OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 012 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, October 31, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 31, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 012 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 012 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 012 (Version officielle) 147 012 31 10 2013 2013/10/31 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Offshore Health and Safety Act Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) moved that Bill C-5,

an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-5. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade for the agreement in principle on the Canada-Europe trade agreement, the largest free trade agreement Canada has completed.

This is a great achievement and demonstrates that our economic action plan is working. [ Translation ] We are here today to talk about the new legislative provisions to amend the Atlantic accord implementation acts, in order to extend occupational health and safety jurisdictions to Canada's offshore areas.

Before we talk more about these legislative provisions, I would like to set the stage by emphasizing how vital the offshore resources industry is to Atlantic Canada and to our country's economy. [ English ] There is no question that the offshore oil and gas industries have made an enormous economic contribution to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that these industries have transformed the economy of eastern Canada. Not long ago, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was receiving the highest per capita equalization payments in the country.

Today it is among our strongest provincial economies and now contributes to the equalization program. Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP has performed at or above the national average in nine of the past 13 years. A large part of that success comes from offshore oil and gas, which accounted for 33% of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP in 2011. Resource revenues, again primarily from the offshore, have allowed the province to steadily pay down its debt. The total provincial debt was about $7.7 billion in 2012, down from a high of $12 billion just eight years ago.

Simply put, offshore energy development has given Newfoundland and Labrador more jobs, lower taxes, and new investments in services and infrastructure that play an important role in building stronger communities. These benefits will continue to grow. Hibernia was the largest project of any kind ever undertaken in Newfoundland and Labrador. As valuable as Hibernia has been, the Hebron project may be even bigger. Hebron represents a capital investment of as much as $14 billion. It could deliver $20 billion in taxes and royalties for the province over the 30-year life of the project.

Just a few months ago, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board announced its latest call for bids for exploration licences for the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador, netting $117 million in work commitments by major players in the oil industry. Nova Scotia's offshore area also offers enormous potential. The Play Fairway analysis, undertaken by the government of Nova Scotia, estimates that the offshore area may contain eight billion barrels of oil and 3.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The Atlantic offshore is a major gas producer, with three gas fields serving Atlantic Canada and the U.S. northeast. In the past two years, the Nova Scotia offshore area has seen the largest bids ever for offshore parcels in Atlantic Canada, with more than a total of $2 billion bid for 12 parcels of land. Shell Canada and BP clearly see the potential that exists in the Nova Scotia offshore. Meanwhile, there is an estimated 120 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and production continues to grow.

Sable Island's 270 million cubic feet a day will soon be joined by 200 million cubic feet a day from Deep Panuke. [ Translation ] It is essential that Canada continue to ensure that our offshore industries carry out their activities safely and in compliance with the most stringent environmental standards. Canadians expect to see a world-class regulatory body, and our government is taking the measures necessary to ensure Canadians' continued satisfaction in that regard.

That is why we are bringing in new legislation to clarify provincial and federal responsibilities when it comes to offshore occupational health and safety. The accord's implementation acts are the cornerstone of all offshore oil and gas activities. They give the boards the legal authority to regulate oil and gas activities on behalf of the provinces. Every day, Canada's offshore workers have to deal with a difficult work environment. The harsh weather conditions in Atlantic Canada and the remoteness of their workplace are just two difficulties that come to mind.

The safety of the courageous men and women who work in this environment must always be our main concern. [ English ] The changes we intend to make need to be mirrored by provincial legislation in order for the amendments to come into force. Our Conservative government has been working closely with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to achieve this. Both provinces introduced their legislation in May, and both have given royal assent to their respective bills. This time, they must wait for the legislation to pass our federal Parliament for the new regime to come to fruition.

The proposed amendments would address gaps in the current legislation. They would invest authority for offshore occupational health and safety in the accord acts. There are two safety regimes that apply to workers offshore. Occupational health and safety pertains to the workers in the sense of the hazards they may face, their protective equipment, and safeguards on the equipment they use in their functions. It also pertains to three essential worker rights: the right to refuse dangerous work, the right to information, and the right to participate in making decisions on workplace health and safety.

Under the current regime, occupational health and safety is the jurisdiction of the provinces. Operational safety pertains to workplace systems, facilities, and equipment as well as the risk management and integrity of those systems, facilities, and equipment. Examples are the prevention of gas blowouts, the ability of a facility to withstand storms, and a facility's fire suppression systems. Operational safety was included in the accord acts and provided that the offshore petroleum boards be responsible on behalf of both levels of government.

Following a tragic accident, when a worker was killed due to an improperly installed door, the overlap of occupational health and safety and operational safety created a grey area. It was not clear whether the door's installation fell under operational safety or occupational safety. The lack of clarity prevented any party from being liable. It was unclear under whose jurisdiction the incident should be regulated.

The provinces and the federal government agreed that the best course of action was to eliminate the grey area and to incorporate the power to regulate occupational health and safety directly in the accord acts. For the

section on occupational health and safety, which would typically fall under the purview of the Minister of Labour , the legislation specifies that the Minister of Natural Resources may receive advice from the Minister of Labour and that any regulations related to occupational health and safety must be made on the recommendation of both ministers. In addition to fixing this historic issue, the legislation would establish a hierarchy of responsibility. It would make operations operators ultimately responsible for all activities related to their authorization.

It would also spell out the specific duties expected of operators, employers, supervisors, employees, contractors, and interest holders. The nature of the offshore is that work sites are usually hundreds of kilometres from shore. We would be ensuring that the health and safety regime also applied to workers in transit to the offshore. These workers could refuse to be transported if there were safety concerns. The legislation would also include powers to establish regulations related to additional safety equipment for workers in transit.

Offshore board inspectors would also have the power to conduct compliance audits on the vessels used to transport workers. These measures would significantly enhance workers' safety in the offshore. This legislation would also give new powers to offshore board officers to further enhance safety. For example, they would have the power to inspect anything, take samples, meet in private with any individual, and inspect living quarters.

(1010) Due to the distance and isolation offshore activities regularly require, offshore board officers would have the power to act in exigent circumstances. That is, they could act without a warrant to preserve evidence or to prevent non-compliance. The requisite warrant would have to be sought from and granted by a judge or a justice of the peace post activity. The legislation would also clarify certain issues regarding the chief safety officer. The position of this officer could not be held by the CEO.

This would ensure that safety was an independent function within the senior management of each offshore board. The chief safety officer would have to review and provide written recommendations related to safety on all authorizations. This would formalize the process that both boards are already following. Chief safety officers would also be granted the power to allow regulatory substitutions, which would be made on application by an operator who would have to satisfy the SFO that the substitution provided an equivalent or greater level of safety.

The SFO also could require that the operator or employer establish a special occupational health and safety committee. The committee would be in addition to the workplace health and safety committee that all workplaces with more than five employees must establish. We would also introduce a new appeal process for the most serious cases. In certain special cases, the provincial minister would be able to appoint a special officer.

The legislation is very clear that this could only be done where there were reasonable grounds to believe that such an appointment was warranted to avoid a serious risk to health and safety and that the risk could not be avoided by the use of other means available through the accord acts. Both the federal and provincial ministers would have to agree that the required conditions had been fulfilled. The orders of a special officer would supersede those of all other officers, including the chief safety officer. These amendments would create a more transparent regime for Canada's offshore industry.

The health and safety of Canadians and protecting the environment are among the Government of Canada's top priorities. That is why Canada's offshore installations and the equipment and training required to operate them must meet strict regulatory standards that are among the highest in the world. Nevertheless, we recognize that our offshore regime can be improved, and today we are taking steps to do just that. Our government recognizes that accidents can happen anywhere, regardless of laws and safety measures. We are also very confident in our safeguards.

We have very strong environmental laws and standards and a robust, well-developed safety regime for offshore exploration and drilling. On our east coast, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board are responsible for evaluating every project for compliance with federal regulations. Drilling cannot occur unless the responsible board is satisfied that drilling plans are safe for workers and safe for the environment.

Beyond high standards for training, safety, and equipment, oil and gas companies are required to maintain environmental protection and spill response plans. The government is committed to the polluter-pays principle and the responsible management of risks. The responsibility rests with operators to immediately take all reasonable measures to clean up a spill and prevent further spillage. Of course, the government needs to be prepared to step in to help if need be. As the regulators, the National Energy Board or offshore boards would be the government's lead agencies for the response.

Using aerial surveillance and satellite imagery for detection and tracking, they could provide advice about a spill with trajectory modelling, weather and sea-state forecasts and warnings, the location of wildlife and sensitive ecosystems, and cleanup and remediation options. (1015) [ Translation ] I am certain that once these legislative provisions are in place, the offshore boards will do their job and determine what is safe for workers and the environment. I would like to speak very briefly about the creation of a separate regulatory body for offshore safety.

First, I would like to make it clear that these legislative provisions are not related to this issue. Work on these provisions started well before this recommendation was made for the first time. These legislative provisions were the result of the accident off the coast of Nova Scotia, which I mentioned earlier. With respect to the actual recommendation, we continue to work with the provinces on this very important issue. We expressed concerns about the fragmentation of our offshore regime and the proliferation of regulatory bodies.

We want to ensure that the system is as simple as possible and protects Canadians' health and safety. We will continue to discuss these issues with our provincial counterparts. Our government has always adopted a safe and prudent approach to offshore drilling, an approach that protects Canada's offshore workers and the environment. It is vital that all development activities in Canada, and not just offshore activities, ensure the safety of workers and protect the environment.

We have adopted many measures in Canada's resource sector to ensure that this objective is the main focus of our regulatory bodies. (1020) [ English ] I hope that all members will support this important legislation. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that this government wants to protect workers for once. However, it could have done better. Unfortunately, the government missed an opportunity. The minister mentioned all kinds of things in his statement, especially with respect to profits.

I remind him that profits do not usually go hand in hand with workplace health and safety. This bill should be about workplace health and safety exclusively, and I urge the minister to honour that. After the Ocean Ranger incidents and the helicopter crash on March 12 in which 17 people died, why did the government not agree to the 29th recommendation in the Wells report? By the same token, why did the government not express an interest in enhancing the Canadian Coast Guard and increasing the number of rescue helicopters in the Royal Canadian Air Force assigned to offshore rigs? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr.

Speaker, this legislation has nothing to do with the tragic helicopter accident off the coast of Newfoundland. This legislation is a response to an accident that happened in Nova Scotia, in which someone was killed as a result of an improperly installed door. The legislation was not clear about who was responsible, and as a result, no legal action could be taken. This legislation fixes the ambiguity with respect to workplace health and safety in the accord implementation acts. The boards are established along with the provinces, and this legislation was developed with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Both governments support and have passed their corresponding legislation. We will continue to discuss Commissioner Wells' inquiry with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. [ English ] Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments today. However, his answer had more to do with the question I will be asking than the question from my hon. colleague from the NDP. I do want to ask about the Wells commission, because the accident, which happened three kilometres off of St. John's, Newfoundland, occurred four years ago in 2009.

We still have not seen any legislation from the government to deal with the recommendations made by Commissioner Robert Wells, particularly recommendation no. 29, which talked about the creation of a new, independent, stand-alone safety regulator to ensure offshore safety. The minister talked about the role of the chief safety officer, who would report to the board. If the board is dominated by representatives of employers, people who in the past have worked for employers as officers and so forth or senior people in companies, what would their predilection be?

Hopefully they would be concerned with safety, but we have to look at this question of a separate regulator. The minister also talked more broadly about the industry nationally. Does he feel that his past comments about environmental groups and his references to eco-terrorists and so forth have helped to create fertile ground in the U.S. for the support of Keystone XL? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, those are two rather different questions, one is non-fiction and the other is closer to fiction or science fiction.

Let me deal with recommendation no. 29 of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry, the recommendation to establish an independent safety regulator. Canada's offshore regulatory regime is world-class and strong. I want to emphasize that it has independent regulators and high standards for worker safety, environmental protection and resource conservation. These are independent boards and are not beholden to industry in any way.

It is important to note that the federal government does not support the proliferation of regulators when the result would do nothing to enhance safety, worker protection or environmental protection, for that matter. Nevertheless, senior officers at Natural Resources Canada remain in close contact with their counterparts in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on a host of issues relating to offshore oil and gas production and in respect to this particular recommendation. We will be continuing to pursue that dialogue and hope that we can arrive at something that will be satisfactory.

Moving on to the fiction, the allegation, those words, which I will not repeat, were not stated by me but attributed to me on a number of occasions by political opponents and others. We very much respect the concern that Canadians have for their safety as well as for the environment and our beautiful natural heritage. We have done a great deal to protect the environment and will continue to do so.

(1025) Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in my riding the top issues that concern us are jobs and the economy. That is why I have always been proud that our government is focused like a laser on jobs and the economy. This particular bill is about a robust regulatory regime to contribute to our offshore resources. I understand that it will contribute to economic growth in Canada. Therefore, I would ask the minister to elaborate for the House if and how he thinks these amendments would contribute to a sustainable oil and gas industry. Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr.

Speaker, I am thankful to the member for the question because this area, as I indicated in my comments, is crucially important not only for Atlantic Canada but for all Canadians. Offshore oil production from Atlantic Canada contributes significantly to national production, including 35% of total Canadian light crude production and 10% of total Canadian crude production in 2009. The offshore oil and gas industry is important to provincial economies.

In 2009, it was 3% of Nova Scotia's GDP, and directly and indirectly employed over 4,700 people, while offshore oil and gas accounted for 33% of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP in 2011. The offshore oil and gas industry has also provided approximately $8 billion in royalties to those provinces since the offset of production. The industry also provides economic benefits through spinoff activities and contributes to federal and provincial tax revenues, which are so important for funding critical social programs such as health care, education and housing.

The offshore oil and gas industry contributes more to national GDP than all other ocean-related industries, such as fisheries, government, tourism and transportation, by a significant margin. Providing safety for workers is a critical underpinning to this industry. That is why we ask all members to support the bill. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could comment on the fact that the bill provides a safety regime in legislation for the offshore for the first time, but we also have before the House Bill C-4 .

This is a 300-page omnibus bill amending over 70 pieces of legislation, one of the provisions of which strips the health and safety officers in regimes and jurisdictions across the country of their powers and puts nearly all of those powers in the hands of the minister. On the one hand the legislation purports to give authority to the C-NLOPB and the offshore safety regulation, and on the other hand, Bill C-4 takes it away. Could the minister explain why the government is doing that and why it thinks the health and safety of workers throughout this country is so malleable in its hands?

(1030) Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, discussions with the province led to the conclusion that it was impossible to define the term “danger”. It was decided that the best course of action was to rely on the standard

interpretation of that word, but to create a power to define the term if the standard definition or legal

interpretation changed to a point that altered the effectiveness of the OHS portion of the accord acts. That is why we are seeking power to define certain terms by regulation when this is traditionally a power reserved for Parliament. The terms “dive site” and “diving operation” and “incident” were later added to this list. The provinces also requested that the

definitions of Nova Scotia's social legislation and Newfoundland and Labrador's social legislation be amendable in this fashion as it most closely follows the existing accord acts. This is a practical way to achieve the public policy objective and it is more effective done through regulation than through legislation. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this legislation, Bill C-5 , at second reading.

This is an extremely important piece of legislation as it affects the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador and the workers who risk their lives in a dangerous occupation, travelling back and forth to oil rigs, working on exploration vessels and working offshore for as much as three weeks at a time in an industry that is constantly changing. At the beginning of offshore exploration, exploration was going on in shallow waters near to shore. Now there are oil rigs and exploration hundreds of kilometres offshore. Transportation is by helicopter, which takes as much as two or three hours to get back and forth.

That is clearly a dangerous situation, as we know. Not only are risks being assumed by individuals in pursuit of a livelihood for themselves and their families; but it is also extremely important economic activity for the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, as well as for the taxpayers and the Government of Canada in terms of sharing in the revenue from the offshore oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Unfortunately, for many years, going back as early as 1992, the offshore safety regime was not controlled by the provinces themselves for workers in Newfoundland and Labrador or in Nova Scotia. The labour portfolios had responsibility for occupational health and safety. That was taken away in 1992 by legislation and given over to the offshore petroleum boards. In their supposed wisdom of the day, they had draft regulations.

It was not a situation in which somebody who did something contrary to those draft regulations could actually be charged, treated as an offender, taken before a court, fined or dealt with appropriately and be required to follow the regulations. No, it was a very different regime. The regime was that there were draft regulations, and those draft regulations were really just a framework or guideline. That was entirely unsatisfactory to the workers, and my party in both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador were very strongly opposed to this particular approach.

I will quote from former Justice Wells, of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry, who talked about this issue. The minister claims that this has nothing to do with the Cougar crash and inquiry, that this is something that has been going on for a long time, but it is very important to know that Mr. Justice Wells did a very extensive study of the offshore health and safety regime. He led an inquiry into the Cougar helicopter crash that happened in March of 2009, in which 18 people were on board a helicopter that crashed; 17 were killed and there was 1 sole survivor.

It led to an inquiry being undertaken by former Justice Wells into these fatalities. He talked about his work, learning about how health and safety deficiencies are attended to in the offshore oil industry. On page 275 of his report, he stated he learned the differences between prescriptive regulation and performance-based regulation. What we have in this particular situation, until now, is what are called performance-based regulations. In other words, the regulator comes up with a plan and objectives for safety, and the companies decide how they shall go about meeting those objectives;

whereas the regulatory regime in this legislation says what must be done, the standard that must be met, and the requirement is to comply. New Democrats have been calling for this power for years. When anyone objected to the regime that only had guidelines, the answer always given was, “We have the ultimate power, and that is to shut down the operation if it is deemed to be unsafe”.

(1035) That, of course, never happened. With the cost of doing that, the way of getting compliance was not satisfactory. We then get into a situation where the same agent, the same organization, the same agency that is responsible for the management and control of the operation, control of the whole of the exploration and production activity, methods, schedules and all of that, is also dealing with health and safety. That has been deemed by many countries and by the Wells commission of inquiry to be unsatisfactory.

He says in his report—and recommendation no. 29 has already been mentioned by one of my colleagues—that there should be a new independent stand-alone safety regulator: Such a Safety Regulator would have to be established, mandated, and funded by both Governments by way of legislative amendment, regulation, or memorandum of understanding, or other means. In the lead-up to that he said: I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire report.

Until the end of 2009, the C-NL offshore operated under a primarily prescriptive regime which established the requirements under which the oil operators filed their Safety Plans, received authorizations, and conducted their exploration and production. The essential task of the Regulator was to ensure that the oil operators adhered to what was required of them. This was called the prescriptive system of regulation. They then changed that entirely.

The regulations changed into the performance goal-based regime whereby the regulations specify, and the regulator sets the goals and the operators respond by saying how they will achieve them. He was not satisfied with that. He said that the new offshore goal regulator regime was introduced by regulation in January 2010. There were no changes made at the time to the regulatory body to strengthen and prepare it for the new and much more demanding regime. He says that there ought to be a separate, powerful, independent, knowledgeable body equipped with expert advice, and he made the recommendation I just quoted.

That is the one flaw in this regime. We support this legislation because it brings us from a situation of operating with draft regulations to a situation where we now have regulations in force. We have authority by legislation. This has been worked on for a number of years by negotiators on behalf of the workers in both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The former NDP Government of Nova Scotia and the PC Government of Newfoundland and Labrador worked on these for a number of years. The labour representatives support this approach. They support the fact that this regulation is there.

They worked very hard to achieve a situation where they believe that the offshore workers have the same level of protection as the onshore workers. That is an important principle that is included in this bill. As a result of the work of the labour representatives in these negotiations, they believe this has been achieved. The second principle is the protection of employees' rights to know and to participate, to refuse unsafe work and to be protected from reprisal.

That is there, as well as support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibilities in the workplace between employees and employers for a safety regime. That is why we support it. We think it is a good step forward to ensure that the safety regime is covered by enforceable legislation, and we think that is going to be a better system to protect workers and to protect workers who refuse unsafe work.

Where we have the problem is in the fact that it is included in the same regulatory body as all other aspects of offshore development, whether they be plans for production or exploration, design of facilities and all of that. There is no separate regulator.

(1040) Why should we have one? Looking at other countries, we see that in 2001, for example, Norway adopted the concept of having a separate safety regulator. A few years later, Australia did the same thing. Their rationale for imposing separate safety regulators was that there may be inherent conflicts within a single regulator that, on the one hand, regulates exploration and production and at the same time is required to make the hard decisions that a safety regulator must make. We also had the same situation in the United Kingdom, where it was also believed that this was required.

These changes were made and they came from government, not from industry. The changes have been fully accepted by industry, however, and they are deemed to be working, according to Justice Wells in his report, and he said that it was “...independent minds outside the industry which perceived the inherent conflict between exploration and production on the one hand and safety on the other...”. A second problem that goes against the notion of continuing with a single regulator is something called “regulatory capture”, which is well known in the industry and other types of industrial regulation.

I am reading here from the report at page 277: ...regulators and those they regulate work so closely together that friendships and close working relationships can develop. Common interests and what are sometimes referred to as cozy relationships may unconsciously influence the hard decisions that safety regulation requires. The report did not state, nor did Justice Wells say, that he found that type of regulatory capture in existence.

The offshore industry is relatively new and small, and he did not expect regulatory capture to occur. “Nevertheless”, he said, “every effort should be made to ensure that it never happens”. These are two of the reasons why this should be a separate regulatory body. As Justice Wells said, the recommendation was one of the most important ones he made. It was adopted by the Newfoundland and Labrador government; it supported that recommendation. The workers themselves support that recommendation. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour supports that recommendation 29.

We supported it in Newfoundland and Labrador and we support it here, that there should be a separate regulatory body. The minister says we do not need to have a proliferation of agencies and organizations. We are not talking about a proliferation here; we are talking about a separate health and safety regime in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore industry where it is extremely important to have that concern. We have a situation now, and it is relevant to the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore and also to the situation involving helicopter transport back and forth to the rigs.

That has to do with the resumption of night flights. During the course of Mr. Justice Wells' inquiry, he made an interim recommendation that all night flights of helicopters back and forth to the rigs be stopped. That has been in place since around February 2010, when he made that recommendation. It was implemented by the C-NLOPB, and night flights have not been a part of the regime of the offshore, much to the relief of the workers because part of the evidence heard during Mr.

Justice Wells' inquiry was that the survivability from a crash at night in a helicopter was significantly lowered because it happened at night. The situation is that this helicopter crashed because it had a loss of main gearbox lubricant. The pilots thought, and were told, that the helicopter had the capability of flying for 30 minutes in what is called a “run dry“ state, with no gearbox lubricant. That is a standard for all class A helicopters in use in the world.

Unbeknownst to the pilots, there was an exemption given to Sikorsky, and the helicopter did not have that capability, so 10 minutes after the helicopter lost main gearbox oil it crashed, killing 17 of the 18 people on board.

(1045) In its February 2011 report, the Transportation Safety Board recommended that all class A helicopters be required to have that 30-minute run-dry capability and asked Transport Canada to enforce that ruling. Transport Canada did not accept that recommendation, nor did it place any restrictions or limitations on these helicopters being used to transport people hundreds of kilometres over the ocean. It left that in place, following what the American FAA did in saying that it would not require Sikorsky to retrofit its helicopter fleet. That created a regime of concern by offshore workers.

They made protestations about it. They made representations to the C-NLOPB. A moratorium on night flights was maintained up until now. However, now the operators, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, are going back to the C-NLOPB seeking to resume night flights. We are back to the situation in which the regulator, which is in charge of all aspects of offshore production safety and regulations, looking at this very question of offshore health and safety.

I believe there would be more confidence among the workers and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia if they knew that a decision that was going to be made would be made by a separate, independent health and safety regulator whose only mandate and only concern was the safety of workers. The independent regulator would be making that decision and would take into consideration what the options are. One of the options would be to have more helicopters instead of having night flights. The issue is how many people can be transported and in what period of time.

The reason they want night flights and want to fly in the dark is they do not have enough helicopters to do the transportation in the daytime. The simple solution is to have more helicopters. There is a cost involved, yes, but if safety requires it, then I would expect that an independent health and safety regulator, with no concerns other than health and safety, would be in a better position to make the decision that night flights would not be permitted in the offshore, even if it was a tough decision.

That is one concrete example of the concern that was raised about this issue and the need for an independent regulator. Recommendation 29 of Mr. Justice Wells' report on the offshore helicopter safety inquiry states it very eloquently, with a lot of background information. A lot of work was done, with a lot of consultations and visits to other countries. Whether from the U.K., Norway, or Australia, experts and expertise were brought forward. Retired Justice Wells did a most thorough report and made that recommendation. It is a pity that it was not adopted by the Government of Canada.

The government failed to do that despite the urging of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Justice Wells, the unions involved, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, and many others who are concerned about the offshore health and safety regime. That said, we do regard this bill as a step forward. Bill C-5 would put into regulation and legislation what was treated as draft regulations for nearly 20 years. It is an unsatisfactory situation that would be resolved. For that reason, we are supporting the legislation at second reading.

I see that my time is nearly up, but I would be happy to answer any questions or respond to any comments my colleagues would have with respect to the bill. As I say, we support it, but we are concerned that there is a lack of an independent regulator to enforce these regulations.

(1050) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it was interesting when the minister introduced the legislation. He started off by talking about the prosperity the region is enjoying because of its natural resources. Maybe we could echo some of those comments, in the sense that we in the Liberal Party acknowledge that natural resources have been able to contribute to the overall wealth of our nation. It is gratifying to see the different regions of our country that are able to tap into those natural resources and generate wealth.

Seeing some of the things going on out on the Atlantic coast is very encouraging. That said, it surprises me, given the importance of our natural resources and being able to tap into them, that we have to be concerned about health care, safety, regulations, and the right to deny work in dangerous situations. These are all very important issues that Canadians want us to stay on top of. My question to the member is this: does he believe that the government could have and should have acted in a quicker fashion, given that the incident that precipitated this legislation took place back in 2009?

Given the importance of the industry for all of Canada, why has it taken so long to provide this legislation? Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, yes, natural resources are important, and it is gratifying to see provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia benefiting from offshore oil and gas exploration and development. I think a lot of Canadians do not realize that in the case of oil, for example, the operations off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador produce the equivalent of 40% of Canada's requirement for light crude, or close to it. Much of it is exported.

Almost all of it is exported directly to the United States or elsewhere by the operators, although some of it is refined in Newfoundland and Labrador. The extent of the production is really very high when compared to the Canadian requirements for light crude. It could contribute to energy security for Canada in a very important way, and we have just seen some new exploration successes that will see the industry continue for quite some years to come. I am not sure if it is true to say that the decision to bring forth this legislation was prompted by the Cougar helicopter crash in 2009.

Discussions and negotiations have been going on since 2002. I think we have to all agree that it has been at a rather slow pace and that there did not seem to be a degree of urgency on the part of the Government of Canada to move this measure forward. I am disappointed that it has taken so long. As I indicated, our party raised the issue on numerous occasions in the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador when I was there and leading the Newfoundland New Democratic Party.

We urged the kind of legislation and regulation that we now have, which was to take it out of the draft, put it into the regulations, make it enforceable, and have a proper regime. It has been a long time coming. I suppose there was resistance from the industry, which believed it had a new way of doing things and that we could not tell it what to do. The industry believed that it knew more about it than the government. That was the attitude, and I think the Government of Canada listened to that for far too long.

(1055) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, contrary to the impression left by the Minister of Natural Resources , the bill before us, Bill C-5 , deals entirely with offshore health and safety affecting the workers, transportation of workers, and their right to refuse unsafe work. The member for St. John's East has knowledge and a deep background on the very slow pace of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board in taking worker safety seriously, and that is a real concern for me as well.

I would like to underline that although the Minister of Natural Resources talked about how this bill would make environmental progress, there is none of that in the bill. I would like to know if my hon. colleague would agree with me that it falls far short of the independent safety board that we really need, because in practice, these offshore petroleum boards are not unbiased; in practice, they operate to promote offshore oil and gas.

Would my hon. colleague agree with me that the legislation before us is indeed better than nothing, but falls far short of what we would all like to see, based on the recommendations of Mr. Wells? Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right: it is a good step forward, but it falls far short, particularly in terms of recommendation 29 with respect to independence. The member is also right in saying that although the minister talked about environmental issues, there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that deals with the environment.

In fact, that has been another criticism of the offshore oil and gas regime, particularly with respect to even having access to the environmental monitoring that ought to be taking place. That monitoring is not done by independent monitors; in fact, researchers and academics are denied access to the oil platforms for the purpose of even counting birds, doing basic studies, or following up on baseline studies that might have been done years ago. As a result, we have a situation in which the people who are expected to follow the regulations are the ones who are doing the monitoring.

It is not being done by somebody independent. That is the situation in the environmental field, and unfortunately that was also the situation with respect to offshore safety when it came to the lack of regulations: the standards were being set by government, but how to do it was left up to the industry. In this particular case, we still have a problem in that the same regulator is dealing with both aspects of offshore operations, and we believe that is wrong. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the member to elaborate on how he would see a stand-alone safety regulator operating and how he would see such a regulator set up. Also, the member may have heard my question to the minister earlier about his past comments. In relation to environmentalists in Canada, the minister referred to environmentalists and “other radical groups”. I wonder if the member feels that is the sort of thing that creates fertile ground for Canada in making the case it is trying to make in the U.S. these days. Mr. Jack Harris : Mr.

Speaker, obviously the kind of language used by the minister and other representatives of the government in dismissing concerns about climate change, dismissing representations being made by environmentalists and others, and dismissing science in general has been detrimental to the case for proper development of oil and gas in the country. In fact, the government has made it difficult for people to understand the details and to be able to participate in regulatory reviews.

That has led to tremendous difficulties in the United States, where there is strong opposition to the Keystone pipeline development and others. The government has itself to blame for some of the opposition that has occurred. I agree with the member on that point. In this particular case of the offshore safety regime, I would like to underscore my concerns about this regime not being an independent safety regime. That is an important aspect of our participation in this debate.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members (1100) [ English ] Chatham O'Donaghue's Ironmen Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the Chatham O'Donaghue's Ironmen baseball team, which recently won the New Brunswick Senior Baseball League Championship. This is the 11th championship title for the Ironmen over the years. They will be going on to represent the province of New Brunswick, while in Newfoundland, at the Canadian Senior Baseball Championships.

It was a great team effort, but I do have to single out the skipper, who celebrated a milestone birthday along with the win. I also acknowledge the dedicated fans who have supported and cheered for the Ironmen at every game. These fans will get the chance to cheer them on at home, as the Ironmen have just been selected to host the 2015 National Senior Championships. The Ironmen are wonderful representatives of not only New Brunswick but of the Miramichi. We are all very proud of their accomplishments and wish them great success in Newfoundland in 2014.

Hockey Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the return of men's hockey at Laurentian University after a 14-year hiatus and the launch of women's hockey for the first time. Sport brings people together and reflects many of the values that our country holds dear. I had the opportunity to attend with my daughter the LU men's home opener this past weekend, and it was clear that the university's goal of bringing the community together had been a tremendous success, with a completely sold out arena, a usual occurrence this year.

As I looked around the crowd, I could see young and old enjoying the game and I was filled with a sense of pride for my community and my university. I also want to thank Laurentian University for its academic leadership. Laurentian is working on its second campus in Barrie. My colleague across the floor, the MP for Barrie , is lucky to have such a great university partner in his community as well. At least now on a few occasions we can cheer for the same team. With that, I would like to say go, Voyageurs, go.

Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this coming Sunday, people around the world will be celebrating Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas. Diwali is the triumph of light over darkness, good over evil and the renewal of life. Bandi Chhor Divas commemorates the release of the sixth Sikh Guru, Guru Hargobind Singh Ji , from prison and his subsequent arrival in Amritsar during the Diwali festival. It is a time of great joy, celebration, and light. It is when the whole family and friends get together to enjoy wonderful food, company, and fireworks.

As we all gather with our families and friends to celebrate, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to wish everyone celebrating around the world a very happy, healthy, and prosperous Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas.

Brain Tumour Awareness Month Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today marks the end of Brain Tumour Awareness Month in Canada. During this month, over 800 Canadians will have been diagnosed with a brain tumour, like our dear friend Trevor Harrison, and we keep them in our thoughts. Unfortunately, not all Canadians will have equal access to the treatments they need, as geography remains a significant barrier for Canadians to get the care and help they require.

Where is the mechanism to count all diagnosed tumours for each province and territory in accordance with a motion passed in the House in 2007? Great strides have been made in research about this unique form of cancer, but much more work remains to be done. That is one of the reasons we need 2014 to be the year of the brain and a national brain strategy for the 10 million Canadians who will be affected by a brain or psychiatric condition at some point in their lives.

Charleswood Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Charleswood. Charleswood is unique among Winnipeg's suburban areas in that it retains a semi-rural atmosphere. Many streets remain unpaved, and do not have sidewalks, and some are lined with ditches. There are many places to enjoy nature. There are many trails and a very large urban forest. Charleswood is blessed with the spectacular Assiniboine Park on the east side and the Assiniboine River on the north side.

The people of Charleswood embrace all that is Canadian sport, from world champion curler Jeff Stoughton, who curls out of the Eric Coy rink, or the thousands of kids who played for the Charleswood Hawks and Rangers hockey teams, or the Charleswood Broncos football team or the Oak Park High School Raiders. I wish to thank the Charleswood Historical Society for reminding all of us of our proud heritage. Happy 100 years, Charleswood: Go Broncos, go Hawks, go Rangers, go Oak Park Raiders.

(1105) [ Translation ] France Demers Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of recognizing the work of Ms. France Demers, from Magog. She was named woman farmer of the year by the Fédération des agricultrices du Québec. Her farm, Ferme Magolait, is a large dairy farm in my riding of Brome—Missisquoi. Ms. Demers, who has four children, has become an expert in work-life balance over the years. Despite having a very busy schedule, the whole family is involved in various activities. Family members participate in several regional competitions in the Eastern Townships.

Through her dedication and hard work, Ms. Demers has become a role model for other Canadian farmers. It is precisely to help businesses like Farm Magolait that the government should establish as soon as possible a national strategy to promote local food production. I call on the House to support this bill on local foods.

[ English ] Canadian Forces Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as November 11 approaches, I rise to remember 41 brave women and men from CFB Petawawa who made the supreme personal sacrifice for their country as members of the mission to Afghanistan. Lest we forget, it was the decision of the previous government to play politics with military procurement. The short-sighted cancellation of the Sea King helicopter replacement contract led to many preventable casualties.

Forcing our soldiers onto roads mined with bombs and improvised explosive devices caused precious Canadian blood to be spilt. Only after our Conservative government provided the right equipment, heavy-lift Chinook helicopters, did casualty levels drop. Lest we forget, the opposition continues to play politics with military procurement. Come next election, we will remember.

Justice Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about crime. That is why our government is taking action to keep our streets and communities safe. We have already passed over 30 measures to crack down on criminals. However, there is still much work to be done. The number of sexual assaults in Regina has gone up by 17.3% over the last year and homicides have gone up by a shocking 50%. There is clearly much more work to be done.

We committed, in the Speech from the Throne, to end the misguided practice of automatically releasing serious offenders early and we committed to making life sentences mean life behind bars. I call on the NDP and the Liberals to support these common sense measures to help us keep Canadians safe.

[ Translation ] International Film Festival in Abitibi-Témiscamingue Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, nobody can deny that the international film festival in Abitibi-Témiscamingue makes a tremendous contribution to forging Quebec's cultural identity. For the past 31 years, this film festival has been everything a film festival should be and more. It has helped launch many artistic events, making Rouyn-Noranda the Canadian cultural capital it is today.

This evening, the curtain will close on the 32nd edition, remarkable for the many films spotlighting artists from Abitibi-Témiscamingue, including children of the festival itself: technicians, screenwriters, actors, producers, and teachers who discovered the world of film thanks to this festival. That is why I would like to congratulate the festival's many volunteers and partners. I would also like to thank the founding presidents, Jacques Matte, Guy Parent, and Louis Dallaire, for their outstanding contribution to raising Abitibi-Témiscamingue's profile. Enjoy the show.

(1110) [ English ] Sealing Industry Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are proud to support the seal hunt. Obviously, there is a group of misinformed American chefs attacking our seafood industry as a whole. I would like to congratulate American chef Anthony Bourdain for his interventions on behalf of the rural and coastal communities that rely on the seal hunt. I would also like to thank chef Michael Smith from P.E.I. and chef Dave McMillan from Montreal for calling out these American chefs on their hypocrisy.

I invite any of these American chefs to actually come to Canada to experience the hunt first-hand. Fresh local food, anywhere in the world, prepared the way locals eat it, is always good. Obviously, some chefs should broaden their horizons and their palates.

[ Translation ] Prostate Cancer Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is nearly November and along with the colder weather come the well-known Movember moustaches. This masculine facial adornment made famous by people like Lanny McDonald, Pat Burns, and, of course, Jack Layton now serves as the icon of November, as part of the Movember campaign.

The purpose of this growing campaign is to make people aware of prostate cancer and raise money to find a cure for this horrible disease. [ English ] Once again this year, I have the honour and pleasure of being the captain of the NDP team, the New “DeMOcrats”. Not only fun and entertaining, Movember more importantly helps start a conversation about a topic that is still taboo for some men, our health. We suffered a tragedy when we lost one of Canada's most famous moustaches, our dear Jack.

However, his fight against prostate cancer inspired us and motivated us to participate in Movember campaigns year after year. I encourage all members and indeed all Canadians to do the same. [ Translation ] Through your participation, we will change the face of men's health, one moustache at a time. Let's mo.

[ English ] Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal leader took on his new role six months ago, he has announced only one concrete policy he has for Canada, his plan to legalize marijuana. In contrast, our Conservative government has been getting things done for Canadians. We have signed the biggest free trade deal since NAFTA, begun efforts to provide more fairness and competition for consumers, and maintained our focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We are opening the market for 500 million new consumers.

While we have been focused on the economy and opening those markets, the Liberal leader has been focused on legalizing street drugs. His plan will make drugs easily available to our children, something our government will prevent. Our Prime Minister will keep illegal drugs off the streets. Clearly, the leader of the Liberal Party is way over his head.

Guelph Curling Club Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Guelph Curling Club, which is celebrating a very important anniversary. Predating Confederation, for 175 years the club has embodied the values of healthy competition, good sportsmanship, and community engagement. Over the course of its many years, members of this club have not just “hurried hard” from end to end, but have contributed to the continuous growth of the popularity of this sport across the city, indeed, across the country.

The Guelph Curling Club is the second-oldest curling club in Ontario and has a proud tradition of producing some of the finest curlers, including the men and women in Evan Macdonald's iconic painting, Curling on Speed River . Since making its way across the ocean with the great Scots who invented it, curling has been a familiar exercise in community bonding and activity. The Guelph Curling Club is no exception, with its longtime tradition of giving to the community.

Parliamentarians of the House applaud all the members and staff who have made 175 years of curling at this club a possibility, as well as the board of directors that manages it so well.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government prioritizes safe streets and communities for Canadian families. Unfortunately, the leader of the Liberal Party prioritizes legalizing marijuana above everything else. Families in my community were shocked to hear that the leader of the third party made as his first and his only policy declaration that he wanted to make it easier for children to access illegal drugs. He pointed to the example in the regulation of alcohol being available as why pot should be legalized.

Parents in my community see through the Liberal leader's rhetoric, and we know that teens are twice as likely to consume alcohol in the past year as pot. Regulating rules for alcohol did not prevent teens from accessing it. By sending this message that recreational drug use is acceptable, the Liberal leader is showing once again that he is not material for prime minister of our country and that he is definitely way in over his head.

(1115) [ Translation ] Liberal and Conservative Parties of Canada Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, how better to end the parliamentary week than with a quiz for everyone, even the people watching at home? Who am I? I dipped into taxpayers' money to make party friends richer. I used government resources to get around the system. In fact, I used government resources to build a culture of corruption within the state. I tried to hide the truth by dodging the issues and making up wild stories.

I refused to tell the truth when I was asked questions and, even though everyone is talking about it, strangely enough, no one has taken responsibility for my existence but one or two scapegoats. Who am I, the Conservative Senate expenses scandal or the Liberal sponsorship scandal? The answer is both. Canadians deserve better. They deserve better than to have Liberal corruption replaced by Conservative corruption. The Conservatives chose to dress up as Liberals for Halloween, accessorizing with a scandal. Canadians can see what lies behind the masks of the two old parties. There is a bad smell in Ottawa.

The NDP is going to clean up.

[ English ] Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today on Halloween Canadians are calling on us to put a stop to the tricky antics of the opposition parties. While the NDP continues to want the very scary carbon tax, which would raise pumpkin prices and suck money out of the pockets of Canadians, the Liberal leader is even more spooky. He has a treat for potheads in his plan for legalizing marijuana, very scary; no plan for the economy, very scary; no plan for victims of crime, very scary; no plan for consumers, very scary.

Canadians are not tricked. However, the scariest thing about the spooky Liberal leader, which even the count is afraid of, is that he has no plans for Canada; very, very scary. While opposition parties trick Canadians with vampire treats, our Conservative government is driving a stake through the heart of the recession with our economic action plan and the Canada-EU trade agreement. Happy Halloween.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Ethics Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I remember someone once saying that when someone is under the kind of cloud the Prime Minister admits his government is under, I would think they would use every opportunity to be as forthright as possible. Who said that? Oh, that was the Prime Minister . However, that was back when the Conservatives thought that telling the truth actually mattered to Canadians. Today is another day of questions. Will it be another day of changing stories?

Is the Prime Minister aware of any other cheques from Nigel Wright to Mike Duffy? It is a simple question. How about a simple answer? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by saying “Happy Halloween”. Tonight is a night when kids will be all over the place. Hopefully everyone will help out. If people have somewhere to go, they should drive a little slower and take a little extra time so we do not have anything happen that will make this a bad day. I hope everyone will consider that.

With respect to the question, we have been clear. Our party is no different from other parties when it comes to helping our members who require legal assistance. We do that unlike the NDP, of course, which not only provides legal assistance but actually pays judgments against those members. We do not have that double standard on this side of the House. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I remember a Prime Minister once saying, “If you are throwing mud, you are losing ground.” Wait, that was just last week.

I have a better expression for the Conservatives, “When you are in a hole, stop digging.” These guys went out and bought a bigger shovel. Let us start again. The Prime Minister said that a few people in his office were aware of the cheque from Nigel Wright to Mike Duffy. Please tell us how many people in the Prime Minister 's Office were aware of the second cheque, the one to pay Mike Duffy's legal expenses.

(1120) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again I will refer the hon. member to affidavits recently filed in court. However, while I have the floor I will also mention the fact that again today we see that the Canadian economy grew by over 2% annually. That is really good news for the Canadian economy.

When they talk about shovelling and talk about digging, of course the opposition members keep digging into this because they know they do not want to talk about the things that Canadians are concerned about: jobs, growth and safe communities. If they talk about that, they know they will be on the wrong side of Canadians. It is this party that is on the right side of Canadians. It is this party that will continue to work to grow the economy and create jobs, even if the opposition gets in the way all the time. Canadians can count on us to focus on the economy. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, only this party and this member would think that a Prime Minister not coming clean with Canadians somehow was not important to Canadians. We believe this to be important to the nation. The issue is Conservative involvement in a cover-up to pay off Mike Duffy and buy his silence. This is just like when the Liberals were mired in the sponsorship scandal. Paul Martin's strategy was to not answer direct questions from the opposition. How did that work out for Paul Martin and the Liberals down the way? Let us try again. Nigel Wright has been interviewed by the RCMP.

Can the government tell us, when was the last time the Prime Minister had a conversation with Nigel Wright? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this, coming from a party that actually wanted to have a coalition government with the Liberals. The NDP wanted six seats in the Liberal cabinet. Now, all of a sudden, the Liberals are the worst party ever, but the NDP was ready at one point to set aside what Canadians wanted, when they voted us into office, and to form a coalition government with the Liberals. Wow.

It is all over the place. It is trick or treat all day; trick and treat, both of them together. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is actually a very simple question. The parliamentary secretary has to know: when did the Prime Minister last speak to Nigel Wright? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, clearly what is happening here is that they have nothing to talk about. The NDP members do not want to talk about the fact that the Canadian economy continues to grow.

They do not want to talk about the fact that we have opened Canada to a market of 500 million new consumers. They do not want to talk about the fact that we are focused on community safety. They do not want to talk about the great work of our Minister of National Defence who is providing our troops with the equipment they need to get the job done. They do not want to talk about the fact that our Minister of Natural Resources is opening up new markets for our resources.

They do not want to talk about the fact that the Minister of Finance is seeing our deficit reduced by an additional $7 billion and we are on track to a balanced budget. They want to talk about the fact that they want to protect these senators. We do not. We are on the side of Canadians. We want them suspended without pay. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly changed his story about how many of his employees knew about the scandal. It started out being just Nigel Wright, but now he is saying that several people knew.

Exactly how many people in the Prime Minister's Office were aware of the cheque or cheques that bought Mr. Duffy's silence? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to affidavits that were recently filed in court. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, since February the Prime Minister 's senior insiders have been up to their necks in a scheme to cover up the wrongdoing and public embarrassment of Mike Duffy.

The government has said that paying $90,000 in hush money was wrong but paying $13,000 in legal fees for negotiating that hush money was okay. There would have to have been an itemized invoice for the services rendered by Duffy's lawyer to show in detail what he did to earn the $13,000. When will the government table that itemized invoice? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, hearing this member talk about government accountability is really odd.

The member was part of a cabinet that funnelled important government advertising money into the Liberal Party. Apparently, he did not know anything about it and the Liberal prime minister at the time did not know anything about it. Rather, it was all the public works minister, a public works minister who had the time to also cut a cheque for a Liberal cabinet minister to cover the expenses of his son's wedding. The Liberals liked him so much they elevated him from an honourable to an excellency by sending him to Denmark. Give me a break. They have nothing to teach anyone on ethics and accountability.

(1125) Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative cover-up began in February. Along the way it involved Wright, van Hemmen, Woodcock, Perrin, Hamilton, Byrne, LeBreton, Tkachuk, Stewart Olsen, Gerstein, Novak and others. The Prime Minister meets with these people almost every day and somehow he never noticed, they never told him and he never asked about a scheme in their inner sanctum involving potentially illegal conduct. Among these players, who gave the order to sandbag Deloitte's audit and corrupt a Senate proceeding, and is he or she still on the public payroll? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, hearing the Liberals talk about ethics is like watching a snake come out of its skin. The snake will come out looking all shiny and new, but it is really the same dangerous snake it was before. That is what the Liberals are. They are standing in the way of ethics and accountability in the Senate. Their senators need to get out of the way and let the Senate pass this motion so that we can strip these senators of their pay. That is the level of accountability Canadians want.

Only the Liberals and the NDP support these senators and are trying to make victims out of these people who took from Canadians. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, any delay in the Senate is entirely the responsibility of the Conservative leader in the Senate and the PMO that is pulling his strings. It stands to Mike Duffy's great discredit that he lied to Canadians about the source of the hush money. It is an even greater discredit if someone in the Prime Minister's Office actually counselled Duffy to tell that lie. That is what he said, that the PMO told him to lie on national television.

Will the Prime Minister make all staff available to testify under oath to contradict Duffy or is Duffy now telling the truth? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there go the Liberals supporting Senator Duffy and these disgraced senators. Recently the new Liberal finance critic was on a panel with the Liberal leader and she talked about the fact that she was worried that today's job prospects are not about how smart or educated one is but have more to do with what one's father did.

I know she was not talking about me because my dad was a really great hairdresser, he was a great pizza maker and I am not that talented. I wonder who she could be talking about. I will have to ask the Liberal leader who he thinks she was talking about when he makes it back into the House. Who could be— The Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said, “...on our side there is one person responsible for this deception, and that person is Mr. Wright...”.

Then, just a few days ago, after months of people asking questions, the Prime Minister finally dropped his flimsy story and admitted that a few people in his office were aware of the scheme. That being the case, why, last Tuesday, did he once again say that Nigel Wright acted alone, even though that theory has long since been debunked? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, on February 13, when he was approached by Mike Duffy to try to justify his inappropriate expenses, the Prime Minister told to him to repay those inappropriate expenses that he did not earn. Mr. Duffy went on TV and then said that he made those payments by taking out a loan at the Royal Bank. We subsequently, obviously, found out that it was not true, that Nigel Wright did that. Nigel Wright has taken sole and full responsibility. He knows that what he did was wrong, and he is prepared to accept accountability.

We have a motion in the Senate right now, and we hope that the senators will pass the motion that would strip these individuals of their pay, because that is what Canadians want, and that is what the vast majority of this caucus wants. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, here is another inconsistency in the Prime Minister 's story. He said that he had received assurances that Mike Duffy would repay the expenses himself. However, on Thursday, he said that it was Mr. Duffy himself who announced on national TV that he had repaid his expenses.

When the Prime Minister said that he had received assurances that Mr. Duffy would repay his expenses, who gave him those assurances? Was it Mike Duffy on TV? Was it Mike Duffy during a private meeting? Was it Nigel Wright? Who was it? (1130) [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Mike Duffy went on TV and told Canadians that he repaid his expenses by taking out a mortgage on his home.

I note that the opposition, I do not think, asked any questions about this until May 15, when it was reported, and we all knew, that that was not actually the case. That was wrong. It was wrong for Nigel Wright to have made that payment on his behalf, and it is wrong right now that Mr. Duffy will not accept responsibility for what he has done. We are going to extract that responsibility, hopefully by passing this motion in the Senate, and the Senate can get to the motion and pass it, and we will do what Canadians want: accountability for the senators, nothing less. [ Translation ] Ms.

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have to ask again. We still do not have a clear picture of who said what to whom and who did not tell the truth to whom. The Prime Minister seems to be saying he found out how Mike Duffy repaid his expenses when Mr. Duffy went on TV. Is the Prime Minister accusing Nigel Wright of lying to him? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, Senator Duffy went on TV and told Canadians that he took out a loan on his home and repaid his expenses.

We are not talking about the leader of the NDP here, who waited 17 years to talk about the fact that he was offered a bribe and then was not sure if he was or was not. Then, of course, he admitted that yes, he was offered a bribe. Imagine what we could have saved the people of Quebec if only the Leader of the Opposition, 17 years ago, would have told police that he was offered an illegal bribe. That is shameful. On this side of the House, we demand accountability. We have a motion before the Senate right now to do what Canadians want: get accountability from the Senate.

The Liberals in the Senate need to get out of the way and let us pass that motion. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we refuse brown envelopes. On the other side, they hand them out. That is the difference The Prime Minister is playing innocent—poor thing—when he says that it is unacceptable that Mr. Duffy misled him about the source of his repayment. However, if that is so unacceptable, why was it the staffers in his office who suggested this ridiculous fabrication to Mike Duffy and these lies to journalists? Why? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a member, who, on Monday, thought it was funny that he made 29 separate donations to a party that wants to destroy Canada. He somehow thinks that is funny. [ Translation ] On this side of the House there are Conservative members from Quebec. They are proud to be Canadians and proud to be Quebeckers. They work tirelessly towards a stronger Canada and a stronger Quebec.

It is too bad that the member does not share the same pride. [ English ] If he did have that same pride, he would help us build a bigger, better, stronger, safer Canada instead of trying to tear it apart. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have to make a confession. I also tell stories to my children in the evening to help them sleep. However, I certainly do not do that in the House of Commons.

This weekend in Calgary, the Reform base out west will really be thrilled to see the gang opposite showing the same attitudes and behaviours as the Liberals during the sponsorship scandal. I will try a simple question: did Chris Woodcock say to lie about the source of the $90,000 to Mike Duffy? Did he say that, yes or no? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, he is talking about his Liberal partners, of course, who wanted to get into a coalition with them, and maybe get a cabinet seat for himself.

I will tell you what is frightening, Mr. Speaker. What is frightening is this: he actually wants to separate and destroy Canada. He wants to talk about an issue that has devastated the Quebec economy and has torn apart families in Quebec. No one in Quebec wants to talk about that. They want to talk about building a bigger, better, stronger, safer Canada. They want to talk about jobs and the economy. Only this member continues to harbour the belief that separation is a good thing. That is why he has provided 29 separate donations. That is what is scary.

I hope his children do not understand the fact that he wants to separate Canada from Quebec, because that would certainly be scary. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on the weekend in Calgary, will there be a panel to provide an historical perspective of a time when the bunch opposite still had principles, perhaps with videos of the good old days when the Conservatives could talk about ethics without making the entire country roar with laughter? Mike Duffy might well be a crook, but at least he is submitting documents, facts.

He is putting something out on the table, which the Prime Minister has not done. If the Conservatives want to contradict him, they should follow suit. Will the Conservative publicly release all the emails between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy? Will they put them out on the table? (1135) [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am glad he mentions the Calgary convention.

I cannot tell the House how excited I am to be in Calgary with the grassroots of this party, whose policies and advice have helped us make Canada the best country in the world in which to live, who have helped shape our policies to help guide us through this second economic downturn. It is the grassroots of this party who have also been instrumental in helping build this country. That is why I am excited to go to Calgary.

I am excited to be in Calgary with these grassroots, because they know that building a bigger, better, stronger, safer Canada is better for all of us, unlike that member who continues to try to tear it apart— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The member for Timmins—James Bay . Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it has been five months since Canadians learned about the secret deal between Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright. We learned in May that there was one cheque.

Then in the past week, we learned that there was a second cheque, from Conservative Party donors, to cover off Mike Duffy's legal fees. Does the government know how many cheques Mike Duffy received and how many cheques were handled by the Prime Minister's Office? It should be a simple question to answer. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, on occasion, this party does provide legal assistance for the members of its caucus, if it is required.

It does not change the fact that what Mike Duffy did in accepting expenses that he did not earn was wrong. It does not change the fact that Nigel Wright, in paying those expenses, was wrong. The Prime Minister stated on a number of occasions that had he known, he would have in no way accepted this particular scheme. Right now, we have a motion in front of the Senate that would give us accountability for these actions. It is only the Liberals and the NDP that are trying to make victims out of these three senators and disgraced former Liberal Senator Mac Harb. We are on the side of Canadian taxpayers.

That is where we are comfortable, and that is where we will always be. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it was not all that difficult a question. How many cheques were there? Let us try a quote from the Prime Minister when he was taking on Liberal corruption. He said: My difficulty with the prime minister at this point...is that I don't think that he's been...honest on fairly simple questions when there appear to be contradictions. [...] when somebody doesn't answer questions...in a straightforward manner, there may be something else. Let us talk about that “something else”.

Will the government tell us when the Prime Minister last spoke to Arthur Hamilton to find out the nature of Mike Duffy's legal fees and whether it was appropriate to use the money of Conservative donors?

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, talk about flip-flopping all over the place. No wonder my daughters do not like clowns. This is the party that wanted to actually form a coalition with the Liberals. They now call them very corrupt and an awful party, but as long as they give them six cabinet seats, they will be okay with them. Give me a break. This is about Nigel Wright paying off the debts that Mike Duffy did not incur. It is time for some accountability in the Senate. We have made great progress on that.

The Liberals in the Senate need to get out of the way so that the senators can pass this motion so that we can get that accountability Canadians want. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on Halloween, I am sure his daughters are going to have a wonderful time, and my daughters are wonderful too, but I would never use them to hide behind corruption. Let us find out why they are not being forthright.

Is it because the Prime Minister told his base that he would clean up Ottawa, that instead he took the cushy Conservative insiders and gave them lifetime appointments, that he sat on a cover-up in his own office, and that he allowed these Conservative to break all the rules? What happened to that man who promised Canadians that he would make a better country and clean up the corruption of Ottawa? What happened to that man? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will tell members what happened to that man.

He has been in this chamber and the head of a government that has created a million new jobs for Canadians. He is opening up new markets and has signed one of the biggest trade deals in Canadian history, opening up a market of 500 million people to Canadian consumers. He is making our communities safer. He is re-equipping our armed forces. He has respect for the Canadian taxpayers. He reduced GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. While they talk about the middle class and vote against it constantly, we support the middle class and support accountability. That is what this Prime Minister is all about: the Canadian people.

(1140) Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still refuses to take any responsibility for his senior staff. His senior staff gave $90,000 to Senator Duffy. His personal lawyer in the PMO oversaw that. His PMO staffer, Chris Woodcock, invented the lie about the source of the Duffy funds. In May, the Prime Minister stood by Nigel Wright, and now he throws him violently under the bus. In light of the facts, how can the Prime Minister accept absolutely no personal responsibility for this abuse of the public trust? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that member, sitting in a caucus surrounded by people who owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid leadership debt, could perhaps help us with that form of accountability by working to get them to repay those illegal debts. That would be a good start for the Liberals. Perhaps they could also inform their senators to get out of the way so that we can get real accountability for our senators. What Mike Duffy did was wrong. What Senator Wallin did was wrong.

What disgraced Liberal Senator Mac Harb did was wrong, and the Canadian people want accountability. The Liberals in the Senate need to get out of the way so we can get that accountability. [ Translation ] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has in his possession a document that Canadians have yet to see that would help answer many questions. Arthur Hamilton's invoice should itemize all of the work he did for the Prime Minister's Office. We know that he helped the PMO cover up this scandal.

Will the Prime Minister release that invoice so that we can see the details of the agreement with his office? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we have said from the outset, we will continue to co-operate any way we are asked. Ultimately, what we are talking about here is the fact that these senators claimed expenses that they were not entitled to. They were not entitled to that. Right now before the Senate there is a motion that would extract accountability from these senators.

I ask myself, “What would Eugene do in this case?” I know what Eugene would do. He would apologize. He would resign, and he would pay it back. It is only the Liberals and the NDP who think it is okay to cheat Canadians and still collect a paycheque. We do not. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated for months that no documents existed outlining the cover-up taking place in his own office. We now know that was not true, because Senator Duffy has made public documents and emails directly contradicting the Prime Minister.

It is a sad day when Canadians have to learn more from Mike Duffy in eight days than from the Prime Minister in eight months. No wonder nobody believes the Prime Minister anymore. Will the government make public the remaining documents, or will it wait for Senator Duffy to do so? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I can tell members what a sad day is. It is a sad day when the Liberals continue to stand up for these disgraced senators. That is what a sad day is. They are now trying to make a victim out of Senator Duffy.

Senator Duffy is trying to convince Canadians that somehow he was forced to accept $90,000. He did not want to do it. It was his assistant's fault that he claimed a per diem while he was out in Puerto Vallarta or wherever, perhaps meeting with the former Liberal senator from Puerto Vallarta. Who knows? It was his fault. It was everybody's fault but his, and now the Liberals are standing up for him. That is what is a real disgrace.

National Defence Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence shamefully failed to explain why yet another seriously injured Canadian soldier is being forced out of the military just shy of qualifying for his pension. In fact, over 1,000 CF members have been forced out in this way in the past five years. The minister totally avoided the fact that they are being forced out of the military against their will. Corporal David Hawkins told the military he was not ready to leave. Why is the minister standing by while this soldier is being forced out?

(1145) Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to thank Corporal Hawkins for his service and sacrifice for Canada. As I indicated to the hon. member and to the House, members of the Canadian Forces work with military individuals on a transition plan, and no members are released until they are prepared to do so. [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to duck and weave. What a complete lack of class. Canadian soldiers serve their country with the utmost courage.

They certainly should not have to fight their own government to have the right to be treated with dignity when they come home injured. Will the minister immediately reinstate Corporal Hawkins and ensure that no injured soldiers will be forced out and fired without a pension? Yes or no? [ English ] Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would point out to this member that ill and injured Canadian Forces members are provided with physical, mental and occupational therapy services for their eventual transition to civilian life.

I am proud to be a member of a government that has done more than any other government in Canadian history to support our men and women in uniform and to support our veterans. I am very proud of that.

[ Translation ] Pensions Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this summer the Minister of Finance did not keep his promise to improve the Canada pension plan. Tomorrow, provincial and territorial leaders will meet in an attempt to find a way to overcome the barriers put up by the Minister of Finance . Instead of standing in the way, could the Minister of Finance show some leadership and table a plan to improve the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan so that Canada's seniors can enjoy security in their well-deserved retirement? [ English ] Hon. Kerry-Lynne D.

Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada pension plan reforms continue to be examined by us and provincial governments. It is a topic of conversation between us and our provincial and territorial counterparts. However, we and many provinces share the concerns of small business and others of increasing costs during a fragile global recovery. We are working on this issue. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, between 2010 and 2036 the number of seniors in Canada will double, and Canadians are facing a crisis of retirement insecurity.

The provinces are in agreement that increasing the Canada pension plan is the very best way to ensure that Canadian seniors will have a secure retirement; so when will the minister stop putting up roadblocks and start working with her provincial colleagues on a concrete proposal to boost CPP rates? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned already in response, this is an active topic of conversation between our government and our provincial and territorial counterparts.

There are concerns, many that have been raised by small business and others, with increasing costs during a time when our global economy is still fragile. However, we are very proud of our record and our economic recovery since the recession: a million net new jobs in Canada, most being full time. We are on track and we are on record as heading toward a balanced budget in 2015. CPP is one of those issues we continue to deal with.

Public Safety Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal member for Malpeque and the NDP member for Vancouver East met to support convicted drug dealer Marc Emery. This individual is serving a serious sentence in the United States for selling drugs online where anyone can access them. Criminal acts like these put our children at risk, yet the opposition members cannot stop their support for the drug trade. Can the government tell this House what has been done to keep Canada safe from criminals?

(1150) Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question and her work to make our communities safer. Our Conservative government has increased sentences for serious drug crimes, such as selling drugs near schools. We have been clear that drug dealers will face the full force of the law. We are unlike the leader of the Liberal Party, whose only policy is supporting the drug trade. We will focus our efforts on standing up for victims and keeping our streets and communities safe.

[ Translation ] International Development Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Development said again yesterday that he was proud that his government has decided to restrict access to abortion services for victims of war rape. He said he is also proud that the chief executive of Rio Tinto is playing such a key role in foreign aid. I would like to tell the House what would really make Canadians proud: seeing Canada fight poverty and stand up for women. When will the minister get his priorities straight? [ English ] Ms.

Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada will continue to deliver real results by focusing on areas where Canada has world-leading expertise. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister , Canada is recognized around the world as a leader in defending the health and safety of mothers and children, particularly girls. We will continue the leadership of the Muskoka initiative because what matters most are results, and that is what we are delivering. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's position makes no sense.

Instead of being proud of the impact of Canadian aid, it is proud to refuse funding for safe abortion services for survivors of rape. It is proud to cut funding for the world's poorest while giving—get this—mining executives exclusive access to influence the government's agenda. Instead of blindly defending the government's shortsighted decisions, why does the group of people here, who are entrusted with our foreign policy, not actually look at the world's poorest and deal with that issue instead of its foreign policy that is misdirected? Ms.

Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is always looking for ways to maximize the effectiveness of our development and humanitarian assistance. Our work ensures that Canada stays at the forefront of development policy in an ever-changing world. Because of the Prime Minister 's leadership, the hard work and results that we have achieved, Canada is admired around the world, and our government will not stop taking expertise from all players to ensure that we continue to deliver results both for Canadians and for our development partners.

Steel Industry Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, to save jobs at the former Stelco, all the Conservatives needed to do was enforce the agreement that they themselves had signed under the Investment Canada Act, an agreement U.S. Steel had signed to maintain jobs in Canada. Instead of standing up to U.S. Steel and insisting it honour the promises it made, the Conservatives rolled over and settled out of court. Can the minister explain why his government refuses to stand up for Hamilton? Why did it settle out of court? Hon.

Greg Rickford (Minister of State (Science and Technology, and Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let us break down the NDP members' convoluted position on protecting jobs in the steel industry. Steel makes pipelines. They reject the Keystone pipeline. Steel makes heavy machinery and fabrication for mining and forestry. Their leader referred to these sectors as a disease. They should quit fooling themselves and their constituents and support the Keystone pipeline and responsible resource development for the sake of jobs in the steel industry. Ms.

Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, like the industry minister himself, this minister too does not know what he is talking about. Yesterday, when I asked why he would not stand up to U.S. Steel and demand it honour the promises made to workers in Hamilton, he replied too that if the NDP supported pipelines, we would have saved jobs there. He cannot be serious. As the minister responsible knows only too well, U.S. Steel does not make anything to do with pipelines in Hamilton.

Instead of responding to serious questions with partisan smears, why does the minister not learn this file and start standing up for steelworkers rather than insulting them?

(1155) Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of State (Science and Technology, and Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on Monday, U.S. Steel reported a third-quarter loss of $1.79 billion. Its revenue fell 11%. Unfortunately, it had to make a difficult business decision. However, the hypocrisy of the NDP is incredible. It claims it wants to stand up for steel workers. Do members know that among the products made by U.S. Steel, in Hamilton, are pipelines for oil and gas? Members can guess who does not want to build those pipelines, across any sector. It is the NDP. They check the record.

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are tossing out our wounded soldiers just as they are about to qualify for their pensions. Just as insulting, some 20,000 veterans have been denied funeral assistance from the Last Post Fund. Now we learn that last year, the Conservatives cut this burial fund by 22%. Meanwhile, the PMO budget increased by 7%. Why are the Conservatives increasing spending in the PMO while they slash support for our veterans? [ English ] Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has made substantial investments to support Canada's veterans, including almost $5 billion in new additional dollars since taking office. This funding has been put toward improved financial benefits, world-class rehabilitation, and tuition costs to help veterans transition to civilian life.

While our government is making improvements in veterans' benefits, it is the Liberals and the NDP who are voting against new funding for mental health treatment, financial support and home care services, such as lawn cutting, snow shovelling, and cleaning homes. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The Conservatives routinely fire wounded soldiers when they are just about to qualify for their pension. In another insult, 20,000 veterans have been rejected for help for their funerals under the Last Post Fund.

Now we learn that the Conservatives cut this burial fund by 22% last year. Meanwhile, spending for the PMO has increased by 7%. Why are the Conservatives expanding the PMO while they slash support for our veterans? Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong record when it comes to providing the benefits and the services for Canada's veterans. We have created more than 600 points of service access for our veterans. We have doubled the funeral burial services benefit. We will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans.

It is the NDP and the Liberals who have voted against virtually every single benefit we have brought forward to help our veterans. I would encourage them to support the government and support Canada's veterans.

Housing Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this morning, two low-income families that received support from the Native People of Sudbury Development Corporation will be forced from their homes, through the fault of the current government. The subsidy provided by the federal housing program is ending. In the next two years, as many as 900 other families in my riding alone will be put in the same position. Would the government work with this group in Sudbury to prevent this tragedy from happening? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we are committed to helping vulnerable Canadians to become self-sufficient and to fully participate in our economy. In fact, budget 2013 renewed our commitment to affordable housing, with our agreement for investment in affordable housing. Every year, together with our partners, we have helped over 880,000 individuals and families with subsidized housing. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the worst

part is that the minister is acting as though he really cared about first nations. In 2009, the entire program supported 620,000 households at a cost of $1.7 billion. After cutting $100 million, the government still has not decided whether to renew its social housing agreements. That will affect more than 200,000 households. Will the government protect its operating agreements and prevent the loss of social housing, or will it once again ignore the needs of the most disadvantaged? (1200) [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think the member is confused.

She should know that CMHC is providing mortgage subsidies for long-term, 25-to 50-year agreements. Those agreements are coming to an end. There is no cut. What we have done is renewed our agreements with the provinces for affordable housing. As well, we have renewed our commitment for our homelessness partnering strategy, with a focus on housing first. On a number of levels, we are working together with partners for affordable housing, for homelessness, and empowering and equipping people so they can get jobs and afford the housing in their area.

Natural Resources Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government supports Canadian jobs from coast to coast to coast. We understand that developing our resources creates jobs and economic growth across the country. Our message does not change when we are in Canada or abroad. The Liberal leader, however, pits one region against another in an attempt to win votes. Can we believe him when he said, “Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda”?

Could the Minister of Natural Resources update the House on the work the minister is doing to promote Canada's natural resources sector? Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is running a marathon for Canada. Meanwhile the leader of the Liberals totes up without a semblance of a plan, while the leader of the NDP throws roadblocks in our way and urges on our competitors.

At the finish line, Canadians will know who brought them jobs, economic security, and prosperity as opposed to those who stand on the sidelines or use every tactic in the book to block the path to Canadian success.

Pensions Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this is a story about a gentleman by the name of Bruce Warford. Bruce is an honest guy, an honest taxpayer, and has worked all his life. Now he has applied for CPP disability because through no fault of his own, he is unable to work. Last year the Conservatives created a Socialsecurity Tribunal, saying that it would be more efficient. Unfortunately, all they have done is created more roadblocks for the average Canadian. Mr. Warford has now been waiting nearly three years for an answer. My question to the minister is very simple.

Mr. Warford wants to know why this is happening to him. Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Social Security Tribunals have made it more efficient. The people who are working at Service Canada are making it faster. I do not know about this individual situation. If that member would like to speak with us, maybe he can help his constituent. The facts will show that the process is working and that these individuals are getting their appeals processed much quicker.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is less than 100 days until the Olympic Games open in Sochi, but Canadians are very concerned about the impact of Russia's new anti-gay laws. Russia has already arrested and expelled non-Russians under these so-called “gay propaganda” laws. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs appoint a special consular officer to assist LGBT athletes and spectators in Sochi to ensure that all Canadians can take part, freely and fully, in these Olympic Games? Hon.

Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada has very much made its position very clear in reference to athlete participation in Russia, and the Russian authorities have agreed that nobody will be discriminated against when they go to the Olympics in Russia. We will keep an eye on it and we will make our representation to the Russian authority should anything else happen.

Health Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, one in nine women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime, making breast cancer the most common type of cancer for women. While there are many preventive measures women can take to reduce risk, it can be challenging to locate information on prevention. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health please inform the House what our government is doing to support the fight against this terrible disease and reduce the number of women who are affected?

(1205) Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to investing in women's health, and unfortunately too many Canadian families have had to face this terrible disease. Our government is committed to investing in prevention strategies so fewer Canadians have to take on the battle against cancer. That is why yesterday I was delighted to announce significant investments in partnership with the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. This investment builds on the $1 billion our government has already made in cancer research and prevention since taking office.

[ Translation ] Employment Insurance Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, by moving too quickly on their bad employment insurance reform and eliminating benefits for fishers who also work in other sectors, the Conservatives drew the ire of the independent fishermen's federation in Atlantic Canada. As a result of public pressure, the government has reversed this illogical decision. Thank goodness. This illustrates what happens when the public is not consulted. Will the Conservatives continue moving in the right direction and scrap employment insurance reform? [ English ] Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for reading the budget implementation bill, because three days earlier it seemed as though no one in his caucus had read it. I congratulate the member for reading it and knowing what is in the budget implementation bill. I want to be clear that the modest and reasonable changes that we have made to EI have not changed the rules around applying and for qualifying for EI.

We want to ensure that EI remains there for Canadians who have paid into it and need it when, through no fault of their own, they find themselves without work. We are there for fishermen. It is too bad the members on that side do not even know what is in the act that could benefit the people in their regions.

[ Translation ] Justice Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court will not consider the case of Justice Nadon—a judge who does not meet the basic criteria and does not live in Quebec but was still recommended by the Conservatives, NDP, and Liberals—until January 15. However, in less than a month, the Supreme Court will hear the case of the federal government, which claims to be able to make changes to the Senate without Quebec's consent and without three judges from Quebec sitting on that court. The Minister of Justice must take action.

Will he ask that the hearings of the case pertaining to the Senate be postponed until there are three judges from Quebec duly appointed to the Supreme Court? Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government will defend the right of long-standing members of the Barreau du Québec to sit on the highest court in the country. Members of the Barreau du Québec should have the same rights as lawyers from other provinces. That is why we have taken steps to confirm the eligibility criteria for Supreme Court justices.

We are eager to resolve this issue and to see Justice Nadon, a highly qualified individual, take his seat in the court. The Deputy Speaker : That concludes question period. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on a point of order.

[ English ] Points of Order Standing Order 31 Points of Order Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, this is a recurring issue. You have said in the past that there would be a chance, perhaps, to look at the rules and aid us in the proper use of Standing Order 31. What I refer to in Standing Order 31 is that the Speaker may order a member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order. We do not have much more guidance than that. We do know that Speaker Jeanne Sauvé, at the time, spoke of the importance of S.

O. 31s, so that members had an unrestricted 60 seconds in which to express their concerns relating to their constituencies. In today's statements by members, the members for Mississauga—Streetsville , Yukon , and Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke spoke. The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East was extremely amusing. However, the reality of this is that there is a hijacking of what is supposed to be individual member statements. As the member for Langley pointed out in his point of order last spring, members are increasingly scripted, not speaking of what the concerns are in their ridings.

In this point of order, I do not expect a ruling this moment, but I would like to put it back on the table, asking the Speaker for guidance, that the discretion the Speaker has be used to preclude the use of scripted, partisan, political messages, which do not advance the work in this place.

(1210) The Deputy Speaker : The Chair will not make a ruling at this point, but will get back to the House as soon as possible.

[ Translation ] Business of the House Business of the House Mr. Nathan Cullen (House Leader of the Official Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we are asking the Thursday question a bit earlier than usual so that our friends from the Conservative Party can go to their convention in Calgary.

The official opposition is giving this government a reprieve from the difficult questions asked by our leader and our caucus because it is tradition to allow our colleagues to go to their convention. [ English ] I have no doubt that the government may face a somewhat restless base of supporters with regard to the questions we have been asking of it these last number of weeks and months. I will be there too. I look forward to seeing my colleague across the way.

I will be watching closely for the Prime Minister 's latest version of events in his keynote speech, for which I suspect his good friend, Mayor Ford, will no longer be introducing the Prime Minister. What I will been looking for is to see which version of events the Prime Minister will be giving that we have been recently engaging in. Is it the Nigel the hero version, Nigel the scoundrel version, Nigel the rogue conspiracy version, Nigel the resigned version, the Nigel “I fired” version, or the Nigel “no one knew except Nigel” version with a dual cheque? I look forward to that.

I also look forward to what the government House leader can let us know about the calendar going ahead into next week. Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is the custom in the response to this question to actually answer about the business of the House. That is what I will focus on, rather than the business of our party convention, which I am sure will be a very successful conference. Good things always happen when we get together as a party.

We will conclude this week with the debate on second reading of Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act . [ Translation ] Next week we will focus on families and building our communities. Families are the cornerstone of society. Over the coming weeks and months, our government will continue to support and protect families through a number of important bills. We will continue to tackle crime, increase support for victims, and ensure communities are kept safe from criminals.

We want Canadians to live in safe and healthy communities in which they can raise their children. [ English ] Therefore, on Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-2 , the respect for communities act. That debate will be continued next Friday. After question period Monday, we will take up the second reading debate on Bill C-3 , the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. Wednesday will see us return to the third reading debate on Bill C-7 , the Canadian museum of history act.

Tuesday, November 5 shall be the second allotted day, which will go to the Liberals, I understand. This will be an opportunity for the hon. member for Papineau to tell us, and all Canadians, the next plank of his policy vision for Canada. So far, we have seen his penchant for pot, as well as his star economic adviser claiming that someone's job prospects are pre-determined by his father's job.

However, we have not heard any economic ideas as yet. [ Translation ] Thursday, November 7, shall be the third allotted day, which will see a New Democratic motion considered. [ English ] In closing, let me echo the words of the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East , which I know he scripted himself: happy Halloween.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Foreign Affairs Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaties entitled “Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of His Majesty The Sultan And Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam for the Exchange of Information on Tax Matters”, done in Bandar Seri Begawan, May 9, 2013; “Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the British Virgin Islands Under Entrustment from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island for the Exchange of Information on Tax Matters”, done in London, May 21, 2013; and “Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain for the Exchange of Information on Tax Matters”, done at Ottawa, June 4, 2013.

An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.

(1215) Continuing Care for Canadians Act Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) Bill C-545. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-545,

An Act respecting the provision of continuing care to Canadians . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand in the House today to introduce my bill,

an act respecting the provision of continuing care to Canadians. First of all, I would like to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay , for seconding the bill and for introducing his excellent motion on palliative care. Palliative care and continuing care are critical issues to Canadians. There is a strong national consensus from academics, health professionals, and the public that we are sadly lacking in a pan-Canadian plan for continuing care, including home care, long-term care, respite care, and palliative care. That is what the bill is about.

It would establish pan-Canadian standards for best practices in continuing care, caregiver support, training, infrastructure, and affordability. It would ensure that the federal government would play a key role in a collaborative process with the provinces and the territories to meet the needs of Canadians who need home care, long-term care, or palliative care in a timely and accessible way. I am very proud of the work that went into this comprehensive bill.

It lays out a clear, achievable, and equitable direction to establish a critical program for continuing care and would ensure funding for continuing care services in Canada. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Navigable Waters Protection Act Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) Bill C-546. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-546,

An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Moonlight Lake and other lakes and rivers) . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today in the House to introduce thi