OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 058 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, March 6, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 6, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 058 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 058 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 058 (Version officielle) 147 058 06 03 2014 2014/03/06 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings (1005) [ Translation ] Plans and Priorities Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of 92 departments and agencies, the reports on plans and priorities for 2014-15.

[ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in a parliamentary mission to Athens, Greece, the next country to hold the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, and Zagreb, Croatia, the newest country to join the European Union, which was held in Athens, Greece, and Zagreb, Croatia, from November 14 to November 20, 2013. Mr.

Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation at the following meeting: the annual national conference of the Council of State Governments. That meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America, from September 19 to 22, 2013.

Committees of the House Industry, Science and Technology Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to supplementary estimates (

C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present seven different groupings of petitions. They are all dealing with the same subject matter. The petitioners are asking that in the interest of public safety, they want to see tougher laws and implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Endangered Species Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions today, containing several hundred signatures, calling for the government to take urgent action under the Species At Risk Act to protect the 81 remaining southern resident killer whales.

Proportional Representation Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from Fair Vote Canada, which calls for creating a fairer electoral representation system by implementing proportional representation.

Pensions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition today, signed by many of my constituents in Winnipeg North , dealing with the issue of government's attitude, particularly the Prime Minister 's, toward increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67. The petitioners believe that people should continue to have the option to retire at age 65, and that the government not in any way diminish the importance and value of Canada's three major seniors programs: OAS, GIS, and CPP.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 172, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 191, 194, 206, 217, 221, 226, 241, 242, and 253. [ Text ]

Question No. 172--

Mr. John Rafferty :

With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what criteria were used to determine which regional Veterans Affairs offices would be closed by February 2014, as announced in the 2012-2013 budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, the closure of some regional offices reflects the changing demographics of Veterans across Canada. The well-being of Veterans and their families is Veterans Affairs Canada’s top priority. The department is committed to providing them with the exemplary benefits and programs that they deserve, no matter where they live, as part of Veterans Affairs Canada’s ongoing work to improve service and adjust to the changing needs and demographics of Veterans. Case managers will continue to make home visits to Veterans who need them.

Veterans Affairs Canada has increased the number of case managers in areas of high demand and has opened and maintained 17 operational stress injury clinics and 24 integrated personnel support centres near Canadian Armed Forces bases and major cities across Canada. Veterans Affairs Canada has also partnered with Service Canada to provide even more options to access the Department’s programs and services, especially for those living in rural or remote areas.

Canadian Armed Forces personnel, veterans and their families can now obtain general information and apply for certain benefits at any one of the approximately 600 Service Canada centres nationwide, where they also have one-stop access to a wide range of other federal programs and services. This will mean greater convenience and less travel for Veterans, because they are no longer limited to one location for in-person service.

And, to provide even more support in regions where underused area offices will be winding down, a Veterans Affairs Canada client service agent will be posted in Service Canada Centre locations--specifically Kelowna, B.C.; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Brandon, Manitoba; Thunder Bay, Ontario; Windsor, Ontario; Sydney, Nova Scotia; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; and Corner Brook, Newfoundland--to help Veterans with their benefits applications and answer any questions they may have.

Veterans across Canada can continue to expect the same high level of service and, as always, individuals can receive assistance directly from the department by calling its toll-free number, 1-866-522-2122, or by visiting its website, www.veterans.gc.ca.

Question No. 176--

Mr. Scott Andrews :

With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), what applications have been received from the riding of Avalon for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, including (

i) the specific projects that were approved or rejected in each fiscal year, (ii) the name and physical address of proponent(s), (iii) the project title, (iv) the proposed scope of work, (

v) the total cost of the projects, (vi) the amount of funding approved by ACOA, (vii) the funding program(

s) within ACOA that the funding approved?

Hon. Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, is concerned, with regard to applications received from the riding of Avalon for fiscal years 2009-2010 through 2012-2013, ACOA does not track projects by federal ridings. Information on projects approved by ACOA in Newfoundland and Labrador can be found on the agency’s website.

Question No. 178--

Mr. Scott Andrews :

With regard to the Prime Minster’s Office, as of February 1, 2013: (

a) how many individuals make an annual salary of $150,000 a year or more; (

b) how many individuals make an annual salary of $200,000 or more; (

c) how many individuals make an annual salary of $250,000 a year or more; (

d) how many individuals make an annual salary of $300,000 or more; (

e) of those who make an annual salary of $200,000 or more, how many received a performance award, otherwise known as a bonus; and (

f) of those who received a performance award, what was the amount of each?

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

Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and the information requested has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes personal information.

Question No. 180--

Hon. Gerry Byrne :

With regard to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for each year from 2003 to 2013, what was the CPI for each household income quintile given the goods and services typically purchased by each quintile according to the average household spending patterns?

Hon. Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the consumer price index, CPI, is an indicator of changes in consumer prices experienced by Canadian residents. It is obtained by comparing, over time, the costs of a fixed basket of goods and services purchased by consumers. Data by quintile are not and have never been compiled for the CPI on an ongoing basis, as the CPI is meant to represent a measure of overall consumer inflation.

Question No. 182--

Mr. Ted Hsu :

With regard to Canada Student Loan forgiveness for eligible family doctors, residents in family medicine, registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses, registered practical nurses, licensed practical nurses, or nurse practitioners who work in rural or remote communities: (

a) how many medical professionals have applied for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013, broken down by (

i) eligible medical profession, (ii) the designated community in which the applicant is working; (

b) how many medical professionals who have applied for loan forgiveness have been accepted for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013, broken down by (

i) eligible medical profession, (ii) the designated community in which the applicant is working; (

c) what is the anticipated total value of loan forgiveness payments that will be paid to qualified medical professionals under this program by April 2014, broken down by (

i) loan forgiveness period, (ii) eligible medical profession, (iii) the designated community in which the applicant is working?

Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, budget 2011 announced that the government would forgive a portion of the federal share of Canada student loans for new family doctors, nurse practitioners, and nurses who practice in underserved rural and remote communities. Since 2012-13, those eligible family doctors have received loan forgiveness of up to $8,000 per year, to a maximum of $40,000. Nurse practitioners and nurses who are eligible have been able to receive up to $4,000 per year, to a maximum of $20,000.

The Minister of State for Social Development announced in January 2014 that in the first 10 months, almost 1,200 family doctors and nurses had received loan forgiveness. With regard to (a)(i), the numbers of eligible medical professional who have applied for loan forgiveness since April 1, 2013 include the following: 53 family doctors, 99 residents in family medicine, 1,039 registered nurses, 40 registered psychiatric nurses, 132 registered practical nurses, 275 licensed practical nurses, and 14 nurse practitioners.

With regard to (a)(ii), due to privacy concerns, ESDC cannot provide the information requested. With regard to (b)(i), the following numbers do not include applications that have yet not been finalized: 37 family doctors , 58 residents in family medicine, 845 registered nurses, 34 registered psychiatric nurses, 97 registered practical nurses, 206 licensed practical nurses, and 10 nurse practitioners. With regard to (b)(ii), due to privacy concerns, ESDC cannot provide the information requested.

With regard to (c)(i), the loan forgiveness approvals for the periods ending between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014, total $8,480,000. With regard to (c)(ii), the loan forgiveness approvals by eligible medical profession include the following: family doctors, $400,000; residents in family medicine, $800,000; registered nurses, $5,200,000; registered psychiatric nurses, $200,000; registered practical nurses, $600,000; licensed practical nurses, $1,200,000; nurse practitioners, $80,000. With regard to (c)(iii), due to privacy concerns, ESDC cannot provide the information requested.

Question No. 184--

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay :

With regard to the position of Ambassador of Fisheries Conservation: (

a) does the government plan to fill this position; (

b) if so, when; and (

c) if not, why not?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to fill the position of Ambassador of Fisheries Conservation at this time given that most of the current work being done internationally with respect to fisheries is on the implementation of existing commitments rather than the negotiation and creation of new ones. Canada’s current level of representation is adequate to address the requirements of such implementation work.

Question No. 191--

Ms. Joyce Murray :

With regard to the equipment provided to regular and reserve members of the Canadian Armed Forces, what is the total number of newly enlisted members who have not yet been issued boots since January 1, 2013, broken down by (

i) regular or reserve status, (ii) branch of the Canadian Armed Forces, (iii) rank of member, (iv) unit, (

v) month of enlistment?

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

Mr. Speaker, allotments of clothing and equipment, including boots, are tracked in individual files in the defence resource management information system. To determine whether an individual has received the appropriate pair, or pairs, of boots, it would be necessary to task each unit to review each individual file for all types of boots. Furthermore, the individual files in the defence resource management information system do not contain information on the enrolment date. Reviewing all of these files was not possible within the time allotted to respond to this question.

Question No. 194--

Hon. Geoff Regan :

With regard to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, Quebec: (

a) how much is this replacement bridge estimated to cost; and (

b) what is the estimated toll charge for this replacement bridge?

Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), final project costs will be determined by the end of the competitive procurement process for the public private partnership, PPP, after the project agreement has been signed. Very preliminary estimates suggest the cost of the project could be between $3 billion to $5 billion.

This would include design and construction costs for the whole project, which, in addition to the replacement of the Champlain Bridge, includes the alignment with A-10; highway works on île des Sœurs; the replacement of the île des Sœurs bridge; as well as the widening and reconstruction of the federal portion of A-15. With regard to part (b), it is too early to say what the toll rate will be. Additional studies will be completed and discussions will be held prior to the establishment of the toll rate.

Several toll scenarios are being examined that are consistent with tolls in effect in the Montreal region and will be made public at a later date.

Question No. 206--

Mr. Scott Simms :

With regard to software used by the government on all digital platforms: (

a) what software is permitted for use, broken down by (

i) servers, (ii) workstations and desktops, (iii) laptops and portable computers, (iv) personal digital assistants, cell phones and other personal electronics, (

v) rationale; (

b) for each subsection of ( a ), what software is banned from use; (

c) for each subsection of (

a) and ( b ), where is this software developed; and (

d) for each subsection of (

a) and ( b ), if the software is not released as an “open source” (as defined by the Open Source Initiative) or “free software” (as defined by the Free Software Foundation), are viable open source or free software alternatives available, (

i) have they been explored, (ii) what was the rationale for their rejection?

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

Mr. Speaker, in order to produce such information to the level of detail requested, organizations would need to manually verify each and every hardware item maintained by the organization. The collection and compilation of such data would take several months. Therefore, it is not possible to produce the information requested within the prescribed timeline.

Question No. 217--

Ms. Irene Mathyssen :

With regards to the indoor fish farming facility in Thames Centre, Middlesex County: (

a) how much funding was issued; (

b) was the funding a result of the promise of job creation; and (

c) what verifications were made to ensure funding was spent appropriately?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the total funding issued to the project by Fisheries and Oceans Canada under the aquaculture innovation and market access program, or AIMAP, was $415,000. Other contributions included a $1,000,000 repayable loan from Agriculture Canada's Sand Plains Community Development Fund, administered by the Ontario Association of Community Futures Development Corporations, along with $1,082,882 in cash and $2,800,000 of in-kind funding from 1767065 Ontario Inc., Sand Plains.

With regard to (b), the funding allocation provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada was not directly intended for job creation, but rather for the purchase of equipment to catalyze aquaculture industry investment from other sectors. At a broader level, AIMAP’s objectives were to spur investment in innovation and to increase industry competitiveness, resulting in industry expansion and increased job creation within the aquaculture sector. The project was reviewed first by a regional review committee and later by a national review committee against program criteria, scope of impact, plan and performance management, and budgetary considerations.

With regard to (c), Fisheries and Oceans Canada ensured the appropriate allocation of funding through site visits by Fisheries and Oceans Canada staff, collection of appropriate invoices to support expense claims, and validation through a third party audit of the project’s financial records by a chartered accountant.

Question No. 221--

Hon. Mark Eyking :

With regard to employment with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, how many involuntary job reductions have been implemented in the department each year from 2006 to 2013, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) program activity, (iii) sub-program activity, (iv) specific job description, (

v) the reason for the involuntary reduction?

Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (i), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, had 895 involuntary job reductions in the years 2006 to 2013.

With regard to (ii), there have been 895 involuntary job reductions in 11 program activities.

With regard to (iii), there have been 895 involuntary job reductions in 29 sub-program activities.

With regard to (iv), the 895 involuntary job reductions affected 413 job titles.

With regard to (v), there were five reasons for the 895 involuntary job reductions.

Question No. 226--

Mr. Brian Masse :

With regard to the government's announcement on May 28, 2012, that it will allocate $17.5 billion over five years to combat the invasion of Asian Carp in the Great Lakes Watershed through prevention, early warning, rapid response and management and control, what is: (

a) the progress on these initiatives; and (

b) the total amount of monies distributed in each focus area to date?

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

Mr. Speaker, members will please note that the government’s announcement was for $17.5 million over five years. Progress to date under each of the program’s initiatives includes the following. In terms of prevention, collaborative work is under way with partner groups, such as the Invasive Species Centre, to conduct public outreach and education on the threat posed by Asian carp and how the public can help. We have also begun, with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a binational risk assessment for one of the Asian carp species, grass carp.

This risk assessment will form valuable science advice for both Canada and the United States in terms of prevention, mitigation, and management of this species. Research into movement of fishes in canals towards potential development of early warning systems is well under way, as well as research into potential control or response mechanisms such as physical barriers, pressure barriers, and sound and bubble barriers. In terms of early warning, 22 early detection sites have been set up in the highest-priority lakes, Lake Erie and Lake Huron, for early warning in 2013.

These sites were extensively monitored for Asian carp detection, as well as determining best means for detecting Asian carp species early. These sites are now established and will be visited each year for long-term monitoring as well as to establish a pre-invasion baseline of the fish community. Plans are under way for the development of similar early detection sites in Lake Ontario and Lake Superior. Genetic tools for use in early warning are also being researched and will be used in key areas.

In terms of response, protocols and plans have been developed in partnership with the Province of Ontario and the United States for responding to Asian carp. There were also two captures of grass carp this past summer in Canadian waters. These individuals were later found to be sterile, but response activities were immediately initiated by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in partnership with the Province of Ontario. In terms of management, continued collaboration with the Province of Ontario occurs to manage the live trade pathway for Asian carp.

Drafting of a national aquatic invasive species regulation that would allow for prohibition of import, possession, and transport of listed aquatic invasive species, such as Asian carp, is under way, with a goal of having the draft prepublished in the Canada Gazette for public comments in 2014. Funds spent to date on the program initiatives include the following: prevention, $3,365,700; early warning, $2,072,950; response, $72,000; and management and control, $120,000.

Question No. 241--

Mr. David McGuinty :

With regard to Shared Services Canada’s recent registration of telephone services, completed on January 20, 2014: (

a) how many (

i) traditional telephones including Voice over Internet Protocol, (ii) cellular telephones, (iii) BlackBerry devices, (iv) pagers, (

v) other smartphones, were registered by Shared Service Canada employees and each of its partner organizations; and (

b) how many suspensions of telephone service did this registration exercise lead to?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the current state of the telecommunications inventory as of January 28, 2014, is as follows: 194,418 traditional telephones, including voice over Internet protocol; 16,883 cellular telephones; 49,269 BlackBerry devices; 859 pagers; and 2,423 other smart phones. The registration of telephone services and devices has been extended until February 28, 2014; as such, detailed analysis of service data will commence when the data collection phase of this activity has been completed.

With regard to (b), there have not been any suspensions of telephone lines as a result of this exercise to date. Any discontinuation of services will only occur following detailed analysis of the data collected and confirmation of the status of individual services with the SSC partner organizations.

Question No. 242--

Mr. David McGuinty :

With regard to briefing documents prepared since July 17, 2013 for the Minister of Transport or her staff regarding Canada Post, for each document, what is: (

i) the date, (ii) the title or subject matter, (iii) the Department’s internal tracking number?

Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada does not collect the requested information in both official languages, but rather by the language of the author. Given the large number of documents, it is not feasible for Transport Canada to translate the requested documents in the time period required.

Question No. 253--

Ms. Elizabeth May :

With regard to the publication of draft updates to the sections of the Health of Animals Regulations concerning the transportation of farm animals within Canada: (

a) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food take immediate steps to publish draft proposed regulatory changes in the Canada Gazette; (

b) will the Minister increase funding to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to fund increased numbers of inspectors to enforce existing and future regulations; and (

c) will the Minister invite the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to examine the current crisis affecting animals in transport and to report back on the situation as it stands?

Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CFIA has legislative authority for humane transportation of animals anywhere in Canada and for humane slaughter in federally registered establishments. The agency has the authority to investigate animal welfare concerns and alleged non-compliances within its jurisdiction and can respond to findings with a full suite of enforcement tools, including prosecution.

The CFIA remains committed to the humane treatment of animals and is pursuing the modernization of the humane transport regulations through review and stakeholder consultations to ensure that they are up to date and effective and that they reflect the latest science. The CFIA is also updating the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures to reflect best practices and current scientific knowledge regarding humane treatment in the slaughter of food animals in federal establishments. The updating of these regulatory authorities will allow the CFIA to better deal with the minority of individuals who mistreat animals.

With regard to (b), since 2008 the Government of Canada has made investments of $517 million to fund inspector hiring, an improved inspection approach, better training, and more modern tools for front-line inspectors and increased scientific capacity.

The CFIA continues to direct resources to priority areas based on risk, compliance, and demand in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians. With regard to (c), the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food cannot direct what studies the committee should undertake. However, the committee is free to initiate any studies relevant to its mandate and report its findings on a particular topic back to the House of Commons.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 171, 175, 177, 183, 185, 188, 189, 190, and 223 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 171--

Mr. John Rafferty :

With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what was the amount and percentage of all “lapsed spending” in the department, broken down by year from 2005 to 2013?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 175--

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay :

With regard to the Canada Europe Free Trade Agreement (CETA): (

a) what are the details of all tariffs which will be removed on Canadian seafood products, (

i) on what date(

s) will they be removed, (ii) what are the projected savings for the Canadian seafood industry; (

b) what are the details of all tariffs which will be removed on European seafood products, (

i) on which date(

s) will they be removed, (ii) what are the projected savings for the European seafood industry; (

c) what is the total number and value of Canadian seafood exports to the European Union (EU) in each year since 2006, broken down by province; (

d) what is the total number and value of European seafood exports to Canada in each year since 2006; (

e) what effects will the elimination of Newfoundland and Labrador’s (NL) Minimum Processing Requirement (MPR) on seafood products exported to the EU have on that province’s processing industry; (

f) what are the details of NL's processed seafood exports to the EU by value and weight for each year since 2006; (

g) has the government done any study or analysis on what the implications of the removal of the MPR will be or consulted any outside organizations or companies as to what the implications will be, and if so, what are the details of the implications; (

h) how many NL processing plant employees does the government expect to be displaced due to the removal of the MPR; (

i) what are the details of the $280 million the government is providing in return for removing the MPR in NL, including (

i) the programs and departments from which the money will be allocated, (ii) the details on what the money will be used for, (iii) when the money will be spent, (iv) the reasons for providing this money; (

j) was the EU ban on Canadian seal products ever a part of high level discussions between the government and the EU regarding CETA and if not why not; (

k) what are the details of any and all effects CETA will have on foreign ownership of Canadian fishing licenses; and (

l) will CETA have any effect on small craft harbour funding, the fleet separation or owner-operator policies, controlling agreements, or any other funding, policies or programs related to fish harvesters, the fishing industry, or coastal communities in Canada?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 177--

Mr. Scott Andrews :

With regard to the Department of National Defence and its commitment to the Air Cadet Flying Program: (

a) what changes will take place for 2014 and what are the projected budget savings; (

b) will the role of the Air Cadet League of Canada change in 2013 or 2014; (

c) will the Air Transport Association of Canada play a role in the program in 2013 or 2014; (

d) how many individuals participated in the Air Cadet Flying Program in each year from 2010-2013; and (

e) how many individuals are projected to participate in the program for 2014 and 2015?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 183--

Mr. Ted Hsu :

With regard to extradition: (

a) broken down by country and by year for the past 20 years, (

i) how many people have been extradited to Canada, (ii) how many requests has Canada received for extradition, (iii) how many people have been extradited from Canada, (iv) how many requests has Canada made for an individual to be extradited, (

v) by year of request, how many extradition requests are still pending in Canada, (vi) by year of request, how many Canadian extradition requests are still pending abroad, (vii) what is the last step undertaken in the extradition process of cases that are still pending in Canada, (viii) what is the last step undertaken in the extradition process of Canadian cases that are still pending abroad, (ix) by country of request, what is the average delay in months from the date that extradition is sought to Canada extraditing the individual, (

x) what is the average time in months from the date that extradition is sought to the individual returning to Canada, (xi) how much money has Canada spent on each extradition case litigated abroad, (xii) how much money has Canada spent on each extradition case litigated in Canada, (xiii) for each extradition request in Canada, how many judicial decisions resulted, and at which court levels; (

b) what is the mean, median, and mode for number of judicial proceedings in Canada for the average extradition for the last 20 years; (

c) for extradition treaties in particular, (

i) with which countries does Canada have extradition treaties in place, (ii) with which countries is Canada currently negotiating extradition treaties, (iii) what is the last step undertaken in the process of treaty-making for current extradition treaty negotiations, (iv) how frequently are extradition treaties reviewed, (

v) by what metrics are extradition treaties reviewed, (vi) what consultations have taken place regarding extradition treaties in the past seven years, (vi) what consultations are scheduled regarding extradition treaties, (vii) with what individuals and groups have Ministers of the Crown met regarding extradition treaties, (viii) with what individuals and groups have government departments met regarding extradition treaties, (ix) how is Parliament informed of any changes to extradition treaties, (

x) by what metrics are the effectiveness of Canada’s extradition treaties evaluated, (xi) do different extradition treaties have different measures of effectiveness, and if so, how do they differ, (xii) what benefits does Canada observe from having extradition treaties, (xiii) how are the benefits in (xii) quantified, (xiv) what steps are in place to ensure consistency in application of treaties, (xv) what steps are in place to ensure consistency in enforcement of treaties, (xvi) what steps are in place to ensure consistency in effectiveness of treaties; (

d) for the extradition process in particular, (

i) how often is it reviewed in Canada, (ii) when was the last review completed, (iii) when is the next review scheduled, (iv) by what metrics is the effectiveness of the extradition system evaluated, (

v) who determines the metrics in (iv), (vi) what steps are in place to reduce delays in the processing of an extradition case, (vii) what are the standards established for the processing of an extradition case and who establishes them, (viii) by what metrics are the standards in (vii) reviewed, (ix) when was the last review in (viii) completed, (

x) when is the next review of the standards in (vii) scheduled, (xi) what is the role of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in the extradition process; (

e) what metrics does Canada track with respect to extraditions and who is responsible for tracking them; (

f) in what way are the provinces involved in the extradition process; (

g) are the provinces being consulted with regard to any forthcoming changes, if so, in what ways; (

h) regarding the Minister of Justice’s August 2013 comments that there is a “need to reform and modernize how we extradite people”: (

i) what policies are in place to modernize the extradition process, (ii) what policies are in development to modernize the extradition process,(iii) how does the government define “modernization”, (iv) by what metrics is the modernization of the extradition process tracked, (

v) what steps are in place to further modernize the extradition process, (vi) what consultations have taken place regarding the modernization of the extradition process in the past year, (vii) what consultations are scheduled regarding the modernization of the extradition process, (viii) with what individuals and groups have Ministers of the Crown met with regarding the modernization of the extradition process, (ix) with what individuals and groups have government departments met with regarding the modernization process,(x)what other policies are in place to ensure that Canada has an effective and modern extradition policy; (

i) what other policies are in place to ensure that Canada has an effective and modern extradition system; (

j) what is involved in determining the countries to which Canada can extradite a requested individual; (

k) under what circumstances does Canada reject an extradition request; (

l) how is the determination in (

k) made; (

m) how many extradition requests has Canada refused to honour in the past 10 years, broken down by country of request and reason; (

n) in what cases will Canada not seek extradition of a Canadian abroad; (

o) how is the determination in (

n) made; (

p) what procedures exist to ensure consistency in Canada’s requests or decisions not to request extradition of an individual; (

q) has any study been conducted as to the impact on the extradition process (

i) of an election being called in Canada and, if so, with what conclusions, (ii) of a change in government in Canada and, if so, with what conclusions; (

r) what trends have been observed in the past ten years regarding the frequency of extradition requests and their processing; (

s) what academic studies has Canada sought in relation to extradition within the past ten years; (

t) what additional reviews or analysis of the extradition process have been completed internally by the government in the past 10 years; (

u) what measures has the government undertaken to inform Canadians about the extradition process and any changes thereto; (

v) how have Canada’s extradition policies been relayed to international partners and what meetings have most recently occurred with Canadian officials surrounding extradition; (

w) what recourse is available to individuals whom the government chooses not to extradite; (

x) what recourses exist for Canada when another government refuses an extradition request; (

y) how many extradition requests made by Canada in the past ten years, broken down by country, have been refused; (

z) on what basis was the request in (

y) refused; ( aa ) what was the outcome for the individuals in the cases indicated in ( y ); ( bb ) in what instances has Canada sent a diplomatic note with respect to an extradition request; ( cc ) what is the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the extradition process; ( dd ) how does the government ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; ( ee ) what other international law instruments--other than extradition treaties--are involved in the extradition process; ( ff ) how does the government ensure compliance with the other international law instruments described in ( ee) ; ( gg ) what is the history of Canada’s extradition policy and what particular principles have been established to guide policy development and implementation in this regard?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 185--

Hon. Judy Sgro :

With regard to government communications since October 23, 2013: (

a) for each press release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by any government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, what is the (

i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject-matter; (

b) for each such press release, was it distributed (

i) on the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (

c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in ( b )(ii) through ( b )(iv), what was the cost of using the service?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 188--

Hon. Irwin Cotler :

With regard to applications to the Minister of Justice for ministerial review of criminal convictions: (

a) for each year since 2002, (

i) how many applications for review of a criminal conviction were received by the Minister of Justice, (ii) of the applications received, how many preliminary assessments were completed, (iii) of applications that completed preliminary assessment, how many proceeded to the investigation stage, (iv) of completed investigations, how many applications were dismissed, (

v) how many applications, and which specific ones, were granted, (vi) of applications granted, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister direct a new trial, (vii) of applications granted, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister refer a case to the court of appeal; (

b) for each year since 2002, (

i) how much funding was made available to the Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG) for use in the conviction review process, (ii) how much money was spent by the CCRG, (iii) how much money has been requested by the CCRG; (

c) for each year since 2002, (

i) how much funding was made available to the Department of Justice for use in the post-conviction review process, (ii) how much money was spent by the Department of Justice in this regard, (iii) how much money was requested by the Minister of Justice for use in this regard; (

d) in the current employ of the CCRG, (

i) how many individuals are lawyers; (ii) how many individuals are non-lawyers, broken down by job title, (iii) what is the employment term for the individuals in (

i) and (ii); (

e) for each year since 2002, (

i) how many lawyers were employed by the CCRG, (ii) who was responsible for determining the staffing requirements of the CCRG, (iv) how frequently were staffing levels reviewed to ensure that they are adequate to handle the number of applications received, (

v) how many CCRG staff were involved in the review of each application received by the Minister, (vi) how many applications were reviewed by each individual lawyer employed by the CCRG, (vii) broken down by case, which lawyers were assigned to which applications, (viii) of those applications reviewed by each individual lawyer employed by the CCRG, how many, and which ones, resulted in a completed preliminary review, (ix) how many resulted in a completed investigation; (

f) for each year since 2002, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the CCRG recommend further investigation; (

g) for each year since 2002, in how many investigations, and in which specific cases, did the CCRG, (

i) interview or examine witnesses, (ii) carry out scientific testing, (iii) obtain assessments from forensic and social science specialists, (iv) consult police agencies in connection with the specific investigation, (

v) consult prosecutors in connection with the specific investigation, (vi) consult defence lawyers in connection with the specific investigation, (vii) obtain any other relevant information or documentation; (

h) for each year since 2002, (

i) in how many cases, and in which ones, did the CCRG produce an investigation report, (ii) in how many cases, and in which ones, did the applicant provide comments on an investigation report, (iii) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the CCRG conduct further investigation based on an applicant’s comments to an investigation report, (iv) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Special Advisor produce advice or make a recommendation to the Minister that differed from the advice or recommendation contained in the CCRG’s investigation report, (

v) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister make a determination that differed from the investigation report, (vi) in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister make a determination that differed from the Special Advisor; (

i) Regarding the “new matters of significance” test, (

i) is it currently necessary that an application for review of a criminal conviction be supported by “new matters of significance” in order for it to proceed to the preliminary assessment stage, (ii) in order for it to proceed to investigation, (iii) in order for the Minister to allow the application; (

j) regarding the “new matters of significance” test, (

i) has the test been applied the same way in each year since 2002, (ii) if not, how has its application changed, (iii) are there any cases, and if so which ones, where an application proceeded to any stage of the review process without having adduced “new matters of significance”, (iv) what is the meaning of the term “new matters of significance” in the context of the ministerial review process, (

v) for an application to proceed, must it be supported by “fresh evidence” not available at the time of trial, (vi) can an application for review proceed based on evidence that existed, but was not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, (vii) can an application for review proceed based on evidence that reasonably could have been, but was not, discovered by the applicant at the time of trial; (

k) for each year since 2002, in how many cases, and in which specific ones, did the Minister waive privilege regarding an investigation report; (

l) broken down by year since 2002 and by case, in which cases did the Minister, (

i) determine there to be a conflict of interest, (ii) in those cases where the Minister determined there to be a conflict of interest, in which specific instances did the Minister authorize an agent outside of the department of Justice or the CCRG to carry out the investigation; (

m) broken down by year since 2002 and by case, in which cases, and to whom, did the Minister (

i) delegate his powers to take evidence, (ii) delegate his powers to issue subpoenas, (iii) delegate his powers to enforce the attendance of witnesses, (iv) delegate his powers to compel a witness to give evidence, (

v) delegate his powers to otherwise conduct an investigation and, if so, what specific powers were delegated; (

n) regarding the requirement under

section 696.5 of the Criminal Code that the Minister of Justice submit an annual report to Parliament regarding applications for ministerial review, (

i) what are the requirements pertaining to the compilation and submission of the annual report, (ii) where are these requirements contained, (iii) have these requirements changed since 2002 and, if so, when and in what specific ways were they changed, (iv) what requirements for publication exist, if any, (

v) what is the process for dissemination of the report; (

o) regarding the requirement under

section 7(

f) of the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review that the Minister include in his annual report “any other information that [he] considers appropriate”, (

i) what guidelines exist for determining what information is appropriate for inclusion in the report under this element of the Regulations, (ii) what aspects of each ministerial report submitted pursuant to

section 696.5 of the Criminal Code since 2002 was included as a result of the Minister’s determination that it is appropriate for inclusion under

section 7(

f) of the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review; (

p) broken down by year since 2000, how many Canadian Commissions of Inquiry into wrongful convictions have recommended the further study or implementation of an independent commission to assume the powers of the Minister of Justice to investigate and refer cases of suspected miscarriages of justice for judicial re-considerationl; (

q) broken down by specific Commission of Inquiry, (

i) which specific foreign review mechanisms have been examined as potential models to reform the current Canadian post-conviction review regime, (ii) what actions have been taken to implement the findings or suggestions of the commission of inquiry, (iii) has the government consulted with any stakeholders regarding the possibility of implementing an independent commission of inquiry to assume the powers of the Minister of Justice in this regard, (iv) what specific stakeholders were consulted in this regard and when, (

v) with which provinces has the government consulted in this regard, (vi) with which provincial bar associations has the government consulted in this regard, (vii) with which provincial Attorneys General did the government consult in this regard, (viii) has the government engaged in any analysis of the comparative costs associated with the current ministerial review process compared to a possible independent review commission; (

r) what specific steps is the government undertaking to minimize the incidence of wrongful conviction; (

s) what efforts have been made to implement the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group reports in respect of wrongful conviction; (

t) what efforts are made to inform Canadians of their options with respect to addressing what they believe to be a wrongful conviction or other miscarriage of justice; (

u) with respect to the government’s website entitled “Conviction Review" (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ccr-rc/rev.html), last updated on April 30, 2013, what changes were made on this date and what are the three previous versions of this page; (

v) by what means is the wrongful conviction process as a whole reviewed by the government and what metrics are tracked with respect to it; and (

w) regarding the 2004 Annual Report, in which the then-Minister of Justice stated that “although it is not required, applicants are encouraged to seek the assistance of counsel,” (

i) when was the language "encouraged to seek the assistance of counsel" removed from the Annual Report, (ii) whose decision was it to remove this language and on what basis, (iii) when was this change implemented, (iv) did this change further a specific policy objective, (

v) what policy objective did this change further, (vi) is there any difference in the success rates of pro bono applications compared to applications submitted with legal assistance and what is the difference, (vii) has the Department of Justice called for greater access to legal assistance for those submitting applications for ministerial review of their criminal convictions?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 189--

Hon. Irwin Cotler :

With regard to Canadians detained abroad: (

a) broken down by year for each of the last 15 years, and broken down by country of arrest, charge, or detention, (

i) how many Canadians have been arrested outside of Canada, (ii) how many Canadians have been detained outside of Canada, (iii) how many Canadians detained outside of Canada have been charged with an offence, (iv) how many Canadians have been detained without charge outside of Canada; (

b) broken down by country of arrest, charge or detention, (

i) how many Canadians are currently detained outside of Canada, (ii) how many Canadians currently face charges outside of Canada, (iii) how many Canadians are currently detained without charge outside of Canada; (

c) for each instance in (

a) and ( b ), (

i) which representatives of the government met with the individual charged or detained, (ii) on what dates did these meetings occur, (iii) what other communication, if any, occurred between the government and the individual, (iv) through what medium did this communication occur, (vii) what was the purpose of each of these meetings and communications, (viii) what was the outcome of each of these meetings and communications; (

d) for each instance in (

a) and ( b ), (

i) which representatives of the government contacted family members of the individual charged or detained, (ii) on what dates were these family members contacted by the government, (iii) which representatives of the government were contacted by family members of the individual charged or detained, (iv) on what dates did the family members contact the government, (

v) through what medium did each contact between the government and the family members of the individual charged or detained occur, (vi) what was the purpose of each communication between the government and the family members of the individual charged or detained, (vii) what was the outcome of each communication between the government and the family members of the individual charged or detained; (

e) regarding each instance in (

a) and ( b ), (

i) what non-governmental organizations were contacted by the government, (ii) on what dates were these organizations contacted by the government, (iii) which representatives of the government contacted these organizations, (iv) what non-governmental organizations contacted the government, (

v) on what dates did these organizations contact the government, (vi) which representatives of the government were contacted by these organizations, (vii) through what medium did each contact between the government and a non-governmental organization occur, (viii) what was the purpose of each communication between the government and the non-governmental organization, (ix) what was the outcome of each communication between the government and the non-governmental organization, (

x) what assistance did non-governmental organizations offer to provide to the government, to the Canadian, or to the Canadian’s family, (xi) in what ways did non-governmental organizations assist in providing services to the Canadian arrested, charged, or detained, or to his or her family, (xii) in what ways did non-governmental organizations assist in securing or attempting to secure the release or extradition of the Canadian, (xiii) what other assistance did the non-governmental organization provide; (

f) regarding each instance in (

a) and ( b ), (

i) what representations were made by the government to the government of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged or detained, (ii) on what dates were these representations made, (iii) which representatives of the government made these representations, (iv) through what medium were these representations made, (

v) what response did the government receive from the government of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged or detained, (vi) which representatives of the government received the response, (vii) through what medium was the response delivered, (viii) which representatives of the government of the country in which the Canadian was charged or detained responded to the government’s representations, (ix) what was the purpose of each representation made by the government to the government of the country in which the Canadian was charged or detained, (

x) what was the outcome of each representation made by the government to the government of the country in which the Canadian was charged or detained, (xi) what other communications did the government receive, solicited or otherwise, from the government of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged or detained; (

g) regarding each instance in (

a) and ( b ), (

i) what governments of third-party countries were contacted by the government, (ii) on what dates were the governments of third-party countries contacted by the government, (iii) which representatives of the government contacted the governments of the third-party countries, (iv) what governments of third-party countries contacted the government, (

v) on what dates did the governments of third-party countries contact the government, (vi) which representatives of the government were contacted by the governments of third-party countries, (vii) through what medium did each of these contacts occur, (viii) what was the purpose of each contact between the government and the government of a third-party country, (ix) what was the outcome of each contact between the government and the government of a third-party country, (

x) what assistance did governments of third-party countries offer to provide to the government, to the Canadian, or to the Canadian’s family, (xi) in what ways did governments of third-party countries assist in providing services to the Canadian arrested, charged or detained, or to his or her family, (xii) in what ways did governments of third-party countries assist in securing or attempting to secure the release or extradition of the Canadian, (xiii) what other assistance did the governments of third-party countries provide; (

h) at the time of their arrest, charge, or detention, which Canadians in (

a) and (

b) had (

i) Canadian citizenship, (ii) Canadian permanent resident status, (iii) other status in Canada; (

i) for each instance in ( a ), (

i) does the Canadian remain detained outside of Canada, (ii) is the Canadian currently detained in Canada, (iii) was the Canadian extradited to Canada, (iv) was the Canadian released by the country in which he or she was arrested, charged, or detained, (

v) was the Canadian released after being extradited to Canada, (vi) did the Canadian die in the custody of the country in which he or she was arrested, charged, or detained, (vii) did the Canadian die in Canadian custody, (viii) is the Canadian’s status unknown; (

j) for each instance in (

a) and ( b ), (

i) on what date did the government learn that the Canadian had been arrested, charged or detained, (ii) which representative of the government first learned that the Canadian had been arrested, charged, or detained, (iii) how did that representative learn that the Canadian had been arrested, charged, or detained; (

k) for each instance in (

a) and ( b ), was the arrest, charge, or detention determined by the government to be consistent with (

i) Canadian norms, (ii) international norms, (iii) the norms of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged, or detained; (

l) for each instance in (

a) and ( b ), based on what information did the government determine whether the arrest, charge, or detention was consistent with (

i) Canadian norms, (ii) international norms, (iii) the norms of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged, or detained; (

m) for each instance in (

a) and ( b ), based on what criteria did the government determine whether the arrest, charge, or detention was consistent with (

i) Canadian norms, (ii) international norms, (iii) the norms of the country in which the Canadian was arrested, charged, or detained; (

n) for each instance in (

a) and ( b ), (

i) who made the determinations in ( k ), (ii) when did the process of making the determinations in (

k) begin, (iii) when were the determinations made; (

o) for each instance in ( b ), (

i) what actions is the government taking to ensure that the Canadian’s rights are respected, (ii) what actions is the government taking to ensure that the Canadian receives a fair trial, (iii) what actions is the government taking to ensure that the Canadian is treated humanely, (iv) what actions is the government taking to secure the Canadian’s release, (

v) what actions is the government taking to secure the Canadian’s extradition?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 190--

Mr. Kennedy Stewart :

With regard to the sale of the CANDU Reactor Division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. during June 2011: (

a) what was the government’s economic rationale and business case in support of this sale; (

b) what government documents contained, outlined, or presented this economic rationale and business case; (

c) what were the full titles of the documents in ( b ); (

d) by whom were the documents in (

b) prepared; (

e) on what dates were the documents in (

b) prepared; (

f) on what dates were the documents in (

b) presented to the Minister of Natural Resources; (

g) what documents did SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. provide the government in support of this sale; (

h) what were the full titles of the documents in ( g ); (

i) by whom were the documents in (

g) prepared; (

j) who submitted the documents in (

g) to the government; (

k) on what dates were the documents in (

g) prepared; (

l) on what dates were the documents in (

g) presented to the Minister of Natural Resources (

m) what due diligence was applied by the government in order to verify the factual content of the documents in ( g )?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 223--

Ms. Isabelle Morin :

With regard to the Bouchard Stream in Dorval, Quebec: (

a) what environmental monitoring has been conducted on the health of this waterway; (

b) what efforts has the government made to analyze the impact of Trudeau Airport on this waterway; (

c) what efforts has the government made to ensure that the operator of the airport, Aéroports de Montréal, is complying with applicable acts and regulations pertaining to environmental issues, including, but not limited to, the Canadian Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; (

d) does the government's policy call for the introduction of (

i) enforcement mechanisms, (ii) legislation to address Aéroports de Montréal's impact on this waterway; and (

e) has this waterway been designated as protected by the government at any time, (

i) if so, under which acts (including the current Navigable Waters Protection Act) and during which years, (ii) if not, why was it not considered to warrant protection by the government?

(Return tabled)

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

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act Bill C-25—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-25,

An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

(1010) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is incredible. What the government House leader has done is to blatantly and obviously sabotage the testimony that is forthcoming in just 50 minutes from the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Mayrand, at committee. What is he testifying about? He is testifying about the unfair elections act introduced by the Conservatives. At every step along the way, the Conservatives have chosen cynicism over any scrape of democratic value. Today they introduced time allocation on a first nations treaty that we agree with.

We had a small amount of debate last Friday. Our critic on first nations issues has yet to speak to the bill, and today the government has introduced time allocation to censure and shut down debate on a first nations treaty. These guys lecture first nations about accountability. Conservatives lecture first nations communities and leaders about democratic values on first nations reserves. They have the audacity to lecture first nations people, when they show such hypocrisy as to use a bill to enact a first nations treaty to block the Chief Electoral Officer from testifying in Parliament.

It would be tragically ironic and funny, if it did not actually affect the things that matter most to Canadians, which is our ability to freely and fairly vote. This time allocation motion introduced today is cynicism at its worst, from a government that has become so desperate that it has to invent evidence to support its badly flawed reform of our electoral laws. Then, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, if one of the Conservative MPs gets caught not telling the truth in Parliament and is forced to admit it, we should not condemn him but celebrate him.

We should say what a terrific fellow he is for having been caught making up facts about something as important as reforming our electoral laws. This is what it is, and nothing else. It is a cynical attempt to sabotage the testimony of Mr. Mayrand in front of a public hearing, a public committee, which is trying to understand the cynical move to not only muzzle him, but to disenfranchise Canadians from their right to vote. When is it going to be too much for these so-called Conservatives, who used to believe in some principles of democratic values? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to that charade, and it confirms something. The hon. member was referring to the fair elections act , which the official opposition stated, before reading the bill, that it would oppose. Now I am tempted to conclude that he has not even looked at Bill C-25 because he is referring to it as relating to a first nations treaty. He is totally wrong. This is not about a treaty; it is about an agreement entered into between Canada and the Newfoundland first nation, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq.

This bill is about protecting the integrity of a process to ensure that the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation is finally constituted according to the agreement that has been reached with the first nation. [ Translation ] Bill C-25 is necessary to ensure that the original intent of the 2008 Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band is respected, and that the 2013 Supplemental Agreement can be implemented.

The purpose of the legislation currently before the House is to support the implementation of the 2008 Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band and the 2013 Supplemental Agreement between the federal government and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. Clearly, the opposition's partisan tactics and the busy parliamentary

schedule mean that we will have to allocate some time to pass this bill, considering our full legislative agenda, which will only become busier in the months ahead. (1015) [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Before we begin questions and comments, I think everyone knows the proper practice here, which is to try to limit the questions to one minute and the answers to a similar length. I will advise the member for Winnipeg North that I give extra leeway in the first round of questions from the two opposition parties. However, after that, the questions and answers will be limited to one minute each.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this debate we are having right now is not about his bill. The debate is about the process and manner in which the government has, once again, decided to bring in a time-allocated bill, and its motivation in doing so at this time. At 11:00 this morning, we are supposed to have the Chief Electoral Officer make a presentation to the committee on an important piece of legislation. The minister made reference to the fair elections act, but it is more the Conservative elections act.

However, we are potentially putting at risk the comments from the Chief Electoral Officer in committee, by a tactical move made today in regard to bringing in time allocation. That is important for us to recognize. It is important for us to realize that ever since we have had this Conservative majority government, the Conservatives have had a different attitude in terms of the way in which the House of Commons is run, and it is not very democratic; it is disgraceful.

My question to the minister and government House leader is, why do we see this change in attitude from a majority Conservative government that prevents members of Parliament from contributing, in a healthy way, a constructive way, to debate inside the House? That is what this motion is doing. One, the motion is putting in a finite number, which means that a very limited number of MPs will be able to contribute to the debate; and, two, the Conservatives are potentially putting at risk the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to speak at committee, which is supposed to be starting within 45 minutes.

My question is, why? Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, if members are so concerned about what will happen at 11 o'clock, they only have to call for a voice vote on this so it does not interrupt the committee hearing. Regarding the member's question, he was talking about this majority government. Thanks to this majority government, it has been able to pass measures that have resulted in the creation of over one million jobs in Canada since the end of the recession. Plus, this government has taken other steps to ensure that Canada performs well for the benefit of its citizens and taxpayers.

We are here today to discuss this motion, which is to allocate time for the passage of this bill. The opposition members should perhaps simply acknowledge that in order for Canada and the Mi'kmaq first nation of Newfoundland to respect the agreement it has entered into, this technical bill should be passed presto to ensure the process can move forward so these people can get their status, which they deserve. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is really shocking to hear the outrageous remarks made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development .

He has no problem taking legitimate representatives of the Canadian population hostage, to try to advance his own personal agenda. I know this for a fact, because the people of Beauport—Limoilou are suffering the consequences of this wilful blindness, or what is really this government's refusal to accept any responsibility for the dust contamination problem. My team and I have learned that the Conservative Party received nearly $20,000 in contributions just from people at Arrimage Québec. This illustrates the real issues involved in this debate.

Indeed, the Conservatives are definitely not putting Canadians first; they always put their friends first. When will the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development start taking care of Canadians first?

(1020) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, there is no greater example of a political party that could not care less about the situation facing the Mi'kmaq in Newfoundland. We are discussing a motion on Bill C-25 , and the member is talking about dust in Quebec City. Unbelievable. What we are doing here is deciding whether we will adopt the motion to ensure Bill C-25 goes to the next stage.

People in committee will be able to discuss the benefits of the bill, which is simply intended to implement the measures needed to protect the integrity of the enrolment process for the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation in Newfoundland. [ English ] Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, could the minister clarify why this legislation is needed, what process led to the legislation, and why it is important to send the bill to committee and on to royal assent as expeditiously as possible? Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the member asked an important question.

Bill C-25 is necessary to ensure that the intent of the 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band and the 2013 supplemental agreement can be implemented. This legislation is intended to support the implementation of the 2008 agreement and the supplemental agreement of last summer, which we entered into with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. The supplemental agreement addresses the shared concerns of both the first nation and Canada about the integrity of the enrolment process.

Bill C-25 is required to complete the enrolment process outlined in the supplemental agreement, which was the product of extensive discussions and negotiations with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and which we would like both parties on the other side of the House to support. Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The bill was introduced on Tuesday. Today is the beginning of business on Thursday. I appreciate the fact that the minister responsible is in a hurry to get something done.

He wants to bypass the rules, but there are rules established for debate of legislation in the House for a reason. Once legislation is passed, it affects the lives of all those people covered by the legislation, and it is very difficult to amend legislation once it has been passed. Therefore, it is extremely important that we have a full discussion of each item and that we are able to take the time to consider the legislation and discuss the implications with our constituents and other groups who are affected by it so we can bring those insights to bear.

I know that the members opposite like to give short shrift to issues regarding first nations people in our country, but I think the Mi’kmaq in Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to have this issue fully discussed in a thoughtful and constructive manner in the House. The fact that the government has some other agenda it is bringing to bear is simply not fair or just to the issues that affect first nations and the Mi’kmaq in Newfoundland.

If the minister is trying to establish a sense of respect and responsibility with the Mi’kmaq and first nations in the country, why is it that on an important piece of legislation that is meant to deal with a historic problem, he wants to restrict debate by other members in the House? Why will he not allow a full discussion?

(1025) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, this motion reflects our conviction that a full day to study a bill with four sections is plenty of time to deal with the technical nature of the bill. This is not about whether or not an agreement will be respected. This is about ensuring that the will of that first nation, which concluded this agreement with Canada, is implemented. I cannot see why we would need weeks or days to discuss a four

section bill. I suggest that the NDP get to work and that we get this bill passed. [ Translation ] Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a question. I listened very carefully to the minister's comments on what happened this morning and on the possibility that the Chief Electoral Officer's appearance in committee will have to be cancelled. He implied that if the House did not hold a recorded vote, the Chief Electoral Officer could possibly have a chance to testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs this morning.

On our side, we accept that recommendation. We have no intention of rising to demand a recorded division. We would accept a decision on division. Now for my question. We have been discussing this issue for years and we have negotiated. Now, the government has introduced a bill. We only had one opportunity to discuss it last Friday. However, the government has once again decided to issue a gag order, as usual. The official opposition has indicated that it supports this bill. We will not even get a chance to constructively debate this bill before it is passed.

Why did the minister not have the decency to consider referring the bill to committee before second reading stage? Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague for his suggestion. I hope it will be shared by our friends in the official opposition. As for whether we should adopt this motion, I would say that the additional sitting day that will be provided for the consideration of the bill at second reading will allow it to be sent immediately thereafter to the standing committee, which can debate it more thoroughly and examine the four clauses in much greater detail.

I do not believe the bill needs to be sent to committee before that. Let us proceed with second reading of the bill, and the legislative process will then run its course. Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am always stunned by how little respect all Conservative members seem to have for their duties as members of Parliament and the privilege of representing their constituents. I am always surprised to see that they do not care about representing their constituents. Here in the House of Commons, it is our duty to represent our constituents and to ensure that we can debate this bill properly.

I would like to ask the minister why he is ignoring his duty and showing no respect for what a privilege it is to be here in the House of Commons.

(1030) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, I am always astounded by the NDP members who believe that it is in the interests of Canada, its taxpayers and its workers to have MPs here just for the sake of making sure that government bills are not passed. As we saw again this week, the NDP members are perfectly happy to waste time in the House. They are perfectly happy to ensure that no progress is made on any bills. We, on this side of the House, we were elected to take measures to help taxpayers, our constituents and people throughout Canada. That is exactly what we are doing. [ English ] Mr.

Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is confusing to me when time and again opposition members ask for more time to discuss, debate, and study various bills and then use all of that time either filibustering at committee or wasting time here in the House of Commons talking about process. They do not want to discuss the issues. I had the honour of serving on the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee when I first arrived here a number of years ago.

I am proud of the advancements our government has made on many initiatives that have helped our first nations people address the terrible situations in the lives. In the last number of years, I have not had the privilege of serving on that committee, so I have not studied this bill as much as I would have liked. I have a question for the minister regarding the liability clause. Would the minister address why it is important to restore the integrity of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation? If he could address that, it would help me a lot. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr.

Speaker, I am glad to see that we at least have some members who are interested in the substance of the bill. The inclusion of the liability clause in clause 4 of the bill provides certainty that no compensation or damages would be paid either by Canada, the first nation, or any other party to those individuals who it is determined are not members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation once the enrolment process has been completed. I would add that this clause would not prevent individuals from pursuing whatever other remedy they wanted.

However, they would not obtain the benefits of status Indians if they were not status Indians. Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it would seem as if we have another case of “here we go again”. It is pretty clear that what is going on here is an attempt to disrupt the presentation of the Chief Electoral Officer at 11 o'clock, which already is going to be pushed off as a result of this motion and the vote. Again, we see the government bringing in not only an unfair election act but also an undemocratic process around it, and that is what is going on right here.

We cut an honourable deal with the government, at least I thought it was an honourable deal. It was honourable on my part and it was certainly honourable on the part of the member for Winnipeg Centre when we made a deal with the government about what would happen with the Chief Electoral Officer. I know the Speaker is going to bring me to relevancy in a moment, and I have some recent experience with that. My question for the minister is this.

Is he not embarrassed that his own government is manipulating his bill and his issue in order to achieve an undemocratic process and deny the Chief Electoral Officer the chance to come in and give 90 minutes of uninterrupted witness testimony? Is he not embarrassed by this?

(1035) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the record will show that if this does not take place at 11 o'clock, it is simply because the New Democrats will have insisted on a nominal vote. If they want this to go ahead, all they have to do is pass this motion by a voice vote and that will solve the issue. To the member's question, my answer is no. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us understand this.

The government, throughout the history of its unfair election act, has attempted at every point not only to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer but to deny Canadians even some modicum of consultation and respect. Now, the Conservatives take a first nations agreement and hold that up as a technique to sabotage the Chief Electoral Officer's coming in and testifying, and then attempt to blame all this on the opposition; then attempt to say that this is all of them being victims. The bill has been in the House for a couple of hours and then the Conservatives introduced time allocation and shut down debate.

They then had the audacity to lecture first nations on their lack of respect and accountability. How dare they use an issue as important as first nations' rights and title in this country to then shut down the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and deny Canadians even that small amount of respect after so much disrespect shown to the people who put us here to represent them each and every day? Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, I see that the conspiracy theory of the member's leader is rampant among the benches of the NDP.

The experienced hon. member has not alluded to the fact that if he wants this absolutely to take place at 11 o'clock, he can simply not insist on a nominal vote. I will again invite the hon. member to agree that a full day of debate will be enough to deal with four sections of a technical bill. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, here is the promise the government can quickly make. It is that, after this little bit of sabotage work this morning, the Conservatives will not introduce another time allocation motion on a separate piece of legislation.

We noticed some strange coincidence last night, that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons got to his feet and said that the Conservatives had two motions in which they would like to shut down debate on two pieces of legislation. By coincidence, the timing would allow them, not once but twice, to interrupt the Chief Electoral Officer's testimony, which as my colleague from Hamilton said, was an agreement worked out between us and the government, in good faith. Something we need to learn on the NDP side is that good faith between Conservatives and anybody is something we just cannot trust.

Do the Conservative members not understand how far they have drifted from the basic tenets of democratic values, how far and how cynical they have become that they are willing to use the House of Commons to block the Chief Electoral Officer and say that this is a proper way to run the country's affairs? We have had a couple of hours of debate on this thing. Our key critic on this issue has yet to even speak to the bill. We have offered support for the legislation, and the Conservatives are using it, and the member is being used and he must know it. He must know that his government is cynically putting him up.

It is much as they did with the member from Mississauga, to perpetrate mistruths in the House, and it is all to justify the unfair election act; all to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer; and going into the future, all to disenfranchise Canadians from their democratic rights. That is the game the member is playing a

part in today. He should take some ownership of it. [ Translation ] Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the member's offensive comments are so unfounded that they do not even warrant a response. [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : We have time for one more quick question. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , a short question. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, let me try it again. He does not deign to have a response to questions we pose to him.

I asked him a very specific question, how comfortable he was being used by his own government, presenting some issue of importance, as the Conservatives did the other day, but as a shield to block something that is critical. The other day it was on a privilege motion where a member had been caught telling mistruths to the House. The government used procedural tactics. The monkey wrench gang of the Conservative Party is back. We all remember the manual it had to shut committees down.

This is its new tactic, not just shutting down committees in committee, but using the House of Commons, using first nations rights and title legislation, in order to accomplish the same cynical means.

(1040) The Deputy Speaker : The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development now has 25 seconds. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, all the time has been taken by the hon. member to say nothing about the motion before the House. I trust, then, that the hon. member and his colleagues will support this motion to allocate one more day of debate on Bill C-25 , so it can be sent to committee. The Deputy Speaker : Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. [ Translation ] Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1120) [ English ] (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 78) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Flaherty Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Reid Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 150 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bellavance Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brosseau Caron Casey Cash Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hughes Jacob Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Martin Masse Mathyssen McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Tremblay Turmel Valeriote -- 118 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to

[ Translation ] Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-20,

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras , not more than one further sitting day after the day on which this order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. [ English ] The Speaker : In accordance with Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I will ask members to keep their questions to around a minute and the responses from the minister to a similar length of time. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

(1125) Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am astonished. Just minutes ago, the government said it would not force a vote. Then, again, it flipped. The minister—maybe the House leader was not aware; maybe they do not talk, but I suspect they do—said the government would not force a vote. Here we are, yet again, with time allocation. Why? It is not about trying to get legislation through; it is about trying to actually muzzle debate on the Chief Electoral Officer. The current government does not even care anymore. In fact, the Conservatives are all laughing.

There are smiles, right across the bench, because they think how great it is that they are going to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer—and to do what? To present his evidence on his concerns about what? About our democracy. We have the House leader working with the front bench, including the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development , who pretended to think that we were going to buy his argument that he would not force the vote, which the government then did. That is what it did. Why? So that the government could shut down debate on the Chief Electoral Officer. And they smile.

They think this is great. My question for our friend across the way is, is this what we are going to do in our democracy from here on with the current government? Is it going to continue with time allocation on every bill so that not only are we going to shut down debate on important bills but also muzzle people from bearing witness in committee? Further, my final question is, can we trust the current government on its word when we make a deal with it to have people present at committee? I guess not. What is this— Some hon. members: Hear, hear! The Deputy Speaker : Order, please.

The hon. government House leader . Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I gather when their poll numbers start plummeting, they see conspiracies everywhere with a desperate effort to seek blame somewhere else than in themselves for the fact they are lacking any appeal among the public. As the members opposite know, the only time of day I can make this motion is now, when orders of the day are called. As for the committee, it can

schedule its affairs whenever it wants. If it wishes to hear the witness for longer, it can organize its affairs to do that. It has full flexibility. If the members opposite did not want the last vote to occur, which disrupted the committee business, they could very easily have allowed the motion to pass on division. They chose not to allow the motion to pass on division. The greatest irony at all is that these are the people who are saying, “Why won't you let Marc Mayrand be heard?”. For a week and a half, the member for Hamilton Centre filibustered that committee, keeping that person from being heard.

The government was trying to get that witness before committee. The opposition were proud of how they spent a week and a half keeping him from appearing. Now he can appear. The committee can arrange its affairs however it wants. However, for the member opposite to suddenly say that it is our fault that the witness was blocked for a week and a half is preposterous. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the government House leader's comments regarding the issue of division.

What we know for sure is that at the last opportunity we indicated, within the Liberal Party, that we would like to see it on division. We opposed that time allocation. We oppose this time allocation. We want to be able to see it on division, primarily because we, within the Liberal Party, recognize that it is critically important to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to make his presentation. On Tuesday night, there was a commitment, an agreement made between myself, the NDP, and the Conservatives, that would have guaranteed that 90 minutes. There is a way we can do this.

We have a good sense of what the outcome is going to be after the vote of the next time allocation. May I suggest that we do a vote on division. The Liberals will be in opposition to that vote. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, and maybe it would be inappropriate to ask this of you, that you canvass the House after I sit down, to see if there is unanimous consent of the House that would allow us to stop asking questions right now and go right to the vote of the time allocation on division so that we could go to the committee and have the Chief Electoral Officer make his presentation. I would ask you, Mr.

Speaker, to ask for that unanimous consent so that we can get to committee.

(1130) The Deputy Speaker : The member for Winnipeg North is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to, in effect, abbreviate the debate and move directly to a vote that would go on division. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent for the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent. An hon. member: Who said no? The Deputy Speaker: I heard noes from both sides of the House. I will put it again. Does the member for Winnipeg North have unanimous consent? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: I heard at least four noes from this side of the House. I think the issue has been determined. Does the Minister of International Trade wish to respond to the member for Winnipeg North ? The minister has the floor.

Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it should surprise no one in the House; in fact, it should surprise no Canadian, that the opposition would be opposing this government's trade and investment agenda. I am going to take the opposition parties down memory lane, back to when we were negotiating the Colombia free trade agreement. When that agreement was tabled in the House, it took two and a half years to get it passed in the House. Why? It was because the opposition parties were filibustering the bill. Those members do not understand trade. They do not like trade.

They have opposed virtually every trade agreement Canada has ever signed. For them to now get up in the House and suggest that they want a robust debate on trade belies their underlying anti-trade ideology. Let me talk about the Honduras trade agreement that is the subject of this time allocation motion. There has already been debate on this. These negotiations started back in 2000, close to 15 years ago. In 2009, we focused on Honduras. It has taken this long to get this agreement into the House. There already has been robust debate. Let us get on with opening up new trade opportunities all around the world. Mr.

Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is simply outrageous. The Minister of International Trade is defending the government's move to curtail debate on a Canada–Honduras trade deal after half a day of debate. The government talks about opening negotiations in 2009, which is ironic because in 2009 a military coup in Honduras overthrew the government. Every government in the world recognized that the government was illegitimate except the Conservatives, who rushed to sign a trade agreement.

They rushed to sign a trade agreement with an undemocratic government that is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world and the most dangerous place for journalists on the planet. There is no freedom of expression in Honduras. There is no freedom of association. Seventy-nine per cent of all cocaine shipments in South America land in Honduras. The Conservative government is afraid to debate those facts in the House because it knows that the Canadian people would not support an agreement with a country like Honduras that is a human rights— The Deputy Speaker : Order.

I would remind all members on both sides of the House to limit their questions and answers to one minute. The hon. Minister of International Trade. Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, the only part of that tirade that I would agree with is that Honduras is coming out of a very troubled past. Canada's record on the international stage is to provide countries like Honduras with a hand up to help them, to walk side-by-side with them, to help them escape from a troubled past.

(1135) Mr. Don Davies : But it is all true. Mr. Peter Julian : I suggest the member read the human rights reports. Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, we can hear NDP members heckling in the House. They do not care about Honduras. They do not care about the poor in Honduras. They are so ideologically stuck in a straitjacket that they just cannot escape it. That is why they have opposed virtually every trade agreement Canada has ever signed. In fact, for every new trade agreement they come up with a new excuse not to support it.

In 2009, Honduras expressed an interest in negotiating a trade agreement with Canada, separate and apart from the Central American Four. In good faith, we moved forward with those negotiations and they were concluded. In November of this past year, over four months ago, that agreement was tabled in the House, and the NDP has had ample opportunity to review it. There has been lots of discussion in public about this agreement. We have had debate in the House and, in fact, we are debating it right now. Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the creation of jobs and economic growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers, and families continues to be the focus of our Conservative government. That is why we will continue to deliver pro-export leadership. I find the way hard-working Canadian families are being portrayed by the NDP very unfortunate as they vote against each free trade agreement. Could the Minister of International Trade please explain how the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would benefit Canadian workers and their families? Hon. Ed Fast : Mr.

Speaker, ever since being elected in 2006, our government has focused on the economy and on building prosperity in Canada. A very significant part of that effort is to use trade and investment to drive economic growth in Canada. We do so by opening up new opportunities around the world through free trade agreements, through bilateral investment treaties, and through air transport agreements. What we do with our trading partners is engage with them. Some of those partners are coming out of very troubled pasts, so what do we do? There are two choices.

We can either isolate countries such as Honduras, the way the NDP wants to do, and treat them like pariahs when they ask for help, or we can engage with them. Our choice has been to engage, walk with them through very difficult times, and help them improve their prosperity. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when I arrived here on Monday I did not have voice mail messages about the trade deal with Honduras. I did not have emails. I was not overwhelmed.

I did not call my staff together and say, “Quick, put together a briefing, because this is going to be the number one issue that we have to deal with this week.” What I did have were phone calls and emails about the unfair elections act, to be frank, and a lot about Canada Post. Those were the issues I thought we would be talking about this week. Those are the issues I thought were the most pressing and urgent, the ones I needed to read up on and get up to speed on with everything, not this trade deal.

I cannot believe how transparent the actions of the government are today in trying to disrupt the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, at committee. I know the minister will say, “What committee does is what committee does; I have no control”, but we know that it is all organized centrally. It is like the Borg: “I am Borg, I am Conservative.” Will the minister agree to bring back the Chief Electoral Officer when we return from our riding weeks to provide testimony again at committee? Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous.

The motion before us is a time allocation motion relating to the Honduras free trade agreement. That is what I am going to focus on. However, it is not surprising that the NDP does not consider Honduras important. In fact, it does not consider the Americas to be important. Let me quote a statement made by my friend across the way, the member for Vancouver Kingsway .

As he was describing the importance of the Americas to Canada, he said that countries like Colombia, Honduras, Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, and Panama are ...not key economies with any kind of strategic value for Canada.” The Americas are of no importance to the NDP because it does not understand trade. In fact, the combined economies of those countries I mentioned are equivalent to almost a trillion dollars worth of GDP. Does Canada want to engage with that region of the world? Of course we do. We want to engage with Honduras, and with Costa Rica, Panama, Chile, Peru, and Colombia.

Those are trading partners we do want to engage with. (1140) [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the international trade champion. He accused us of suggesting that Honduras is not much of a priority, but I think he sees Japan as even less of a priority. I travelled to Japan, where I met serious business people who wanted to invest in our resources because we have energy and workers. Japan has capital. Japan is the best partner we can possibly imagine.

While I was there, I found out that the Canadian government had shut down consular services without notifying the Japanese. That is absolutely ridiculous. Now it is ready to bend over backward to sign an agreement with Honduras. I would like the minister to explain his priorities, because I think Japan is more important than Honduras. [ English ] Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right that Japan is very important, which is why we started trade negotiations directly with Japan on a bilateral basis.

In fact, we are moving toward a fifth round of negotiations, which is something he may not have been aware of. Yes, Japan is very important, but Honduras is also important because we have an opportunity in Honduras, a country that is moving out of a very troubled past, to share our best practices on issues such as democracy, human rights, the environment, and labour. These are areas where Canada has great strength. If we want to see one of the poorest countries in the world move out of poverty and have hope for the future, it is going to require engagement by countries like Canada.

Yes, we are going to do the deals with Japan and we are going to do deals with Korea and we are involved in the trans-Pacific partnership. However, I guarantee members that the NDP will be opposing those very same trade agreements when they come up for debate here. Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for being here. I have a quick question for him. I am trying to reconcile his earlier statements in his first intervention, when he said that the Honduras negotiations for this free trade agreement took four or five years.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but now, all of a sudden, we can debate it in a day or two or whatever time has been allocated to us. It took forever to negotiate an agreement with a country to which we export only $38 million of goods a year. There seem to be all kinds of complexities involved in the deal if it took so long to negotiate. Meanwhile, we cannot even get the time to debate those complexities. Can the minister clear up those contradicting statements? Hon. Ed Fast : Mr.

Speaker, perhaps the reason we have only $38 million worth of exports to Honduras is that we do not have an open market there and we do not have a free trade agreement with Honduras. In fact, I would remind the member that the European Union has had a free trade agreement in place for years. The United States has a trade agreement with Honduras. Mexico has a trade agreement in place with Honduras. Chile has an agreement in place with Honduras. Why is that? It is because they have understood that Honduras needs our help. The countries I mentioned all have strong, robust human rights regimes and strong democracies.

They understand that Hondurans needs someone to walk beside them to share best practices, to move them into the 21st century, and to welcome them into the family of nations that respect human rights. That is the key role that Canada can play here. We are absolutely committed to bringing this trade agreement into force. We have provided lots of opportunities since November for the opposition parties to view this agreement here in the House. It was tabled back in November. We make no apologies for that. We want to get this deal done. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, today the government is moving yet another time allocation motion. We have made it quite clear in the House that we do not want our democracy to be undermined in this way. Members of all parties in the House and Canadians watching our debates have the right to be informed about what is going on. This is unacceptable. My colleague was talking about democracy in these countries, particularly in Honduras. He praised the democratic systems in those different countries, but he would be better off ensuring that democracy is as strong within our government here in Canada.

That is not the case today. (1145) [ English ] Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, I would again remind the member of the NDP's appalling record on trade. NDP members have opposed virtually every trade agreement Canada has ever signed, so it should not be surprising to see the NDP members stand up in this House today and oppose the Honduras trade agreement, just as we fully expect them to oppose the EU trade agreement and an agreement with Japan or Korea. They are ideologically opposed to trade, and I would remind them of their terrible record.

When we were negotiating a trade agreement with Colombia, what did NDP members do? For two and a half years they stalled, obstructed, and filibustered. They had no intention of having a robust debate on the merits of the deal. They are simply stuck in an ideological rut and they cannot get out of it. On this side of the House, we support trade and we support investment with our key trading partners abroad. Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his work on this particular file.

Last week we had a meeting of parliamentarians—a reception, actually—based on our efforts to establish further ties with the Americas. It seemed that all parties want to see further ties with that part of the world. We all know that free trade is the new stimulus. It does not cost the taxpayers. It allows Canadian businesses to compete. If we do not have these kinds of trade deals, places in my riding such as Nor-Mar Industries, UEE, and Gorman Brothers will not be able to compete on an even playing field. Will the minister please comment and inform the House on Canada's strategy on the Americas? Hon.

Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, our strategy since 2006 has been to use trade and investment to drive economic growth at home. That means opening up new markets around the world for Canadian investors and Canadian exporters. Let me talk again about Honduras, because that is the subject of this motion. It is really unfortunate that the NDP does not want to debate the merits of the bill. I will. There is a Canadian company that is very active in Honduras. The name of the company is Gildan. It employs 20,000 Hondurans in manufacturing textiles and apparel.

Gildan has won numerous awards for corporate social responsibility and sustainability. This company has asked our government to please sign a trade agreement with Honduras because it will allow that company to increase trade between Honduras and Canada and provide it with opportunities to employ even more Hondurans. I had the opportunity to be on the ground in Honduras to visit one of Gildan's plans. It is clean and organized and has modern machinery. The company treats its employees well. That is the Canada brand going forward.

That is why we want to open up new markets all around the world for Canadians exporters and investors. Mr. Don Davies : Mr. Speaker, here is the truth. The Conservatives have brought in two motions today to do one thing: to disrupt the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer. This is after the Conservatives gave their word to the parties in this House that we would end a filibuster in order to have that testimony on Thursday. That is the only reason this is happening. It is the Conservatives breaking their word. Let us talk about Honduras a bit.

The Economist calls Honduras a hybrid regime, rather than its previous designation as a flawed democracy. It is getting worse. Transparency International ranks Honduras as the most corrupt country in Central America, calling it a major drug smuggling centre. The U.S. State Department estimates that 79% of all cocaine shipments originating in South America land in Honduras. In 2013 there have been, on average, 10 massacres per month. Massacres are defined as the murder of three or more people at a time for political reasons.

Honduras is the murder capital of the world, with 81 murders per 100,000 people, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports as well that it is the most dangerous place in the word for journalists. If the Conservatives have the courage to look at the facts, why are they cutting off debate in this House after half a day of debate? If this deal is so good, if Honduras is such a great partner, if this is so important to the Canadian economy, then let us have at least three or four sessions so that Canadians can debate the facts. However, the Conservatives do not have—

(1150) The Deputy Speaker : Order. Order, please. The member will take his seat. The hon. Minister of International Trade. Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, the only

part I agree with is that yes, Honduras is a challenging place for security. It is a challenging place for human rights. We acknowledge that, but these same arguments were made by the NDP when we negotiated a trade agreement with Colombia. It was the very same argument, and we have seen significant improvements in security in Colombia. We have seen significant increases in support for human rights in Colombia. What is interesting about Honduras is that it is the largest source of development support from Canada. We are very interested in helping Honduras escape its troubled past.

We are helping it on the security side. We are helping it on the justice side and the police enforcement side. We are helping it on the democratic capacity side. We want to make sure that as we open up new trade opportunities for Hondurans to improve their prosperity, move more people out of poverty, and give people hope, we also address those other areas that the member has just raised. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, what we are debating is whether the time allocated for debate on the bill to implement the trade treaty with Honduras should be limited.

We have the Conservative Party supporting cutting off debate and the opposition parties opposing it. I just heard a Conservative member ask a question, because he wanted more information. What I heard was a Conservative member asking the minister for more information about trade with Honduras. I heard a minister who had plenty to say in his answer. He had interesting answers. Obviously he has a lot that he feels needs to be said. I do not quite understand how that is consistent with the Conservative Party's desire to cut off debate on this legislation.

I also heard the minister talk about how all these other countries had treaties with Honduras and that Canada was behind. Therefore, I have a question— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is rising on a point of order. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my friend from Kingston and the Islands . The timing of this point of order is required. Hon. Gary Goodyear: Did you just cut off his debate? Mr. Nathan Cullen: I just began speaking, if you don't mind.

The point of order the New Democrats are raising today is necessitated by the actions of the government, and it is incumbent upon us to raise it at this time. We are under a prescription right now in which time has been allocated to a bill before the government. The government has presented a time allocation motion. There is a duty to consult that exists within our Standing Orders whenever the government seeks to invoke such a clause. The reason this Standing Order rule and practice in the House exists is that time allocation is a serious measure.

It is the most serious measure a government can take on any piece of legislation, because it limits all members from all parties in their ability to debate and discuss any legislation before the House. That is what this is presenting. The point of order we seek to raise is that from time to time objections have been raised, by Conservatives when they were in opposition and by New Democrats as well, as to the circumstances in which agreement was reached or the nature of the consultations undertaken by the government.

As with closure, the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary power or authority to refuse a motion of time allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed. The Speaker has stated that the wording of the rule does not define the nature of the consultations that are to be held by the minister and representatives of the other parties. The Speaker has further ruled that the Chair has no authority to determine whether consultations took place nor what constitutes consultation among the representatives of the parties.

All of that is correct, because it is not the Speaker's purview to witness, as the Speaker has observed, the consultations that go on among the parties in advance of a decision to be taken by the government, in this case, to limit the democratic rights of members, their own members included, to debate a piece of legislation. This is based upon a Standing Order in the House, and I will cite the Standing Order for reference for all members to understand what we are talking about. Standing Order 78(3)(

a) states: A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee, and has given notice of his or her intention so to do, may propose a motion during proceedings under Government Orders, for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this paragraph an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 76.1(10).

The motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment, and the Speaker shall put the question on the said motion forthwith. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this

section of this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned. This is exactly what has just happened. The government brought in a time allocation motion under this Standing Order, which is its power to do. It is an extreme power, and it is meant to be used in rare cases. The government has used it more than 50 times, a record in Canadian history. However, also in the Standing Order is a duty and an obligation on the part of the government to consult with other parties in the House as to the— Hon. Greg Rickford: Debate. Hon. Ed Fast: Debate. Mr. Nathan Cullen: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the hon. members across the way to allow me to continue. This is a point of order. I will thank the finance minister for his comments on the length of the point of order, but the point of order stands. The Conservatives can have their way with the power they have in a majority government, but they cannot simply run roughshod over the rules that have governe