the leader of the NDP has more of a strategy for the next election, other than just bogus parliamentary offices and voters who cannot produce ID.

(1425) Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Not one. [ Translation ] The Minister of State for Democratic Reform accused the Chief Electoral Officer of misleading Parliament. We want a clear answer. Does the Prime Minister support his minister's comments, yes or no? I would like him to avoid dodging the question for once in his life. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, speaking of dodging, I see that the NDP leader still has not reimbursed Canadian taxpayers for the $3 million used for parliamentary offices outside Ottawa, which violates the rules of the House of Commons. It is time for the NDP leader to do the right thing. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister either has confidence in his minister or he does not. We would like to give him another chance because, so far, he has yet to express his confidence in his minister.

Does the Prime Minister stand by his minister's claim that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada made “amazing” and “astounding” false statements before Parliament? Does he support that? Yes or no? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act makes a number of changes to the functioning of Elections Canada proposed by the minister for democratic reform involving splitting functions of administration and investigation, involving requiring written judgments and consistency in the application of those things, and appropriate notifications to the parties.

I think these proposals by the minister for democratic reform are wise changes to Elections Canada. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' elections act alters the fundamental laws of our democracy. It was drafted without consultation with Elections Canada, experts, or opposition members. Sheila Fraser calls it an “attack on…democracy”. If the Prime Minister will not listen to outside counsel, will he at least allow Conservative MPs to listen to their constituents and vote their conscience? Will he allow a free vote on his elections act? Right Hon.

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think all members of Parliament are hearing very clearly that over 99% of Canadians were able to produce identification when voting in the last election. Canadians clearly believe that this is an appropriate thing that one would do. One has to produce identification for much less important functions in our society. I am sure, and I hope, that members on all sides of the Chamber will listen to Canadians and make sure that our elections are conducted with the utmost integrity. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I will try this again. Marc Mayrand dared to speak out against a government bill. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform then engaged in a vicious, partisan attack against him, which former auditor general Sheila Fraser called “totally inappropriate”. The Prime Minister should allow his members to speak without fear of being discredited. Will he allow them to vote freely on this bill? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, more than 99% of Canadians voted with identification at the last election.

It is not acceptable in this day and age for people to vote without being able to identify themselves. I think that all members in the House will listen to Canadians and make our elections fairer. [ English ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Assembly of First Nations says that the Conservatives' elections act creates a new barrier to voting for aboriginals. CARP says it is an attack on seniors' voting rights. Civil liberties advocates say it will erode an individual's right to vote.

If the Prime Minister is so convinced by the “rightness” of his bill, why will he not allow a free vote by his MPs?

(1430) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, as I have said, 99% of Canadians, whether they are seniors, aboriginal Canadians, or students, are able to produce identification, which is not surprising because there are 39 pieces of allowable identification, such as old age security cards, student cards, Indian status cards, and of course many others. Once again, I would encourage the leader of the Liberal Party to get away from the rhetoric and focus on the substance. Canadians expect that we know who votes, that elections are decided by secret votes but not by secret voters.

That is what we are prepared to do. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just said that he is hoping that members on both sides would listen to Canadians. For three months, we have been asking him to do just that. Does that mean that he now accepts to hold hearings on his unfair elections act across Canada, like we have been asking for? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been telling us that they think it is reasonable to present identification when one casts a ballot.

We understand that not everyone has photo ID. That is why there are 39 different forms of acceptable ID. If Canadians provide those identifications, then they would be able to cast their ballot in the next election. This is reasonable. It is a vast and comprehensive list that should provide every Canadian with the ability to identify themselves when they cast their ballot. This is reasonable and Canadians support it. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, actually, it was the Prime Minister who just made that statement in answer to the member for Papineau .

We are addressing ourselves to the Prime Minister, who is the only one who can give the answer. We have been asking for public hearings on the bill since day one. He just said, word for word, that he is asking members on both sides of the House to go out and listen to Canadians on the bill. Is he willing to hold parliamentary hearings on this across Canada? Yes or no? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, members of our caucus listen to their constituents every single day.

If the leader of the NDP were doing the same, he would understand that the average Canadian believes it is completely reasonable to bring some form of identification to show who they are when they cast their ballot. One has to present ID to cross the border, to buy alcohol, to rent a car, to board an airplane, and to do a whole series of basic things that Canadians do all the time. We think it is reasonable that they do the same when they vote. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, that minister has said that parliamentary committee hearings to listen to Canadians are an expensive circus. It is the Prime Minister who just said, word for word, in this House, that he wants members on both sides to go out and listen to Canadians. Why is talking out of both sides of his mouth? On one side he says to listen to Canadians; on another side he stands this lightweight to give his answers for him. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. I have asked hon. members before, and I will do so again, not to make personal allegations of our colleagues. Is the hon. minister rising to answer?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member talks about parliamentary committees. I think all of us look forward to the day when he will finally arrive at a parliamentary committee to explain how he took from taxpayers that which did not belong to him. In the meantime, we will continue to stand up for a fair and reasonable elections act that requires people to provide ID, that gives independent investigations, that requires mass calls to be registered, and that brings in new penalties against fraud at election time. This is fair. This is reasonable.

We stand by it. (1435) [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just said that people can use Indian status cards to vote. Since that is completely untrue, can he tell us who gave him that false information? [ English ] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are 39 different forms of identification that Elections Canada authorizes so that people can establish their status as an eligible voter. One of them is a certificate of Indian status card, which is the sixth on the list.

There is also an attestation of residence issued by a responsible authority of a first nations band or reserve. Those are lots of options. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Actually, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Prime Minister just said, the address does not appear on that card, and most of the people in question do not even possess one. Does the Prime Minister understand that even if one has a social insurance card, a credit card, a health insurance card, a birth certificate, and a passport, one still cannot vote because the address is on none of those? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP's position is that people should be allowed to vote without any ID whatsoever. That is an unreasonable position and it is not shared by Canadians. Of the 39 pieces of valid ID that Elections Canada accepts, there are 13 which do have one's address on them.

In addition to a standard government-issued photo ID, there are utility bills, such as telephone, TV, public utilities, hydro, gas; bank card statements; vehicle ownership; correspondence from a school, college, or university; statement of government benefits; an attestation from an Indian band; a government cheque or cheque stub; pension statement of benefits; residential lease; insurance policies. I could go on. All these have the address. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the government has claimed time and again that Canadians can use a cable or phone bill to vote, but not if that bill came by email. Thanks to the Conservative Party's failure to ban pay-to-pay billing, more and more people are having to pay to get paper bills. Does the Prime Minister believe that people should have to pay in order to vote? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Elections Canada establishes the list of 39 acceptable forms of ID.

The CEO has the legal authority under the existing act, and he will retain that authority under the fair elections act to amend the list and to alter it to keep up with the times. If he believes that there is a need to update the list, then I would encourage him to do so. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, now that we have once again heard the empty words of his minister, let us quote somebody who knows what he is talking about. Keith Archer, the Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia, testified at committee that in British Columbia, 14,000 people used vouching to vote.

If vouching had not been available in the last election, Mr. Archer said, “I would expect that many of them would have been disenfranchised...”. Does the Prime Minister think that Mr. Archer is just another uninformed hack? Is he going to hide behind his minister again, or is he going to finally stand in the House and try to defend the indefensible, as he has been doing for three months? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the fact that the leader of the NDP thinks it is indefensible to ask people to bring ID when they vote just shows how out of touch with reality he has become. There are 39 different forms of acceptable ID that Canadians can use when they cast their ballot. We think it is reasonable in a democratic society for people to bring ID when they vote. That is all that the fair elections act requests. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will give the Prime Minister another example of someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

David Brock, the Chief Electoral Officer for the Northwest Territories, testified at committee, that in 27 of the 33 communities in the Northwest Territories more than half of the residents do not have proper ID. These people have been relying on vouching to identify themselves for years with no problems. Why, in good faith, is the Prime Minister stopping honest Canadians from being able to vote?

(1440) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is doing no such thing. He is simply requiring, through the fair elections act , that people present ID when they cast their ballot. It is not necessary to bring government-issued photo ID, though that is an option. There are 39 different forms of ID that are accepted when people show up to vote. We think that is reasonable, and Canadians agree with us. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, too many Conservative ministers have a casual relationship with the truth on Bill C-23 .

The Minister of the Environment is claiming that she was in the provincial cabinet in 2001 and helped to solve a crisis with identification following the September 11th attacks. Yet, she was not even elected until 2004. The minister claims that every hamlet has photo ID, yet the MLA for South Baffin said that his constituents have to fly to Iqaluit. Will the Minister of the Environment come clean on voter ID cards for northerners and agree to stop reinventing history? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in terms of the comments yesterday, after 9/11, in Nunavut, we required identification from our citizens in order to access and get on aircraft for medical purposes. I was in cabinet in 2004 when we purchased the cameras for the municipalities in Nunavut so that Nunavummiut could access identification cards to board the aircraft. After the 9/11 incident, as we all know, the laws were changed and identification was required.

In fact, I was in cabinet when we purchased those cameras. [ Translation ] Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not responded to Sheila Fraser. I am giving him the opportunity to do so. What does he have to say about the statement she made in response to the minister's blatant attack on the Chief Electoral Officer? Ms. Fraser said: This does not do anyone any favours. It undermines the credibility of our institutions.

Ultimately, if this goes forward, we will all pay the price because no one will have any faith left in the government, the Chief Electoral Officer or the democratic system. What does he have to say to Ms. Fraser? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we think it is reasonable to expect Canadians to bring ID when they vote. Now, it is not necessary to bring photo ID. Canadians can choose from 39 options. The fair elections act will require Elections Canada to inform voters of these options so that they can all vote. [ English ] Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for the Minister of State for Democratic Reform to verbally assault the Chief Electoral Officer. That is wrong. The minister owes not only the Chief Electoral Officer an apology; he owes Canadians an apology. I look to the Prime Minister to demonstrate leadership, and he should be asking his Minister of State for Democratic Reform to apologize to all Canadians and the Chief Electoral Officer. My question is specific to the minister.

Will he do the honourable thing, stand in his place, and say he is sorry to the Chief Electoral Officer today? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member criticizes my testimony without citing a single word of it. I suspect he has not read it, as he has probably not read the fair elections act. If he had, then he would know that what we are proposing is that people present some form of ID when they cast their ballots. There are 39 options from which they can choose to do that.

It is fair and reasonable to expect that they would, and Canadians agree with us on that point. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister's conduct yesterday was a disgrace to Parliament and to Canadians. Dealing with this minister is like playing chess with a pigeon. He flaps his wings all over the place, knocks the pieces off the table, messes all over the table, then struts around as if he won the game. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(1445) The Speaker : I know it is a Wednesday. I do not know what was in the coffee at caucus this morning, but members are getting a little over the top. I have asked members before to hold off on using animal references. I do not think they are helpful for the course of debate. I did not hear a question, and I do not know if the minister wants to respond. The hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform. Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member some credit for creativity, although I think he has confused the games. He is playing charades and not chess over there.

[ Translation ] Canada Revenue Agency Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, Canadians cannot file their taxes online or access the CRA's online services because the website has been shut down in response to a security breach caused by the Heartbleed bug. Let us remember that, two years ago, the Auditor General harshly criticized the Conservatives for their failed approach to cybersecurity. How many Canadians have been affected and how much money has the government invested in cybersecurity per year over the past five years? [ English ] Hon. Kerry-Lynne D.

Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as a result of information received late yesterday evening concerning an international Internet security vulnerability named the Heartbleed bug, the CRA has temporarily shut down public access to electronic services as a preventive measure to safeguard the integrity of taxpayer information. I reiterate that this was done as a preventive measure. CRA should be praised for its quick action on this issue that is affecting international web applications.

We recognize that this represents a significant inconvenience for Canadians, but we are committed to investigating it and we have informed the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on top of the recent privacy breaches that compromised the personal information of thousands of Canadians, now at the height of tax season, Canadians are not able to access the Canada Revenue Agency website. What is worse, they have no assurances that their personal information has not already been compromised by this security vulnerability.

Will the minister agree to extend the filing deadline to ensure Canadians will not be penalized for waiting to file until the CRA website is secure? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, consideration will be given to taxpayers who are unable to comply with their filing requirements because of this service interruption. As I have said before in this House, the security of taxpayer information is a CRA priority. The Heartbleed bug is an issue affecting international web applications worldwide.

We are taking all necessary measures to protect taxpayer information, including precautionary measures. The member opposite should recognize that this was a sound management decision taken to help taxpayers, in their best interests. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the last three years, both Treasury Board and Finance were shut down by concerted attacks by overseas hackers. Last night, the taxation department had to be told by outside sources that its computers were compromised. One would think they would have learned some lessons.

However, yesterday at committee, CRA officials admitted they had not even bothered to start tracking data breaches until I raised the issue. An official said, that with the member for Timmins—James Bay's “guidance, we've changed our process so that we now are able to...track...numbers of breaches...”. I have a simple question. Does the member not think she needs to do a better job protecting the private information of Canadian citizens? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that this is an international issue affecting web applications worldwide.

The CRA recognizes that this problem may represent a significant inconvenience for Canadians. It is fully engaged in resolving the matter as soon as possible and restoring online services, but we need to do it in a manner where privacy and private information remain safe and secure. I have to stress that the security and integrity of taxpayer information is CRA's number one priority. We will be providing daily updates at 3 p.m. on our website, and we are doing the job to—

(1450) The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[ Translation ] Port of Montreal Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Robert Abdallah was the Prime Minister 's choice for taking the helm of the Montreal Port Authority. Telephone recordings have revealed that the Prime Minister's Office and the “boss in Quebec” at the time, Dimitri Soudas, were involved in dealings that would have benefited Tony Accurso. Coincidentally, several firms were also involved in the plan to give him the top job at the Montreal Port Authority, so that they would have an advantage when it came to getting federal contracts.

This morning, nine officers from the anti-corruption squad raided Robert Abdallah's home in Quebec. Why did the Prime Minister pushed so hard to have Robert Abdallah as the head of the Montreal Port Authority? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the president of the Port of Montreal is appointed by the board, and it did not appoint Mr. Abdallah president.

International Development Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, polio is a serious disease with a terrible impact on those it affects, most of whom live in the developing world. My constituents are concerned about this epidemic and would appreciate an update on Canada's actions. I would note that recently UNICEF officials remarked that the Government of Canada has provided unwavering support, resulting in immense gains for children's health. Can the minister please tell this House what our government is doing to help address the issue of polio? Hon.

Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased yesterday to announce an enhanced partnership with UNICEF and the World Health Organization. We also work closely with the Aga Khan Foundation and Rotary on this file. [ Translation ] All children, no matter where they live, have the right to dream of the future with hope and optimism, and that is why Canada is taking meaningful action to eradicate polio once and for all. The Muskoka initiative, launched by the Prime Minister , will ensure that every child is immunized.

The vaccine is a very cost-effective investment. It saves 2.5 million lives a year. [ English ] Canada is making a difference and will we will continue to lead this— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

Employment Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps citing a hotline number and email address for Canadians to tell on employers who abuse the temporary foreign workers program. This kind of damage control does not work or fix the problem. Canadians are being overlooked for jobs, and the best the minister can do is slap those employers on the wrists for breaking the rules. When will the minister take granting of LMOs seriously and stop letting employers give away Canadian jobs? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the other day I had a New Democratic member of Parliament come over here to complain about the fact that some LMOs were refused for a hotel in that MP's riding in northern Ontario, because apparently there is not an availability of workers in the hotel industry. The LMO was refused because the employer was not offering a prevailing regional wage rate. This MP asked me to intervene. I said no; we are going to stick by the rules.

We are going to do everything we can to ensure that Canadians always come first; that the temporary foreign worker program is only and always a last resort. This is why we invite people, if they are aware of abuse, to call the tip line: 1-800-367-5693. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged at the Conservatives' catastrophic management of the temporary foreign worker file.

On the one hand, they encourage people to report employers who abuse the program, and on the other, they provide labour market opinions to any company that asks, with no concern for the actual labour market situation. Right now, Canadians are being fired by companies that would rather hire cheaper temporary foreign workers. When will the minister put a stop to this circus and take the labour market seriously? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, that is what all of the NDP MPs say in public, but when they contact me privately, they have a different tale to tell. We will always follow the rules and require employers to comply with their obligation to look for available Canadians first. If Canadians know of someone who is abusing the program, they should tell us by calling 1-800-367-5693. That is an information line for people to tell us about those who abuse the program.

(1455) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a new report has confirmed that budget cuts are preventing CBC/Radio-Canada from meeting its linguistic obligations. Since the Conservatives came to power, they have been constantly cutting the public broadcaster's budget at the expense of its obligations, and francophone minority communities are directly affected by this obstinacy. Having access to local French content is essential to the development of those communities, and it takes resources to do so.

Now that further devastating cuts are expected to be announced tomorrow, can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages tell us how, despite these relentless cuts, she expects CBC/Radio-Canada to fulfill its duty to these minority language communities? Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a crown corporation that operates at arm's length from the government. It is responsible for its own day-to-day operations.

That said, according to the corporation's president, its problems stem from the declining number of viewers. CBC/Radio-Canada has enough money to fulfill its mandate under the Broadcasting Act, and it is up to that corporation to provide all Canadians, francophones and anglophones alike, with the programming they want. [ English ] Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we need a government that believes in supporting public broadcasting, not dismantling it.

CBC/Radio-Canada plays a unique role for both our official languages, but the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, severely cut the budget: no more local content in minority francophone or anglophone communities. Even worse, tomorrow we expect deeper cuts. Will the government finally commit to provide CBC/Radio-Canada with stable, long-term funding, so it can fulfill its mandate? Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this in English. What was just said is absolutely false.

As we all know, CBC/Radio-Canada has a mandate to offer both French and English broadcasting, and that falls under the act itself. Now, when it comes to its president's comments, with respect to declining viewership, that is one of its key challenges. When we talk about viewership, it is up to the CBC and Radio-Canada to provide viewership and programming that Canadians are interested in. In the meantime, this government has given record funds. It has enough to deal with its mandate, and I encourage it to do so.

Infrastructure Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, municipalities across Ontario face mounting infrastructure costs and are begging for federal help. They cannot even effectively apply to the building Canada fund since agreements will not be ready in time for this year's construction season. The Conservatives have clearly been foot-dragging on the paperwork since they pickpocketed the program funding to the tune of over 87%. Why are the Conservatives punishing taxpayers for their government's waste, delays, and economic incompetence? Hon.

Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. We have sent renewals of all the components of the building Canada plan to provinces and territories. There are several components to the plan. The building Canada plan will be a very good plan, the longest ever, with more money than we ever invested. We have no lesson to receive on this point. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, let us put the new infrastructure funding cut into perspective. Ten years ago, the federal government committed $500 million for just one investment: the Canada line to Vancouver airport. However, today, the Conservatives' fund is down to just $200 million for an entire country. Vancouver's Broadway corridor generates billions in economic activity. However, to grow, it urgently needs rapid transit. Why are the Conservatives making our cities wait years longer for help with their critical infrastructure investments? Why are they sabotaging them rather than supporting them? Hon.

Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : That is false, Mr. Speaker. I said there were several components. There is the community improvement fund, which includes background on the gas tax and GST credit, amounting to $32 billion. There is the building Canada fund, which includes $4 billion to support projects of national importance and $10 billion reserved for provinces and territories.

There is $1.25 billion for P3 Canada, and the $6 billion for current programs will continue to flow. That is the best ever.

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the new veterans charter has major shortcomings. There are many problems with the delivery of services to veterans and the government knows it. Instead of helping, the Conservatives have decided to ignore the dozens of recommendations in recent reviews and are simply doing nothing. To add insult to injury, the Conservatives are disputing their requests in court.

Why is the minister spending public money and energy in court instead of providing our veterans the benefits and care they deserve? (1500) [ English ] Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong record when it comes to supporting Canada's veterans, especially under the leadership of our Prime Minister right here. We have invested almost $5 billion in additional funding since coming to office in 2006.

The real question is, why do the opposition, the NDP and Liberals both, continue to oppose virtually every single initiative we have brought forward to help Canada's veterans? Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, veterans are not the only ones being forgotten by the government. Decades of Canadian Forces members and civilians who were exposed to the toxic defoliant Agent Orange are also being ignored. It is not so in the U.S., where the Governor of Maine is working with the U.S.

Department of Defence and veterans affairs to help Maine national guard members exposed to Agent Orange at Gagetown get ongoing compensation and health care. When will all Agent Orange victims in Canada see this kind of help and full compensation from their government? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are in fact the only government that ever worked on this file and fixed it. That being said, just as in this instance and carrying forward, we will make the best interests of our men and women in uniform and our veterans a priority for this government. I am very proud of that.

Regional Development Mr. Lawrence Toet (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is working hard to ensure that innovation leaders in my home province of Manitoba and across Canada have access to opportunities to enhance their ideas and to connect with new markets. My community of Winnipeg is home to many innovative businesses and researchers. I have heard from my constituents that they are keen to see greater opportunities to bring their ideas to market.

Can the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification please inform the House of the efforts our government is making to ensure that innovators in western Canada have the support they need to succeed in today's global economy? Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that innovation is key to ensuring our continued economic success. Western Canada is home to many innovative businesses and institutions, and we are keen to assess them and for them to realize their full potential.

That is why we will be holding the western innovation forum in Vancouver on April 16 and 17. The forum will promote opportunities for prime contractors to connect with innovators from business and research, and will spark the development of new ideas. It is thanks to our government that these innovators will have access to opportunities such as this forum while benefiting from a stable economic environment for investment. For more information, check out wd_canada on Twitter.

Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is making a big mistake when it comes to the shrimp cuts off Newfoundland and Labrador. She is cutting 26% of the inshore fleet and only 3% on the offshore fleet. Yesterday in the House she said that she is applying the 1997 last in, first out policy, but here is the problem. The press release from DFO in 1997 made no mention of that policy whatsoever. What it did mention was priority access, adjacency, and maximizing employment.

Therefore, why is she twisting the facts in her favour just to make these drastic cuts to our communities in Newfoundland and Labrador? Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, allocation of quota decisions are never easy, particularly when stocks are on the decline. Back in 1997, this last in, first out policy was adopted by the Liberal government of the time, I might add, to protect those with the longest attachment to the fishery. The inshore fishery today has a quota of 22,000 tonnes more than it did in 1997.

The offshore fishery has a quota of only 2,000 tonnes more than it did in 1997.

[ Translation ] Air Transportation Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Mirabel airport could become an economic engine for the region. Local officials and the business community want this facility to be used to stimulate the region's economy. However, the property manager, Aéroports de Montréal, is planning to demolish it instead. The federal government still owns the airport and has the final say on the matter. What are the Minister of Transport 's plans for this important infrastructure? (1505) [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as the member has rightly pointed out, it is Aéroports de Montréal that actually runs that airport as well as the other airport in the Montreal vicinity. In doing so, it makes the best decisions it can for the local community and what is needed for the business community. I understand that its officials have had many conversations with local stakeholders as to what to do with respect to this infrastructure, and I look forward to their advice and their action on the matter.

Industry Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry . We now live in a digital world and almost every job, every sector, every aspect of our lives is affected by digital technologies. What connects us today are the Internet and new technologies that have created tremendous opportunities for Canadians to communicate with each other and businesses to compete globally. Could the minister please tell the House what our government is doing to ensure that Canadians can take full advantage of the digital age? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, on Friday, I was very pleased to be joined by leaders of Canada's tech community in Kitchener—Waterloo to announce Digital Canada 150, our government's digital policy framework going forward. Here is what Chris O'Neill, the managing director of Google Canada, said: “This strategy will accelerate digital adoption and technological innovation among Canadian businesses which is essential to remain a global economic power”. Mark Barrenechea, the president and CEO of Open Text, said: “Digital Canada 150 lays the foundation for a connected and competitive Canada”.

In the last campaign we said that we would deliver to Canadians an effective national digital policy. Digital Canada 150 has five pillars, 39 new initiatives, one national policy that will benefit 35 million Canadians in the digital age.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the people of Jeanne-Le Ber are worried about the future of postal services. The end of door-to-door delivery will primarily affect seniors and people with reduced mobility. Then there is the 60% increase in the price of a stamp while Canada Post executives pocket millions of dollars in salaries. Why do the Conservatives want to stop Canadians from having access to postal services? [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this government is firmly behind the plan for Canada Post, the reason being that we do want to have a sustainable Canada Post and postal service going on for many years. Given that Canada Post at the current rate, and in the current scenario, will lose $1 billion a year in the future, their five-point plan makes a lot of sense. That is their way to come back to self-sustainability to ensure that they are not a burden on the taxpayer.

[ Translation ] Intergovernmental Affairs Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, one of the first things the new Quebec government will do is reintroduce, as is, the bill on the right to die with dignity. In Quebec there is broad support for this bill, which has emerged from a process that has been recognized for its rigour and non-partisanship. My question is very simple. Will the federal government respect Quebeckers' decision to allow the dying to die with dignity, or will it again challenge the bill? [ English ] Hon.

Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that this is a very emotional, very divisive debate. It also has issues of jurisdiction that have to be considered. We know that the matter is now in fact before the courts and for that reason, as Attorney General, I will comment no further.

Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, during question period, after the Minister of the Environment answered a question by the member for Churchill , the Minister of International Trade made an inappropriate gesture, making a gun with his hand while saying “boom” in the direction of the member for Churchill . I am sure that every member would agree that this gesture has no place in the House of Commons, and I would like to ask the minister to apologize. Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this member is making that up. It is completely false. I made no such gesture. I said no such word. I am surrounded by my colleagues here. None of them saw me make a gesture or make that kind of a comment. I ask that member to apologize to me and to this side of the House. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(1510) Corrections and Conditional Release Act Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my point of order is a fairly lengthy one. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. I have given the floor to the hon. member for Malpeque . I will hear his point of order. I will ask other members to come to order. The hon. member for Malpeque. Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in relation to private members Bill C-483 , which stands in the name of the member for Oxford . I want to begin by stating that my concerns are not related to the intent of the bill.

I also want to acknowledge that the member for Oxford placed this bill before the House and the committee with the best of intentions, and in his remarks both in the House and at committee, he stated eloquently and with conviction the intent and principle behind the bill.

However, I would submit to the Chair that in the process of the committee's examination of both the bill and the amendments that the government was compelled to bring forward, the bill as amended has in fact moved a great deal away from its original intent and principle as articulated by the member for Oxford , as well as other members of the government in speaking to the bill and witnesses who testified before committee in support of the bill, all of whom were in support of the bill prior to the government amending the bill, but which is now substantially different from what those witnesses and members were speaking to.

At this point I would also draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that each of the private members' bills by government members that has come before the public safety and justice committees have required amendments that most often have exceeded the number of original clauses in the bills. This, I would submit, is a situation of either bad drafting of bills or of government members insisting upon a specific course within their private members' bills, resulting in legislation that is so flawed that the government, with its legal advisers, literally has to redraft the legislation through the use of amendments.

The private members' bills in question were Bill C-489 , Bill C-479 , and now Bill C-483 . Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. I am having difficulty hearing the member for Malpeque . Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: The member for Wascana is rising on a point of order during the member for Malpeque 's point of order. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: Order. I suggest that the members who do not wish to hear the member for Malpeque 's point of order perhaps leave the chamber and come back when they are ready.

The hon. member for Malpeque is raising an issue with the Chair, and I would like to hear the point he is making. I will ask the members who are standing around and talking to take their conversations outside the chamber, calm down a little bit, and then return. The hon. member for Malpeque . Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the private members' bills in question are Bill C-489 , Bill C-479 , and now Bill C-483 . I would suggest that this is a matter the Chair might wish to carefully examine.

With respect to Bill C-483 , I would like to cite a number of references made by the member for Oxford and other members of the government with respect to what the intent of the bill was and what in essence the principle of the bill was. At page 1236 of Debates , November 21, 2013, the member for Oxford stated what the purpose and the principle of Bill C-483 was.

He said: The bill proposes to grant the Parole Board of Canada authority for the full length of the sentence to grant or cancel escorted temporary absence for offenders convicted of first or second degree murder. ...This would mean that the wardens of federal prisons would no longer have authority to grant temporary escorted absences to inmates convicted of first- or second-degree murder, except in a medical emergency. There is no ambiguity in the statement by the member as to the intent of the legislation. The bill was written to specifically remove the ability of wardens to grant escorted temporary releases.

Under the current legislation, Correctional Service of Canada, through the wardens of federal institutions, has the authority, when offenders serving a life sentence are within three years of their eligible parole date, to grant escorted temporary absences.

The reason the member has moved, through Bill C-483 , to undertake these changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, were stated as follows during second reading debate on November 21, 2013, at page 1236 of Debates : ...for some victims' families, the decision-making authority of wardens to grant escorted temporary absences to murderers has been a matter of great concern. ... ...no hearings are conducted, as decisions are made on an administrative basis by institutional heads. In contrast, when decisions by the Parole Board of Canada are made, hearings are conducted....

The member continued by saying: ...when the Parole Board of Canada conducts a hearing, a victim or a member of the public who applies in writing is permitted to attend.... During the course of second reading, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness contributed, at page 1241 of Debates , November 21, 2013, to the declaration as to what Bill C-483 would achieve. She stated: ...the bill we are here to talk about today relates to escorted temporary absences from prison.

More specifically, it is about ensuring that only the Parole Board of Canada has the power to release prisoners except in very limited circumstances. There is no ambiguity as to what the member for Oxford or the parliamentary secretary believes Bill C-483 would bestow upon victims. They would have a direct role as participants in the escorted temporary absence system from the first day of incarceration until the last day of incarceration of those convicted of first and second degree murder.

The parliamentary secretary continued at page 1241 by stating: As the member for Oxford has said, we continue to hear calls from victims of crime who feel that decisions on these absences should remain with the Parole Board, rather than an unaccountable official. During the course of the hearings on the legislation before the public safety committee, the statements related to the key principles of the bill were restated a number of times.

I will not go through all of those particular statements from witnesses, other than to say that as noted on page 11 of the Evidence , Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, stated on March 25: Bill C-483 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to shift the authority of the warden to authorize the escorted temporary absence, or ETA, of an offender convicted of first- or second-degree murder within three years of full parole eligibility to the Parole Board of Canada. At its core, this bill aims to bring a more transparent and inclusive process to victims of crime.

(1515) Let me sum up in layman's terms. The Speaker : I appreciate the point the hon. member is raising and I wonder if he could give some indication to the Chair as to how much more he has to go through. If he is making a rather lengthy submission, it might be better for the House if we picked up on his point after routine proceedings, but if he is wrapping up, I will let him conclude. Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr. Speaker, I would agree with you. I indicated at the start it would be a fairly lengthy point of order, and I would be willing to do it later.

The key point is that the bill is substantially changed from the principle that was introduced in the House and that it came back to the House as a different bill. However, I will conclude those remarks when you give me the point in time later. The Speaker : I appreciate the hon. member's flexibility. I think it would serve the House if we could go through routine proceedings. Then I will give the floor back to him to conclude his remarks.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1520) [ English ] Global Centre for Pluralism Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the

summary of the Global Centre for Pluralism's corporate plan for 2014.

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 responses to 10 petitions.

Committees of the House Public Accounts Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to its study of

chapter 2, “Access to Online Services”, of the fall 2013 report of the Auditor General of Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[ Translation ] Government Operations and Estimates Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, in relation to its study of the main estimates 2014-15.

[ English ] Criminal Code Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) Bill C-590. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-590,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's bill,

an act to amend the Criminal Code on blood alcohol content. The act amends

section 22 of the Criminal Code to establish more severe penalties for drunk drivers who have blood alcohol content that exceeds twice the legal limit. The bill would increase penalties for drunk drivers who harm or kill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Pension Plan Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) Bill C-591. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-591,

An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise today to introduce my bill,

an act to amend the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act. The bill would ensure that those who are convicted— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex has the floor. Order. The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex. Mr. Dave Van Kesteren : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue on among the tumult. The bill would ensure that those who are convicted of first or second degree murder of their spouse could not collect their victims' survivor pensions. The bill is important to ensure that victims' rights are enshrined in this legislation. I would like to point out the good work the member for Hamilton Mountain has done in advocating for the bill.

I hope to work with her and her colleagues for the timely passage of the bill. I hope to have the support of all members and look forward to debate on the bill. Mr. Speaker, if you would indulge me, I would also like to point out that this was my first private member's bill, and I am joined here today by my wife as I present this, my first bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Criminal Code Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) Bill C-592. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-592,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals) . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to cruelty to animals. In January, a husky and a cat were found dead in a Calgary alleyway with their mouths taped shut. In October, a police dog named Quanto was stabbed multiple times when he was on duty in Edmonton. We need new policies. There is a growing movement calling for better protection for our animals. At the request of my constituents, I decided to look at what the federal government could do to help animals.

I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this bill, which provides a better definition of an animal, defines the intentions and acts of cruelty, such as animal fights, and sets the penalties for those found guilty of these unacceptable acts. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1525) [ English ] Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Former Members Personal Information Act Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) Bill C-593. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-593,

An Act to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the National Defence Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Access to Information Act (personal information and medical records) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and table my bill, which would amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the National Defence Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and the Access to Information Act.

The purpose of the bill is to guarantee that members of the Canadian Forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will receive a certified copy of their medical records at the time of their release or when they leave the force or at any time thereafter upon request. It would also provide that the Minister of Veterans Affairs may release personal information relating to a veteran to the appropriate authorities if the disclosure is in the public interest or would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present this petition, representing thousands of British Columbians. The petition highlights that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have lost loved ones to impaired driving, called Families for Justice, believes that the current impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Rail Transportation Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions, all on the same subject matter. They call on the government to reinstate the federal funding that allowed for the operation of the Algoma Central Railway. These petitions are signed by residents of northern Ontario from Wawa, Manitouwadge, and Sault Ste. Marie. The Algoma Central Railway provides the sole point of access for many businesses, homes, and communities along its route, and cancelling this railway would be damaging to the economy, the health and safety, and the accessibility of residents of northern Ontario.

International Development Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition put together by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. It is asking for Parliament to demonstrate international responsibility by recommitting Canada to contributing 0.7% of the GDP to overseas development assistance; prioritize responsive funding to those NGOs that Canadians support and that have seen their funding cut by CIDA; and, in the spirit of global solidarity, to grant in full the funding of $49.2 million requested by Development and Peace over the next five years.

Rail Transportation Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise with petitions signed by people from the regions of Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie. As the House knows, the issue of public transportation in northern Ontario is becoming increasingly critical with the shutdown of the Ontario Northland. Now we see the failure of the Conservative government to protect the interests of the people in the Sault Ste. Marie region with the Algoma Central Railway. It plays an important role in development in our region. Many of our communities rely on it.

For many of our businesses, it is an economic corridor as well. The petitioners are calling on the Conservative government to stand with the people of northern Ontario and support public transportation by maintaining support for the Algoma Central Railway.

Agriculture Mr. Jay Aspin (Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents. The petition calls upon Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18,

an act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food .

(1530) [ Translation ] VIA Rail Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by more than 100 people. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to help repair and maintain the railroad between Bathurst and Miramichi by investing the necessary funds and getting a guarantee that Canadian National will maintain VIA Rail train service in eastern New Brunswick and Quebec. The petitioners are from Acadie—Bathurst.

[ English ] Canada Post Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present from over 200 people from my riding of Acadie—Bathurst . The petitioners maintain that a reduction in service could lead to the privatization of Canada Post, which is an essential public service. Therefore, they call on the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plans to reduce service and to explore other options for updating the crown corporation's business plan.

Agriculture Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today from residents of the city of Kingston and the surrounding rural areas. It concerns Bill C-18 . The petitioners are asking Parliament to refrain from making changes to the Seeds Act and the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, and they are asking Parliament to legislate the rights of Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I present two petitions. One is from residents throughout the Edmonton area as well as Sooke, B.C., calling on Parliament to reject the proposed Enbridge northern gateway pipeline as presenting unacceptable risks. The second petition comes from residents of Regina, Saskatchewan, as well as Waterloo, Ontario, calling for the government to act to ban, in the interests of protecting pollinating populations, neonicotinoid insecticides.

Tibet Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first is on behalf of many members of my community who are asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to call on China to immediately release the respected abbot Khenpo Kartse from prison. Khenpo Kartse has been a tireless advocate of the Tibetan language and culture. He was imprisoned in December 2013. He is very ill with a serious liver condition and is not being allowed medical treatment. The petitioners are calling for his release from prison and for Canada's ambassador to China to give an update on his visit to Tibet in September 2013.

Rail Safety Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on behalf of many members of my community concerned about rail safety. The petitioners are calling for the DOT-111 cars to be labelled with exactly what is being transported, but they also want strategies and timelines for the phasing out of these railcars. They also want to have an emergency response plan in the community should there be a spill, explosion, car malfunction, or derailment. My riding is bounded on three sides by rail lines. People are very concerned about their health and safety, and they are calling for immediate action.

Canada Post Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition regarding postal services in general and postal services for smaller communities, where the service is now being diminished under the current regime. As a result, many of the communities are losing a very important facet of their way of life. The community in particular is the town of Charlottetown, which is next to Terra Nova National Park in the eastern part of the island. All these signatories are from the community of Charlottetown. They want a better postal service.

Sex Tourism Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by over 6,000 Canadians who point out that Canadians continue to travel overseas to perform sex acts with children with impunity, in spite of the introduction of the sex tourism legislation. The petitioners are calling on the government and Parliament to enforce Canada's extraterritorial laws for sex tourism and human trafficking and to make it a priority. About a month ago, I asked for unanimous consent to table a representative copy of these petitions. I was granted that request.

However, I did not have the entire quantity of petitions with me at that time, so I am asking for unanimous consent, because of the severity of this issue, to table these petitions.

(1535) The Speaker : Is there unanimous consent? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Corporate Social Responsibility Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to table a petition from the incredible Braves for Development and Peace Action Team. These students from St. Jean de Brébeuf Catholic Secondary School in my riding of Hamilton Mountain are actively engaged in fighting for social justice in the global south. They are keenly aware that too many legitimate cases of human rights abuses and environmental destruction are going unchecked in the name of development.

As advocates for corporate social responsibility, they believe that all corporate activities must be premised on a fundamental respect for social justice, human rights, labour rights, and environmental stewardship. As a result, the petitioners are calling on the federal government to appoint a Canadian ombudsperson to do four things: to receive and investigate complaints and assess compliance with corporate accountability standards, to make public its findings, to recommend remedial action, and to recommend sanctions by the Government of Canada.

While the rules of the House do not allow me to endorse a petition, I am thrilled to be able to present this petition here today, and I want to congratulate all of the students at St. Jean de Brébeuf for getting politically engaged on this important issue.

[ Translation ] Mining Industry Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Development and Peace, which is calling for the creation of a legislated ombudsman mechanism for the Canadian extractive sector, which would have the authority to receive and investigate complaints, make public its findings, recommend remedial actions and recommend government-imposed sanctions such as withholding financial and political support to any company that does not comply with standards. [ English ] The Speaker : I just want to inform members that there are only about four and a half minutes left for petitions, so those who are wishing to present petitions would do their colleagues a favour if they provided only a brief

summary of the petition they are presenting. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Londoners who are very concerned about recent deaths in the city of London in regard to permanent residency applications. The petitioners want the Government of Canada to ensure that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is properly staffed to reach decisions in a fair and timely manner and to ensure that immigration officials consider all factors in regard to an application, including humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Canada Post Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, people from my riding have signed and continue to sign a number of petitions protesting the loss of home mail delivery by Canada Post. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced services and to explore other options to update Canada Post's business plan.

Asbestos Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from thousands of Canadians who call on the House of Commons and Parliament to take note of the fact that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known. In fact, more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure responsible conservation management of sharks. They call on the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.

[ Translation ] Mining Industry Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions. The first concerns the creation of a legislated ombudsman mechanism for more responsible mining.

VIA Rail Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : The second petition calls for the resumption of VIA Rail's daily service between Montreal and Halifax passing through Campbellton and Miramichi, New Brunswick.

[ English ] Durham Region Federal Lands Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present two complementary petitions. They are both broadly about the preservation of agricultural lands for agricultural purposes. The first calls on the Government of Canada to rescind all plans for an airport and non-agricultural uses on the federal lands in the Durham Region.

(1540) Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Government of Canada to implement a Canada-wide strategy on local food and to require the Department of Public Works to develop a policy for purchasing locally grown food for all federal institutions.

[ Translation ] Public Transit Operators Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am here to present a petition that seeks to stop violence against bus drivers. In light of the large number of assaults of bus drivers every year, the petitioners are calling on the House to amend the Criminal Code to create a separate offence for assaults committed against bus drivers while they are working and to set harsher penalties for the attackers.

[ English ] The Environment Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people from Thunder Bay and across Canada who want our government to recognize the importance of study of aquatic ecosystems and to continue to financially support science, particularly science in the Experimental Lakes Area.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 305, 306, and 308 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 305--

Ms. Annick Papillon :

With regard to funding of Quebec City's Jean Lesage International Airport, what is the total amount of government funding allocated to the airport from fiscal year 2006-2007 to the current fiscal year, broken down (

i) by department or agency, (ii) for each department or agency, by initiative or project?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 306--

Mr. Scott Simms :

With regard to the Manolis L. shipwreck: (

a) what activities have taken place to monitor all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (

i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (

v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (

b) what activities are currently taking place to monitor all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (

i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (

v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (

c) what activities are planned or anticipated to take place to monitor all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (

i) department involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (

v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (

d) what activities have taken place to remediate all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (

i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (

v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (

e) what activities are currently taking place to remediate all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (

i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (

v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (

f) what activities are planned or anticipated to take place to remediate all leakage from the shipwreck site, broken down by (

i) departments involved, (ii) method, (iii) number of people involved, (iv) jobs and roles of people involved, (

v) date, (vi) result, (vii) cost; (

g) what are the details of all plans that are in place by the government to prevent the shipwreck from shifting; and (

h) what is the timeline to recover all oil from the ship and end this unfolding disaster?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 308--

Mr. Guy Caron :

With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) Program: (

a) since 2003, in Canada and for each province, (

i) how many overpayment recovery decisions were made by Service Canada, (ii) how many of these decisions were made concerning a problem with a beneficiary’s marital status; (

b) under which policy, government directive, legislation or regulation is the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) authorized to share personal information with Service Canada about the marital status of taxpayers regarding their GIS file, and where can it be accessed; (

c) since 2002, in Canada and in each province, how many individuals, annually, receive GIS benefits; (

d) since 2002, in Canada and in each province, how many individuals, annually, qualify for GIS benefits but do not receive them, regardless of the reason; (

e) why, between July 2003 and 2011, did Service Canada not have access to the marital status of GIS beneficiaries despite the information sharing protocol it has with the CRA; (

f) why did Service Canada (or the department at the time) set aside certain notices of debt regarding overpayment recovery decisions involving GIS beneficiaries between June 1995 and July 2003; and (

g) between 2003 and 2013, were there any cases where Service Canada reviewed GIS benefit files to determine whether the government owed amounts to individuals for whom the change in marital status was to their advantage financially, and if so, how many cases per year?

(Return tabled)

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

Motions for Papers Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Ways and Means Motion No. 12 Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) Motion for concurrence moved: That a ways and means motion to introduce

an act to give effect to the Tla'amin Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other acts be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Privilege Remarks by Minister of State for Finance--Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 31, 2014, by the hon. member for Victoria regarding statements made in the House by the Minister of State for Finance during debate on an official opposition motion on December 9, 2013, regarding the New Democratic Party's proposal to phase in increases to basic pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans. [ Translation ] I would like to thank the hon. member for Victoria for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North for their comments. [ English ] In presenting his case, the member for Victoria claimed that documents recently obtained through an access to information request had revealed that the Minister of State for Finance had deliberately and repeatedly misled the House by providing misleading numbers and deliberately drawing false conclusions with respect to his party's plan for CPP reform.

The Minister of State for Finance , he suggested, had knowingly cited information about potential job losses from a Department of Finance study, which he linked to the NDP's plan for pension reform, even though the study itself did not do so and even though the Finance study was based on a different basic assumption than that of the NDP plan.

As a result, the member for Victoria concluded that the three conditions for establishing a case of contempt for misleading the House had been met, since the minister of state's statements were misleading, he knew when he made the statements that they were incorrect and, finally, that he had intended to mislead the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that, given the existence of many studies by many organizations on this matter, with the Minister of State for Finance having used numbers prepared by the Department of Finance, the conclusions to be drawn are bound to vary. He also stated that: The hon. member for Victoria was at pains to point out that the finance department's analysis covered a one-year implementation window, not his seven-year phase-in period.

In fact, the Department of Finance uses one year as a simplifying assumption adopted to compare the economic impact of various CPP expansion proposals.

Thus, he felt that this was nothing more than a matter of debate and perspective. [ Translation ] At page 145 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, it is stated: If the question of privilege involves a disagreement between two (or more) Members as to facts, the Speaker typically rules that such a dispute does not prevent Members from fulfilling their parliamentary functions nor does such a disagreement breach the collective privileges of the House. (1545) [ English ] The member for Victoria was clear that this was not a matter of whether the studies in question are accurate, but whether the minister of state misrepresented the studies he cited.

In fact, he spoke to the importance of accuracy of information brought forward in the House when he stated: Mr. Speaker, members need to be certain that they are receiving the information they need to adequately represent voters, and they must be able to have confidence in the information provided, especially when it is provided by ministers and ministers of state. [ Translation ] As has been suggested, the information shared in this House does hold extraordinary value as it forms the basis upon which decisions are made in the House.

As Speaker Milliken reminded the House on December 6, 2004, on page 2319 of the Debates : Disagreements about facts and how the facts should be interpreted form the basis of debate in this place. It is not surprising, then, that the threshold in determining that a member has deliberately misled the House is purposely high.

The member for Victoria referred to the three-part test, which I most recently reiterated on March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates : ...one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

He then argued that the situation at issue fulfills the three conditions that must be met in order for the Chair to find that there is appearance of contempt for deliberately misleading the House. [ English ] The Chair has thoroughly reviewed the relevant information provided with this in mind, and it is clear to me that there is no parallel to be drawn between the present case and the cases from February 1, 2002, and March 3, 2014, as has been suggested, nor has the three-part test been met. Instead, the Chair has before it two

interpretations of the issue. On the one hand, the member for Victoria has explained that he believes the statements of the Minister of State for Finance are deliberately misleading because the minister improperly claimed that a Department of Finance study referred to potential job losses due to the NDP pension reform proposal. On the other hand, the parliamentary secretary rejects that characterization, arguing that the minister believes he is justified in linking the finance department report and the NDP pension proposal.

Thus, I can only conclude that the Chair is confronted with a matter of debate and a dispute as to the facts in this case. [ Translation ] It should be noted that in my ruling of March 3, 2014, I reminded the House of Speaker Parent’s ruling on October 19, 2000, at page 9247 of the Debates , which states: [ English ] Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members. For all these reasons, I cannot conclude that this qualifies as a prima facie question of privilege. I thank hon. members for their attention.

Message from the Senate The Speaker : I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-2,

An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations .

Points of Order Corrections and Conditional Release Act Points of Order Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. As I said earlier, it is a fairly lengthy point of order, and my apologies for having to disrupt the chamber right after question period.

I was closing the quote on Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, who stated in evidence on March 25, on Bill C-483 , “At its core, this bill”, and what she meant was the original bill, before the amendments: “At its core, this bill aims to bring a more transparent and inclusive process to victims of crime. I fully support this shift and the benefits it brings to victims”. Another witness, Kim Hancox, spoke in support of Bill C-483 stating that “Accountability is severely compromised as a result of this closed-door process”.

She was referring to the process whereby prison wardens are empowered to grant escorted temporary absences. She continued by saying: There is a lack of consideration for victims, which impedes progress of victims' rights and recognition in the criminal system. This practice undermines the public's confidence in a system that is supposed to keep them safe from violent offenders.

Krista Gray-Donald, director representing the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, an organization that the committee was informed had been working closely with the member for Oxford on the legislation, was clear in her testimony before the committee, on March 27, as to what she believed the legislation would terminate, namely, the ability of wardens to grant escorted temporary absences.

She said: The board of directors of the CRCVC feels the process that allows wardens to grant ETAs to offenders serving life does not assess risk as thoroughly as the release decision-making process undertaken by the Parole Board. We believe this allows offenders to avoid accountability for the harms they have caused and closes the decision-making process to the public.

I believe it is important to place on the record the statements made before the committee by both of the commissioner of the Canadian Parole Board, in testimony on March 25, 2014, page 13 of the evidence, and the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, in testimony on March 27, 2014, page 8 of the blues. Both stated that with respect to the ETA program that their agencies are responsible for permitting and overseeing, the success rate is 99%.

At no time, and I repeat, at no time, did any member of the committee, government members in particular, challenge either commissioner on the success rate of the escorted temporary release program. This program is by all accounts a success, with no demonstrated risk to public safety. On April 1, 2014, and this would be after the above witnesses presented, the government presented its amendments to Bill C-483 at the public safety committee, and that is where my concerns arise.

At page 767 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states with respect to amendments made to legislation which may be found to be out of order: The committee's decisions concerning a bill must be consistent with earlier decisions made by the committee. An amendment is accordingly out of order if it is contrary to or inconsistent with provisions of the bill that the committee has already agreed to....

I would also remind the House of the ruling of Speaker Fraser on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of Debates : In cases in which the Chair is asked to rule on the admissibility of committee amendments to bills, any modifications which offend a basic principle in the legislative process are struck from the bill. However, the amendment from the government has undermined that principle. It reads in part as follows, which was presented to the House in the third report of the committee.

(1550) On clause 1.1, and I am reading from proposed subsection 17.1(2): If the Parole Board of Canada authorizes the temporary absence of an inmate under subsection (1) for community service, family contact, including parental responsibilities, or personal development for rehabilitative purposes and the temporary absence is not cancelled because the inmate has breached a condition— This is the critical section: —the institutional head may authorize that inmate’s subsequent temporary absences with escort if the institutional head is of the opinion that the criteria set out in paragraphs (1)(

a) to (

d) are met. In my view, this would change the principle of the bill. The witnesses all came before the committee on the original bill and claimed that they did not want the institutional head to be allowed to make those decisions. That was the basis of the witnesses' presentation at committee. That whole thrust changed with the amendments from the Government of Canada. In speaking to the amendments presented by the government, the following exchange illuminates the concern I have with respect to the principle of the bill having been changed as a result.

I put the following question to the director of policy for Corrections Canada on April 1, 2014: As I understand it, the original bill was ensuring that the warden would not be in a position to allow any temporary absences at all during the last three years of a sentence. Now with this amendment, the Parole Board will be involved in the first request for a temporary absence during that three-year period, but not anymore after that unless there is a problem with what happened on the temporary absence.

The response from the director of policy stated, in part: You are correct...in that once that lifer reaches the three-year window before their full parole eligibility, once the Parole Board grants a positive decision for a rehabilitated ETA and that ETA period is successful—in other words, the offender does not breach their conditions while on that ETA—any subsequent ETA decisions can then be made by the institutional head.

Therefore, I am suggesting that the government amendments to the bill are inconsistent with the original principle of the bill as articulated by the member in whose name the bill stands, by other members of the government during second reading and at committee, and witnesses appearing before the committee. Namely, that as a result of this legislation, it was expected that the Parole Board, and only the Parole Board, would be involved in the granting of escorted temporary releases as they apply to offenders convicted of first and second degree murder.

Given that evidence as to the success of the ETA program, evidence which was available prior to the tabling of Bill C-483 , I would submit that the principle of the bill as originally passed at second reading, has, by the government amendments, been completely undermined. The principle of the original bill has ceased to exist and has been replaced.

Again, while the intent of the member for Oxford is not in question, the ability of his legislation to achieve what he committed to this House and, more important, what he committed to the victims of crime in whose name he presented the bill, has been refuted through government amendments. As such, I would submit that the amendments have placed the bill as reported from committee within the context of being out of order.

I would conclude by reminding Canadians that as we undertake a debate on Bill C-32 , the victims bill of rights, that they examine the text of that bill closely and match the content of that bill with the rhetoric of the government with respect to what has been promised. It is my submission that Bill C-32 is worthy of support. It will fall to the government to explain to the victims why the legislation would likely not achieve the promises that have been made. Let me sum up in layman's terms. These private members' bills are becoming a shell game.

Witnesses come before a committee, the promoters promote their bill on the basis of the original bill, and on the basis of what the promoters of the bill have said relative to the original bill.

(1555) However, after all the witnesses have appeared before committee, the justice department's legal counsel, also from the government side, then come before committee and either water down the bill or change it in such a way that the original principle and intent of the bill is undermined. Thus the bill no longer does what the promoter of the bill, in these cases backbench Conservatives, said it would do. Therein lies the problem. That is my point of order; that the bill no longer represents the principle and the intent of the bill brought in by the backbench Conservative member.

In fact, government lawyers, themselves, changed the intent of the bill at committee, after all the witnesses had appeared.

(1600) Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be a little more brief than my friend, but hopefully I will be able to respond fairly conclusively to the concerns he raised. At first, the member said that the opposition, who are usually in the position of complaining that they do not see enough amendments made to bills, are now complaining that there are too many amendments made to a bill. That is a bit ironic.

I should also say I am not surprised to hear, once again, that a bill that is designed to protect our communities, to give victims a say, and to make our communities safer, is being obstructed by the Liberals. Their language is one thing but their actions are always the same. They vote against these bills, standing in their way and obstructing them, because the Liberals really do not stand on the side of victims of crime. That being said, the particular question, on the scope of this bill and whether amendments to it were within that scope, is one that was actually raised by the hon. member at committee.

He did that on Tuesday, April 1. It was discussed before the committee, which was the proper place for that to be done. Not only did the chair of the committee allow the amendments in his initial approach to it, but in actually turning the chair's mind to the specific question, the specific arguments raised and are being raised here again today, the chair also ruled that the amendments were in order. In fact, I will read what the chair said to the hon. member at the end, on April 1, at committee: ....thank you for bringing the issue up.

I think if the situation were such that the bill were dramatically changed and/or the perspective of the entire bill was changed to such an extent that it would actually reflect something that is different from what was originally proposed, certainly the chair would agree with you. On this particular group of amendments that have come forward, it's the chair's opinion that the principles and the perspective of the original intent of the bill are respected at this point, so I would overrule your objection at this point and I thank you for your interjection. Then they proceeded to a further study of the bill.

I think that is conclusive. That is where the matter was settled. Our process is such that a question like that can be determined at committee. It was determined at committee, and that was where it was properly and finally settled. I know the member is seeking to re-litigate it here. I am not sure that is appropriate. Second, the member makes an argument about the number of amendments and that perhaps there were more amendments than there were original clauses of the bill. Of course that is not how one determines these questions. That is irrelevant to the exercise.

The question is on what these things do, regardless of how many words it takes to give them effect. That is not a factor or a basis on which amendments would be considered to have gone beyond the scope of the original bill. As I understand it, in the simplest of terms, the purpose of the bill, or what the bill sought to do, was to give victims an opportunity to participate in a parole board process in decisions in which they did not have that opportunity to participate under the existing law, these last three years of terms of certain convicted offenders. That is what the bill sought to do.

What the amendments did was say that the first time it is up, they will have the opportunity to do that, and should the parole board make its decision, they do not have to come back every single time to the parole board for subsequent decisions essentially on the same issue, same circumstances. That is what the amendments did. Certainly, the purpose remains the same with the amendments; to give those individuals, those victims, and the parole board an opportunity to have a say where they did not have one before. On the question of the intent or the purpose, it remains exactly the same.

On the other question, on the scope, which I think is the more relevant one, the existing law says there is no opportunity for them to participate. The proposed amendments change that significantly, to the extent the amendments came along, they reduced the extent of the change. It is not a question of going beyond the scope of the original bill. In fact, the amendments are very much within the scope of the original bill. They reduce the extent to which the existing statute is being amended.

They do not expand it; they reduce it within the context and the framework of the original private member's bill they were studying. To that extent, I would say there is actually no issue of the amendments being beyond the scope of the bill. They are certainly very much within the scope of the bill, while at the same time respecting and honouring the purpose, overall, of that private member's bill. As such, I really see no merit in the point of order raised by my friend.

(1605) Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I found the point of order raised by the member for Malpeque to be very compelling. I did not find the intervention from the government House leader very convincing at all. We would like to look at the blues, and I will be coming back in short order through the course of the session to provide any additional comments as needed. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : I thank the hon. member for Malpeque and the hon. government House leader, and I note that the hon. opposition House leader may have the opportunity to weigh in on this particular question at some point later in the proceedings. We will take the hon. member's comments under advisement and get back to the House in due course.

Before we go to orders of the day, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond , Environment; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands , Democratic Reform; and the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood , Environment.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Victims Bill of Rights Act Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) moved that Bill C-32,

An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-32. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I am honoured to be here to take

part in this important debate, second reading of Bill C-32 , the victims bill of rights act. As members know, this bill is to create a Canadian victims bill of rights and entrench the rights of victims into federal law for the first time in Canadian history. Victims of crime have been an important priority for our government since our election in 2006, and our contributions to improving the victim’s role in our justice system is well known and well documented.

It is our contention that there are numerous ways, which we will present through the victims bill of rights, to continue down the path of enhancing our justice system and the victim’s role in that system. The creation of the federal victims strategy as well as the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, in 2007, are examples of our government's commitment.

Further, the allocation of $120 million as well as $10 million additionally for child advocacy centres in 20 locations throughout the country are examples of victims' programs specifically, as well as other numerous victims' law reforms and criminal justice reforms intended to enhance the experience of victims in the law. Last year, our government promised to enhance victims’ rights by entrenching or embedding their rights in a single law at the federal level.

We are delivering on that promise through the creation of clear statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution for victims of crime in Canada. I want to unpack these concepts in more detail in a moment. Before I do, I want to emphasize again the inclusive effort to hear from Canadians. My earliest days as Minister of Justice were spent consulting broadly and hearing directly from Canadians. In fact, we heard from more than 500 stakeholders through online and in-person consultations held across the country while developing this legislation.

Most importantly, we heard from victims of crime themselves. Advocates, provincial and territorial officials, organizations, criminal justice associations, and criminal justice professionals, crown and defence counsel, law enforcement—all have provided views on this important legislation, participants all, and the Canadian victims bill of rights reflects that input, particularly those of provincial and territorial officials who have the important role and task of enforcement.

As well, we received a great deal of information and input during these consultations, specific to the reforms contemplated in federal, provincial, and territorial forums. Best practices from international, provincial, and territorial victims' legislation and programs were also contemplated. After much and thorough consultation and collaboration into this bill, we believe we have struck a very good balance. I also want to recognize that each province and territory very much had that input, but we also drew from their own victims' services legislation unique to their provincial and territorial reality.

All provinces and territories have legislation for victims of crime, which in some cases includes provisions worded as “rights”, such as a right to information, a right to consideration of personal safety, and a right to respectful treatment. The federal bill would not impede in any way existing provincial or territorial legislation but would, in fact, complement it or provide cohesion, w