OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 022 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, November 22, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 22, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 022 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 022 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 022 (Version officielle) 147 022 22 11 2013 2013/11/22 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Government Orders Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Drug-Free Prisons Act Hon. Tim Uppal (for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) moved that Bill C-12,

an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-12. Second reading Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act . I would like to seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West . The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to split her time?

Some hon. members: Agreed. Ms. Roxanne James : Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today gives new tools to the Parole Board of Canada to help ensure that prisoners remain drug-free, both inside the prison and while they are on parole. I will speak to the details of this important common-sense bill in just a moment, but first allow me to give some background on what has brought us to this point. The issue of drug use in our federal prisons is a serious concern to this government. Many Canadians may be surprised to learn that drug use is rampant in our prisons.

Despite the best efforts of our front-line officers, the criminal element is still able to bring drugs into the penitentiaries. The scope of the problem becomes clear when we look at the actual numbers. In the fiscal year 2010-11, close to 1,500 drug seizures took place in federal prisons. These are worrisome numbers. Our prisons are less safe and secure when there are drugs involved. Our government has provided vital funding towards tackling drugs in prisons.

In 2008, we committed $122 million over five years towards developing and implementing a more rigorous approach to drug interdiction in our federal prisons. This funding has gone towards an expanded detector dog program, increased security intelligence capacity in institutions and communities, and enhanced partnerships with law enforcement organizations. However, we did not stop there. We knew that Canadians remained concerned about this issue and that we had to move ahead with further concrete actions.

To this end, our government made three commitments to Canadians in our 2011 Conservative platform, with a goal of creating drug-free prisons. These commitments would subject all prisoners to random drug testing, give stricter penalties to those found with contraband in prison, and deny prisoners parole if they fail a drug test. As I mentioned, our first commitment in our 2011 Conservative platform was to put in place measures that ensure all prisoners undergo drug testing.

To reach that goal, Correctional Service of Canada has recently increased its monthly random urinalysis testing from 5% of the prison population to 10%. With this increase, we now have a system in place that helps ensure each inmate is tested at least once per year, thereby fulfilling our commitment to capture samples from 100% of the prison population. We have also made changes related to our second commitment, that the Correctional Service of Canada would refer serious cases to law enforcement for appropriate action.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act, which Canadians know members opposite voted against, put in place mandatory minimum penalties for trafficking or possession of drugs in a prison or on prison property. These measures move us closer to fulfilling our Conservative platform commitment to creating drug-free prisons. That brings me back to the drug-free prisons act, which would help us meet the third commitment in our 2011 Conservative platform by giving the Parole Board additional legislative tools to act as the strong authority and decision-making body that it should be. Bill C-12 is straightforward.

It proposes two amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. First of all, the drug-free prisons act would provide the Parole Board of Canada with the specific authority to cancel parole after it had been granted and before the prisoner leaves the penitentiary, if that prisoner fails or refuses to take a drug test. This is an important change. Under this legislation, the Correctional Service of Canada would be required to provide that information to the Parole Board.

The second proposed change under the drug-free prisons act also supports the work of the Parole Board, allowing it to require parolees to stay off drugs. If the prisoner violates that condition, the Parole Board of Canada can revoke parole. These proposed changes would allow our government to continue our significant work toward ending this illicit activity. While we are busy and focused on the safety of our communities and reducing drug crime, the NDP brings forward dangerous suggestions, like providing needles to inmates.

Not only is this giving hard-core drugs like heroin to prisoners—a really bad idea—it is a significant risk to the safety of our hard-working front-line correctional officers, not to mention the prisoners themselves. We also see shameful acts by the leader of the Liberal Party, who goes to speak at grade schools to promote the legalization of illegal substances like marijuana to our children. This is shameful. Canadian families deserve much better.

There is no doubt that drug and alcohol abuse in our federal prisons presents a serious barrier to correcting criminal behaviour, which is why our Conservative government is fully committed to keeping illicit drugs out of the hands of prisoners. I know there is some debate in some circles over whether we can successfully rid our prisons of drugs, alcohol and other contraband. I also know that we cannot and will not back away from this challenge. We will not turn a blind eye to this problem. Our government will remain focused on initiatives that will help us tackle drugs and alcohol in our prisons.

We will not back down from prioritizing the safety of our correctional officers. With the changes proposed in the drug-fee prisons act, the parole board would have more specific authority to make decisions that have a significant impact on the safety of our communities. I urge all members of the House, especially members opposite, who far too often are the champions of policies that are soft on crime, to support the rapid passage of this critical piece of legislation.

(1010) Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary's speech, and I think it once again ignores some basic facts. The Conservatives claim to be very proud about testing all prisoners for drugs, and they have found as a result of those tests that there are many people who are still using drugs in prison. The problem is that there are 3,000 people in prison on the wait list for addiction treatment programs. Testing does not solve the problem; what solves the problem is treatment.

Does the government have any plans to address the real problem with something that would actually make a difference? Ms. Roxanne James : Mr. Speaker, the Correctional Service of Canada spends between 2% and 5% annually, approximately $150 million per year, of its total operating budget on core correctional programs, including those that deal with substance abuse. We are dealing with the particular question that the member had. What I find most interesting, and I mentioned it in my speech, is that the member from the NDP, along with his entire caucus, wants to have a needle exchange program in prisons.

On this side of the House, we do not think it is a good idea to give convicted criminals, with serious histories of violence, long, sharp, and pointy metal objects. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in her reply to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary indicated there was 2% to 5% spent annually on correctional programs, including those addressing substance abuse. To get more specific, exactly how much money is spent every year on dealing with substance abuse problems, which my colleague has indicated has led to 3,000 people in prison waiting for treatment for substance abuse? Ms.

Roxanne James : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, it is approximately $150 million per year that Correctional Service of Canada spends on core correctional programs, including the substance abuse programs. I want to make it clear that it is not the only thing it does. Our government has actually adopted a three-pronged approach to dealing with this issue in prisons. First with regard to increased interdiction, in 2008 the government invested $122 million over five years to increase this process. Our efforts include drug detector dogs, security intelligence capacity and perimeter security.

In addition to that, the third prong is deterrence through increased offender accountability and penalties. That was achieved through the Safe Streets and Communities Act, from 2012. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned that in 2008, $110 million was spent on interdiction. I sat on the study of drugs in prisons. What we found was that the number of people who were testing positive for drugs before the $110 million was spent and then after three years was about the same.

In fact, the interdiction of $110 million did not make any difference in the percentage of prisoners with some sort of drug in their systems. Would the member agree that perhaps that money should have been spent on the demand side of it, helping those who are on the wait list to get into the programs to get off drugs? Ms. Roxanne James : Mr. Speaker, we all agree in the House that drugs in prisons are a significant problem. Not only do they pose a threat to our hard-working front-line correctional officers, but they also pose a threat to the inmates themselves. It does a second thing.

When someone is using illegal drugs in prisons, it impedes their rehabilitation process and their ability to actually use some of those abuse programs. It also presents public health issues. According to Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, more than 80% of federal inmates have had a substance abuse problem that requires intervention. This was before they were actually incarcerated, in a year leading up to their offence. It is a serious problem. We are addressing it with our three-pronged approach. Lastly, offenders who are in jail ought to be held accountable for their offences.

We should not simply be turning a blind eye to illegal drug use and enabling them to continue with it.

(1015) Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-12 , the drug-free prisons act. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her comments. I have spoken with many of my constituents about this important bill. Their response is always the same. They believe that it is common sense that our prisons, the places where we send the worst elements of society to become rehabilitated, be free of drugs and contraband. However, that is unfortunately not true. Every year, 1,700 prisoners receive discipline for failing drug tests.

There is no doubt that drug and alcohol abuse in our federal prisons presents a serious barrier to correcting criminal behaviour and creates an unsafe environment for correctional staff. That is why our Conservative government is wholly committed to keeping illicit drugs out of our prisons. We promised Canadians in the 2011 election that we would test every prisoner for drugs at least once a year, create tougher penalties for those who possess or sell drugs in prison, and deny parole to those prisoners who fail drug tests. I am proud to report that we are delivering on these commitments.

We have increased random drug testing for prisoners. Now, 10% of prisoners are tested each month, meaning that 120% of the prison population is tested every year. We have invested significantly in drug interdiction, including having effective and well-trained detector-dog teams. We have created tough mandatory sentences for those who sell drugs in prisons. Now we are bringing forward the drug-free prisons act, which will give the Parole Board the authority to cancel parole after a positive drug test.

It will emphasize the fact that the Parole Board can impose conditions against the consumption of illegal drugs while on parole. It will define what a positive drug test means in law so that bureaucrats cannot be confused and let out prisoners who have clearly not had their behaviour corrected. That is our record. Now let us look at where the opposition has stood. Rather than cracking down on drugs in prisons, the NDP has suggested a needle exchange program behind bars. Members heard me correctly.

Not only do the New Democrats want to give illegal drugs, such as heroin, to prisoners, they want to put more sharp metal objects in the hands of dangerous, convicted criminals. I wonder what front-line prison guards would have to say about the increased risks they would face should any misguided proposal like that occur. Canada's largest medium-security institution is in my riding. I am very familiar with and speak on a frequent basis with the folks who work at one of Canada's largest prisons. I have been told time and time again that they would not be in favour of this.

The leader of the Liberal Party is focused solely on legalizing drugs, the kinds of drugs that change behaviour and send people to jail in the first place. The Liberals have never seen a common-sense measure to improve corrections that they did not oppose. Their leader even went so far, while he was out trolling for votes, as to go to a school in Brandon, Manitoba, to talk about how he wants to make it easier to get access to marijuana. Our Conservative government will continue to take a comprehensive approach that includes interdiction, training for correctional officers, and treatment programs for prisoners.

I know that there is now a debate in some circles about whether we can successfully rid our prisons of drugs, alcohol, and other contraband. I also know that we cannot and will not back away from this challenge. Our government will remain focused on initiatives that will help us tackle drugs and alcohol in our prisons. We will not back down from prioritizing the safety of our correctional officers. With the changes proposed in the drug-free prisons act, the Parole Board will have more specific authority to make decisions that have a significant impact on the safety of our communities.

Thanks to the strong actions by our Conservative government, we can say that we are tackling this problem head on.

(1020) No longer would prison drug dealers be able to operate with impunity. No longer would the Parole Board be toothless in trying to revoke perks from drug-addicted prisoners, and no longer would prisoners be able to hide from drug tests by playing the numbers game. I call on all members opposite to stop putting creature comforts, including illegal drugs, ahead of the rights of law-abiding Canadians. Join with the Conservative government and vote in favour of the bill. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it is a laudable goal, and I do not think there is a person in this House who does not want to address substance abuse, and especially drug addiction. It is a very important goal, but we also have to realize that more punitive measures do not fix the problem. What we need are real prevention programs and treatment programs. One of the key things that concerns my constituents right now, besides the Conservatives' preoccupation with putting more people in prison, is affordable housing.

Many of them feeling like prisoners in their own homes because of the high ratio of their incomes that goes into paying for their homes. Many of them cannot afford homes. The government is reducing the amount of money for low-income housing. I am finding a little bit of a juxtaposition. I would ask my colleague what he feels should be done about affordable housing in communities. Mr. Rick Norlock : Mr.

Speaker, I can understand the hon. member trying to bring other issues into the debate on drug-free prisons, but this government has contributed more toward social housing than any other previous government, and we are committed to continuing that through the years. Does saying that it is laudable and that we will never get rid of all the drugs in prisons mean that we should just give up? The average Canadian has a difficult time understanding how someone can be in a prison and still get access to drugs.

I know how they do it, because I speak to the men and women who work in our prisons almost every week when I go home to my riding. There are many ingenious ways this occurs. Without going into the particulars, let me just talk about the goal. Yes, it is a laudable goal, and it is difficult for Canadians to understand why people who are in our prisons have access to a plethora of drugs. That makes the prisons that much more difficult to control.

In other words, it is difficult for the average prisoners who do not take drugs to go about their daily lives when they have someone next to them in a violent condition or in a condition that is unmanageable. It is our goal to make sure that we do our best to keep drugs out of prisons, because that is what is expected of us as the government. All we are asking is that the opposition work with us. When it comes to programming, I will wait for some input. Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I certainly appreciate my hon. colleague's message, and I wish him good luck in keeping drugs out of prisons, because to this day, it has not been overly successful. About 80% of the people who enter the prison system have a drug addiction problem. It is okay to put in more detector dogs. I agree that we should do everything to stop drugs from going into a prison. We put the detector dogs in place and stop parole. However, I would like to know why the government is opposed to addiction programs. We are dealing with human beings.

Why not deal with the human being and try to deal with the addiction problem in the prison system? Why did the government close the only addiction research centre in the nation when over 80% of the people who are in our penal institutions have a drug or alcohol problem? I wish that my hon. colleague would take a look at this situation and understand the value of research in the biggest problem in the penal institutions of this country. Would he not agree that we need research, and we need to have programs to deal with the people who are addicted in our system?

(1025) Mr. Rick Norlock : Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the public safety committee. We have a desire as a committee and as a government to see what else is happening in the world when we talk about drugs and alcohol in our prisons, and also mental illness, which is a tremendous problem. We understand that. We went across Canada to see what best practices work from one institution to another that we could import to or suggest for other Canadian institutions. We then went overseas to Great Britain and Norway. In Norway, one of the questions I asked one of the top officials was what kind of programming they had.

They mentioned some programs. I asked if they had ever adopted any Canadian programs. He said that yes, about 60% of their programs they had adopted from Canada. We are leaders when it comes to that. When it comes to alcohol and addiction programs, we also have those programs in our institutions, and we have also, as a government, invested greatly in— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Unfortunately, we went a little bit over in the time provided for questions and comments, but we will resume debate. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-12 ,

an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the drug-free prisons act. If members heard me speaking yesterday on the private member's bill, Bill C-483 , they might think I would be happier today than I was yesterday.

I was criticizing the Conservatives' use of private members' bills to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, because using private members' bills avoids the scrutiny of charter compliance, results in less debate in the House of Commons and results in a piecemeal approach, amending various pieces of legislation without actually seeing what has happened with the previous amendments. I guess I am happier today because it is a government bill, so we will have more time to debate the bill.

It has been scrutinized for its adherence to the charter and it probably avoids a piecemeal approach in that it has been examined by the department before being presented. Then why am I not really happy this morning in comparison? It is because the bill illustrates yet another unfortunate tendency of the Conservatives, and that is a fondness for propagandistic titles that obscure the real content of the bill. This is much like Bill C-2 , which is called respect for communities act, when in fact it is the opposite.

Communities that want to set up safe injection sites to try to reduce the harm caused by the injection of drugs will be prevented by the provisions of Bill C-2 from actually doing so. Therefore, how is that respect for communities? It is directly the opposite. This bill has an even wilder title. I would say that if we are ever doing a documentary on the legislative process and we use this as an example, the documentary should be called, “A Title in Search of a Bill”.

The Conservatives are wanting to send out to their members a piece of mail that would help them fundraise that says, “We passed a bill for drug-free prisons”, but when we look inside the bill, there is very little, if anything, that contributes to the goal of drug-free prisons. I really do suspect the title has more to do with Conservative Party fundraising than it does to getting good public policy for prisons. The public safety committee, of which I am the vice-chair, did a study on drugs and alcohol in federal prisons and more than 20 witnesses appeared at the committee.

I did not agree with the government's report, in which the government produced 14 recommendations on drug-free prisons. However, in its bill on drug-free prisons not one of those recommendations, their own recommendations, appears. Instead, it is something else that appears in the bill. It is passing strange to me why the House of Commons committee would spend weeks hearing from dozens of expert witnesses and then the government would ignore that and introduce something completely different from that.

Maybe I should be happy because what is proposed in the bill is, in fact, a very modest change in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which simply makes more clear in law what is already the existing practice of the Parole Board. It says that the Parole Board of Canada can make use of positive results from drug tests or refusals to take urine tests for drugs when it makes decisions on parole eligibility. It already does this. It is just not clear in law, so this has a positive impact.

Giving clear legal authority to an existing practice is something New Democrats can support, so we are placed in an odd spot in the House of Commons. If we were voting on the title, we would vote against it, but the content of the bill we will actually support. Therefore, we will support the bill going to second reading and will be proposing a more realistic title. I am having trouble thinking of anything that could compete with a slogan such as “drug-free prisons”, but I guess what we are going to look for is something that would actually tell the public what happens in the bill.

As I have said many times, drug-free prisons are, at best, a worthy aspiration, and at worst, simply a political slogan. It is not a policy. Saying we have a policy of drug-free prisons is like saying we have a policy against rainy days during our vacation. We cannot have a policy for drug-free prisons. We have to attack the addiction problem in prisons. We are in an unfortunate situation in this country where 80% of those who end up in federal custody have drug or alcohol problems. What do we do about that?

The Conservatives, instead of having a really meaningful debate with us in the opposition, try to set up straw men and propose and tell the public what our policy is. Part of that is, I think, because they know the public does not really accept their policy, so they want to create phantoms for us to debate in the House of Commons.

(1030) The Conservatives are very quick to say that we are somehow condoning drug use or are soft on drugs on this side of the House. In fact, what we are saying on this side of the House is that we have to do things that would actually be effective in combatting the drug problem in prison and that would actually have better outcomes for the prisoners. It is not because we love the prisoners but it is because on this side of the House we are interested in public safety.

If people leave our prison system still addicted to drugs or alcohol, they will fall right back into the patterns that got them into prison in the first place. They will create more victims in our communities, and they will become victimized by their addiction. In fact, we on this side of the House are not soft on drugs. We want an effective policy on drugs. Being tough on drugs is really much like being for drug-free prisons. Being tough on drugs accomplishes nothing. The Conservative approach to drugs, both in and out of prison, is very consistent.

They start with moral condemnation and then they finish with interdiction. It is the same approach that has inspired Bill C-2 . We talk about safe injection sites, and the Conservatives say injectable drugs are bad and therefore we are going to try to prevent people from having a place where they can safely inject those drugs. It is moral condemnation followed by interdiction. It ignores the reality in terms of harm reduction. The Conservatives did a mailing on Bill C-2 , saying “Let's prevent having needles in your backyard.” What do safe injection sites do? That is exactly what they do.

They place people in safe injection sites so the needles do not end up in alleyways, school playgrounds or backyards. The Conservatives are actually doing quite the opposite of what they say they are doing. When we look at the things that the Conservatives have tried to do on their goal of drug-free prisons since 2008, we see they have spent more than $122 million on interdiction tools. That includes technology, such as ion sniffers, and sniffer dogs to try to stop drugs from entering the prisons. What did we find?

The head of corrections came to the committee during our study on drugs and alcohol in prisons, and interestingly this part of the testimony does not appear in the government's report. He said that after spending $122 million and doing drug testing, the same percentage of prisoners tested positive as before the interdiction measures. We wasted $122 million on technology and sniffer dogs, instead of spending $122 million on addiction treatment programs. If we want to get drugs out of prison, we have to reduce the demand for drugs in prison by offering people treatment programs.

I have to say there was a very unfortunate side effect of this emphasis on interdiction, and that was that it interfered with family visits. One of the things we know is very important, both to those who are going to reintegrate into the community and especially those with addictions, is family support. At the time, the Conservatives criticized us for bringing this up, but what happened was that many family members felt the sniffer dogs facing them every time they tried to visit and bring their children was an intimidation factor that made it very difficult for them to visit.

Even worse, the ion scanners produced an inordinate number of false positives. Many family members who would have nothing to do drugs at all were prevented from visiting their relatives in prison because of the false positives of this technology, which really does not work in terms of interdiction. Therefore, spending the $122 million wasted money and interfered with family visits, and it interfered with rehabilitation programs. However, it is very consistent with the Conservative policy on drugs.

I guess we should have known this kind of thing was coming because in 2007 the Conservatives amended the national drug strategy. They took out one of the goals. The goal that they took out of the national drug strategy was harm reduction. It is very shocking. We actually removed harm reduction as one of the goals of our national drug strategy. Why? It is because the Conservative policy, again, is moral condemnation followed by interdiction, and it ignores the reality. An hon. member: How about the mayor of Toronto? Mr.

Randall Garrison: I know some members are talking about some other very prominent people involved with drugs, especially in Toronto, who have not taken advantage of the treatment programs available and who have continued in office when many of us believe they ought not to. However, we have to turn back to the question. If we are going to have a bill entitled drug-free prisons, then let us go back and look at why drugs are in the prisons. Again we come back to the fact that 80% of those convicted of criminal offences resulting in more than two years in prison have drug and alcohol problems.

(1035) What has been the major contributor to that? It is mandatory minimum sentences, another great Tory policy when it comes to drug-free prisons. The real problem is not criminal behaviour. The real problem is social disorder caused by drug and alcohol problems. When someone appears before a judge and he or she may have drug or alcohol problems, the Conservatives want to take away the discretion of the judge to divert that person into a treatment program, and instead make him or her serve time because they are tough on drugs.

All that does, in fact, is put more addicts into prison and create a higher demand for drugs in prison. When we talk about the lack of treatment, because of the way Corrections Canada keeps statistics on programming, it is difficult to identify, specifically, the number of those on waiting lists for addiction treatment. However, we know it is somewhere between 2,400 and 3,000 of those 15,000 people in prisons.

Many of those prisoners will complete their sentences without ever getting the addiction treatment, and as I said earlier, they will end up back in the community, back in their old patterns, victimizing themselves and others, because of addiction. In the parliamentary secretary's speech to open this debate, she talked about 2.7% of corrections funding going to programming. Let us stop to think about that for a minute; 2.7% of the funding is going to programming. That means, really, what we are doing is warehousing our prisoners. As well, that is not addiction programming, that is all programming.

That is all the training. That is all the rehabilitation. That 2.7% of the total budget is all the drug programming combined. What is happening to the budget of public safety and specifically of corrections? The Conservatives, in the last budget, cut that budget by 10%. Cutting that budget by 10% at a time when the number of people who are being imprisoned is increasing because of the various Conservative mandatory minimum sentence and longer sentencing initiatives means that we are cutting the budget by 10% when the population in prison is increasing by about 5% every year.

The Conservatives like to stand to say, “Oh, no. We'll take the highest estimates anybody ever gave, the highest projections we ever had for prison, and we'll point out to you those were never achieved”. That is to try to cover up the fact that the prison population is steadily increasing. Therefore, there are more people in prison, more people with addictions, less money and less programming. How in the world would this contribute to drug-free prisons? The other thing that happens as a result of the increasing numbers and the decreasing budget is reduced training opportunities in prison.

Why am I talking about training opportunities and drug addiction in the same breath? One of the problems that people have in prison is not having enough to do. There is an old saying that idle hands do the devil's work. Why in the world are we cutting back on training opportunities in prison? The federal institution in my riding, William Head, has now lost the carpentry apprenticeship program. Why did it lose that? It was because of cutbacks. When the instructor retired, he was not replaced. Therefore, we have no more carpentry apprenticeship program.

We know that in all of the provinces across the country we have severe shortages in the trades. There are great opportunities for people to get employment when they get out of prison. We could keep them occupied in prison with a very useful training program that would result in employment that might keep them out of poverty and addiction problems when they get out. However, because of budget cuts, we do not replace the instructor when he retires. William Head has a very good electrical apprenticeship program. The bad news is that the instructor is just about to retire. What will happen when he retires?

It is very clear. It has already been announced; he will not be replaced. Now we will lose the electrical apprenticeship program, as well as the carpentry apprenticeship program. To me, if we are really talking about how to do what is best for public safety, what is best for the community, and yes, in this case, what is also best for those who have offended, we are going in completely the wrong direction. Part of the problem, we know, is that for addicts in prison, where there is a will there is a way.

The Conservatives have tried to devise technology and other interdiction methods that would stop drugs from getting into prisons. That is probably a hopeless task. Even if we could interdict drugs, then prisoners would resort to the use of other substances, which would be even more damaging to them in that prison setting. They would make homemade alcohol, which will sometimes cause very serious injury, blindness or death. They would find a way.

(1040) One of the other things that has contributed to drugs in prison is an unusual one, and that is the Conservatives' fascination with privatization. Let me draw the connection for people who would not see it immediately. Conservatives would like to have things like laundry, food service and cleaning in the prison contracted out. That is happening more and more across the country. That brings low-paid workers into the prison system, who are not hired by Correctional Service Canada, who only have the most basic screening and, because they are most often paid the minimum wage, are in very vulnerable positions.

We have had many examples already where the path to drugs in prison comes through those private sector employees who come through the gate everyday. It is very easy for criminal gangs to identify who those people are. I am not saying these are evil people. It is very easy for them to be identified, for pressure to be put on their families and for them to bring drugs into prison. We have had many examples of privatization actually leading to an increase in the drug supply in prisons. I will go ahead and talk a bit more about the problem of reduced budget.

One of the things Correctional Service Canada has had to do is try to find more efficient ways of delivering programming. Regarding the programs that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West liked to point to that were adopted around the world, there is not enough money for those programs to be run in our prisons anymore. Therefore, the corrections officials have taken what were separate anger management, drug addiction and other of those initial programs and they have rolled them together into one program that inmates will initially go through.

This program tries to deal with all of these problems at the same time. I wish the designers of the program well, and I hope that it works. However, I am very concerned that we are, for fiscal reasons, taking those programs, which were so effective in dealing with some of the problems that people came into prison with, combining them into one program and doing an experiment in our prisons to see if that works as well as those programs we know were very effective programs that were adopted in places like Norway and were seen around the world as exemplary kinds of programs.

Another program that has been reduced or eliminated in many of the institutions in Ontario is called CORCAN. It provided vocational kinds of training so when people got out of prison, they could escape the circumstances that led them perhaps into addiction and therefore into crime. However, the other thing the Conservatives have done is questioned why prisoners who take

part in this training are paid. They have suggested we take away the pay for participating in CORCAN. This was not high pay, not even minimum wage pay, but it is an incentive for prisoners to get involved in the CORCAN training programs, which will lead them to better opportunities in their new life outside prison. In fact, we have had a situation going on in Canadian prisons where we have had work stoppages because of the low pay that is offered to prisoners who do meaningful work while they are in prison.

Because of this straw man, the Conservatives like to parade about the luxurious conditions in prison, at the same time, they have increased the number of items that prisoners have to pay for themselves. I think many Canadians would be surprised to know prisoners have to buy their own soap, toothpaste and shampoo out of the very minimal amount they are paid for work in prison.

The Conservatives like to draw a picture, saying that no one pays for their toothpaste or shampoo, but my point is not that they should not have to pay for these things, but that when they do work in the prison system, they should be able to earn enough money so they can pay for those basic necessities. Once again, coming back to what our real policies are on this side of the House, and not the straw man the Conservatives like to put up, the NDP has always been steadfast in our support for measures that will make our prisons safe.

The Conservative government has ignored recommendations from the corrections staff, the corrections union and the correctional investigator, all of these recommendations that were aimed at decreasing violence, gang activity and drug use in our prison. Stakeholders agree that the bill would have a minimal impact on drugs in prison. Therefore, those who have listened to my speech will know I am not opposed to what is being proposed in the bill.

What I am opposed to is the propaganda of its title and the whole Conservative approach of moral condemnation followed by interdiction, instead of measures that would really attack the drug problem in our prisons and our society. What we really need to do is focus on addiction programming in our prisons if we want to achieve or move toward the goal of drug-free prisons.

(1045) Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments. When we have an argument that we want to get across and we are to agree with a person that we really do not want to agree with, what do we do? We make a joke about it. We make fun of it and we belittle it. It degrades what we are trying to do, so we belittle it. Then we go to another tact and say that there they go, being moralistic again. God forbid anybody in this place should have any morals. Yes, we do have morals. Everyone in this chamber has morals.

There is nothing wrong with putting some morality and some of those issues into law, the way we do things and how we act. The opposition says that the government is overly moralistic, which is why it does this and it is tough on that. One of the other things is that they are trying to keep drugs out of prisons. It is really being hard on families and some of the families do not like to come, but that is how some of the drugs are getting into our prisons, through conjugal visits.

It is so bad when they say that they do not want to have their kids exposed to these little electronic instruments, but that is how some of the drugs are getting in. They are in the diapers of children, where the guards cannot go. We are told that. They even admit it. There is much more to talk about than I have time for, but I wish that for once, if the opposition members are going to support something, they would just say they are going to support it. They do not like us or agree with us, but they are going to support it. Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr.

Speaker, I have worked with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West on committee and he knows that it is not about me not liking or respecting him. I do respect his experience. I differ with him on the proper solutions. I am sorry if he felt ridiculed by the beginning of my speech, but a bill entitled “drug-free prisons” that has nothing in it to accomplish drug-free prisons is legitimately subject to some ridicule. When he says that I object to them having morals, no I do not. Of course we all have moral standards. What I am saying is that moral condemnations do not produce results.

That is my problem with the overall Conservative approach to drugs and, in particular, this bill. Calling it a drug-free prison bill is more of that moral condemnation, which is very ineffective in dealing with our real problems.

(1050) Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech and he made some very valid points. I wanted to ask him, with a view to the last question he just answered about morality, does he believe that addiction is a chronic, relapsing medical condition and therefore should not be subject to morality any more than we should judge people who are diabetics? This is a grey issue with regard to the issue of the amount of dopamine that people make in their brains, which makes them an addict or not.

To treat addiction, instead of with public health concerns and public health policies, does the member agree that it should be treated as a medical condition and not as a crime and punishment is issue? Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is something I neglected to say in my conclusion due to running out of time, but I could not agree more with the member. Addiction is a health problem. One of the things we have seen with Bill C-2 , which deals with safe injection sites, is that instead of going to the health committee for study, it is being sent to the public safety committee.

This somehow implies that safe injection sites are a threat to public safety and public health, instead of a support to public safety and an important measure to improve public health. What I am saying about morality is that I do not object to the Conservatives having morality. I object to them trying to apply their morality to problems that will not be solved by moral condemnation because they are not moral problems, they are addiction problems. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Conservatives stand in the House and talk about their management of the economy and how wonderful they are doing in regard to creating jobs. The facts are that it is under the current government that we have had the largest deficit and have accumulated hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. When the Conservatives formed government, we had a $26 billion surplus in trade. Now we have $62 billion in trade deficits. This is their economic record. The reason I brought that up is that in 2008, the government put in $122 million into interdictions in prisons.

What effect did that $122 million have or could we have used that $122 million somewhere else where we could have received more benefits? Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey North for his participation in the study on drugs in prisons, which was done at committee. The $122 million, as the head of Correctional Service Canada said, was wasted. At the end of this, we have the same number of prisoners testing positive for drugs as we did at the beginning.

I want to go back to something the member for Northumberland—Quinte West raised, implying that I supported family members smuggling drugs into prison. Of course, I do not. What I object to is the same thing I talked about yesterday, and that is the Conservatives' tendency to take the extreme examples and make the rule from it. Most of the families that are visiting prisoners with addiction problems want nothing more than for those relatives to conquer those addiction problem, come home to them and be a productive and useful member of their own community.

Singling out the exceptional and trying to make policy on that basis is something to which I always object. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this subject is one which my colleague in his speech has dealt with incredibly well because when we look at the results of the Conservative program over the last number of years in the interdiction of drugs in prisons, it has been very unsuccessful.

Does my colleague want to take that argument further into how those funds could better have been put into programs that would lead to rehabilitation, that would lead to a decline in drug and hard drug use in prisons?

(1055) Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, the question from the member for Western Arctic gets right to the heart of the matter, which is that we have a shortage of funding in our prison system right now for addiction treatment programs. Again, if we want to reduce the presence of drugs in prison, in my view and in the view of the people we heard at committee, we need to reduce the demand for drugs in prison by providing addiction treatment programs.

The $122 million would have gone a long way to closing that gap of the waiting list, which is somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 prisoners who need addiction treatment programs. It would have gone a long way to filling that gap and would have been much more effective than wasting it on this effort at interdiction. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting bill that we have before us. It is something the Conservative Party is fairly good at.

They have someone working in the Prime Minister's Office whose job is quite simple: come up with creative names for bills to make the Conservatives look good in the eyes of the public. Whether it is reflected in the bill or the substance of the legislation is somewhat irrelevant; the PMO staffer's primary goal is to get that communication piece out. So what has the PMO said today on Bill C-12 ? Well, the message it wants to get out to Canadians is “drug-free prisons”. This is what it wants to achieve.

Some on that side might actually applaud, but one questions if it is possible to achieve what the government is trying to give the impression to Canadians that it is going to achieve. I do not believe it is possible. I believe that if one were to canvass individuals who have the expertise, which obviously is lacking on the government benches, one would find out that in fact it is not achievable. However, do not let that confuse the member who came up with the idea in the Prime Minister's Office, because that conflicts with the message the Conservatives are hoping to give Canadians, albeit somewhat false.

That said, interestingly, there was an observation made in the 2011-2012 annual report from the Correctional Investigator with respect to the prevalence of drugs within our prisons, and I quote: A “zero-tolerance” stance to drugs in prison, while perhaps serving an effective deterrent posted at the entry point of a penitentiary, simply does not accord with the facts of crime and addiction in Canada or elsewhere in the world. This is not coming from a member of the Liberal caucus, but from stakeholders out there in the real world, and that is part of the problem.

We need to get more of the staff inside the PMO to get out into the real world to get a better understanding of reality. I had the opportunity to tour many of Canada's penitentiaries and retention centres, and I believe there is plenty of room for improvement. Let there be no doubt that there is a lot of room for improvement. I for one will not object to moving forward, but I think we have to take the issue of addiction— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. member will have sixteen and a half minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next resumes debate on the motion.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members (1100) [ Translation ] Supply Management Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, eight years ago today, the Bloc Québécois motion on supply management was unanimously adopted. We went through an emotionally charged day, along with the dairy, egg and poultry producers of Quebec, because we were not sure whether we would achieve unanimity until the very last minute. Indeed, in committee, the Conservatives had joined with the Liberals to defeat a similar motion.

For eight years, the Bloc Québécois motion effectively constituted the Canadian negotiation policy and ensured that the supply management sectors were protected. Still with Quebec producers, we also adopted a motion on imports of milk proteins. The government ultimately betrayed dairy farmers, especially our Quebec cheese makers, with the recent free trade agreement with Europe. We had already sounded the alarm when, for the first time, the government left supply management on the table during international negotiations.

The federal government must now meet its commitment for a compensation plan and ensure better border control to protect Quebec's remarkable cheese industry.

[ English ] William Fraser Bell Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to honour the memory of the late William Fraser Bell. Bill was a devoted family man, an outstanding gentleman and a mentor. Bill leaves a legacy of exemplary contributions to Richmond Hill, to Ontario, and to Canada. He is the longest-serving mayor in Richmond Hill's history, having been elected to that office six consecutive times.

Some of his proudest career accomplishments include the establishment of the Richmond Hill Centre for the Performing Arts, co-founding Hill House Hospice, the state-of-the-art Richmond Hill Public Library, and because of sound financial decisions during his tenure, enabling council to make a significant donation to help build the Richmond Hill wing at Mackenzie Health Hospital. Bill Bell will always be remembered as a giant in our community. I am personally immensely grateful for his wise and sage advice.

My deepest sympathies go out to his loving wife Jackie; their daughters Julie and Kate; their grandsons Hunter, Thomas, and Charlie; and his brother John.

Officer of the Order of Canada Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I have the great honour to rise in the House to congratulate the former premier of British Columbia, Mike Harcourt, who has been named an Officer of the Order of Canada, one of the highest distinctions in our country. Mr. Harcourt has had an exemplary career. He has made an enormous contribution to Canada as a city councillor, mayor of Vancouver, leader of the B.C. NDP, and of course, as premier of British Columbia.

He has also served as an inspiration and powerful advocate for those affected by a disability, following his own remarkable recovery from a spinal cord injury. I have had the privilege of working closely with Mike over the years on issues of environmental protection and treaty negotiations. Based on my personal experience, I can say without hesitation he is also an incredibly kind person with a famously positive attitude and approach to life. I cannot think of anyone more deserving of this wonderful tribute. Congratulations to Mike.

Food Processing Facility in Colborne Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Northumberland County Economic Development and Tourism is currently designing and constructing a niche food processing food facility in Colborne, Ontario, to support second-source revenues from farming operations and to build on the concept of field to fork as an integral part of our community and business development.

The Ontario agri-food venture centre is supported by our government through the eastern Ontario development program with a $200,000 combined contribution from the Northumberland CFDC and five surrounding regional CFDCs. The projected 15,000-square-foot facility will serve the eastern Ontario agricultural community as a means to help grow local food enterprises, to extend the seasonality of locally grown fruits and vegetables through packaging and freezing processes, and to carry out marketing and product development for emerging enterprises.

This project is yet another example of how our Conservative government is supporting farmers and local businesses in eastern Ontario.

Grey Cup Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan is the province that is the easiest to draw but the hardest to spell. We have the longest bridge over the shortest span of water in the world. Twice each year we fight the scourge of daylight savings time. Saskatchewan invented everything from Girl Guide cookies to medicare, and we have had our football team since 1910, years before there was even a CFL or a Grey Cup. We bleed green. Our most sainted symbol is a gopher. On Sunday the greatest fans in the world will trek to Regina.

They will come from North Portal in the south and from Southend in the north, from Eastend in the west and from West Bend in the east. We will welcome back to Saskatchewan Austin, Fantuz, and Burris and all their friends from Hamilton. Then there are Durant, Sheets, Dressler, Getzlaf, Bagg, and Simon, and I wish I could name them all, will finish what they set out to do in the spring: they will make the Saskatchewan Roughriders the 101st Grey Cup champions. Go Riders!

(1105) Volunteer Search and Rescue Organizations Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, with citizens of Merritt and the surrounding areas, I participated in a volunteer search and rescue effort. We were looking for Dean Morrison, a missing 44-year-old man and father of three. Sadly, we were not successful in our efforts. This was my first experience working with local search and rescue volunteers. It is truly heartening that so many citizens give so generously of their time to help find missing loved ones.

I know that there are volunteer search and rescue organizations in many of our communities across this great country. I would ask the House to take a moment to collectively give thanks for the very good work that they do.

[ Translation ] Canada's Food Banks Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with the holidays approaching, I would like to take a moment to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year in advance. Unfortunately, not everyone shares in this time of joy. A growing number of Canadians rely on food banks to help meet the basic need of having food to eat. At this time, on behalf of everyone here, I would like to thank all those who work or volunteer at food banks, who help those less fortunate put food on the table.

During this holiday season, I would also like to congratulate them on their strong sense of community. My friends, Canada remains a generous country because of the hard work of these extraordinary people. It is true that during the holidays, Canada is a wonderful country. In order to make the holidays a time of peace and happiness for everyone, I would invite all Canadians to follow the example of those who work and volunteer at food banks and to give generously to those organizations.

[ English ] Gas Tax Fund Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second installment of our Conservative government's annual $2 billion federal gas tax fund is being made available. Saskatchewan's total allocation this year is now close to $56.1 million. Canada's gas tax fund provides predictable long-term funding for Canadian municipalities to help them build and revitalize their local infrastructure while creating jobs and long-term prosperity.

This money has funded numerous initiatives across Saskatchewan that support water and waste water infrastructure, local roads, public transit, solid waste disposal, community energy systems, and transportation improvements. Projects are chosen locally and prioritized according to the infrastructure needs of each community. To date, close to $371.9 million has been made available to Saskatchewan under the current gas tax fund. Our government has extended, doubled, indexed, and made permanent the gas tax fund.

Thus the fund grows from its current $2 billion per year while providing provinces and municipalities with predictable funding to deliver on local Infrastructure priorities. That is a very good thing.

Typhoon Haiyan Relief Efforts Mr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express gratitude from my constituents of Don Valley East for the relief efforts of our government in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan and for the generosity of all Canadians across the country for helping those affected by this tragedy. In my riding of Don Valley East, I would especially like to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of Mario Calagio, who has worked tirelessly to acquire clothes, canned food, and financial donations for the affected people of the Philippines.

A tragedy of this magnitude will take years of effort to replace, repair, and rebuild back to normal. I take this opportunity to remind everyone that they can continue to donate to the Typhoon Haiyan Relief Fund until December 9, as our government will match dollar for dollar the money that is raised.

[ Translation ] Louiseville Christmas Telethon Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very worried about the growing number of people living below the poverty line. Every year, food bank statistics make me shudder. Food banks and donors play a crucial role. It is unbelievable that, in 2013, in a country as rich as Canada, so many people cope with poverty every day and food banks have become a permanent solution. On Wednesday evening, I attended a Christmas spaghetti dinner for Louiseville's Noël du pauvre campaign.

I would like to congratulate Pierrette Plante, the organizing committee and la Porte de la Mauricie on setting up a wonderful evening. For the past 55 years, people's generosity during the Noël du pauvre telethon has made it possible for nearly 4,600 families to celebrate Christmas fittingly. Close to 2,000 volunteers contribute to the success of the telethon, which will be broadcast beginning at 5 p.m. on December 6 on Radio-Canada Mauricie-Centre-du-Québec television. Congratulations to everyone involved. I am proud of the solidarity I have witnessed in my community, and I am really proud to represent you.

(1110) [ English ] The Economy Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when it comes to economic stewardship, our government is leading the world. We have witnessed the creation of over one million net new jobs, signed the Wayne Gretzky of trade deals with Europe and stayed on track to balance the budget. We also cut the GST and created the tax-free savings account, benefiting more than eight million hard-working Canadians. Canada has weathered the global economic downturn because we have a plan. Unfortunately, the Liberal leader has no plan.

While we create better policy in Canada, the Liberal leader admires China's basic dictatorship. While the Prime Minister successfully travels the globe promoting trade and Canada's values, the Liberal leader parades around Canada promoting marijuana growth, including to school kids. While an inexperienced Liberal leader pushes pot, we will continue to create the economic conditions for jobs and growth for all Canadians.

The Environment Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment seems to be the only northerner who does not understand climate change. As she took her seat at the UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, a European report found, “Canada still shows no intention of moving forward with climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer of all industrialized countries”. Meanwhile, the minister continues to mouth empty platitudes about how hard the Conservatives are working on climate change.

However, Environment Canada's analysis shows Canada fell further behind in meeting its 2020 targets. While the minister fiddles, her constituents and mine are suffering. Inuit elders, hunters and others have told the Nunavut environment department that sea ice conditions have changed, there is more rain with snow later in the year, the stability of the permafrost is changing and traditional Inuit seasons have changed drastically. When it comes to climate change, the minister is only willing to mouth PMO talking points, when she should be working for northerners.

The Economy Mrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, our government has focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. That is why we implemented our responsible resource development plan, which recognizes the importance of balancing environmental protection with economic development. Natural resource development supports 1.8 million Canadian jobs and $30 billion annually in royalties and taxes to governments to support important programs such as health care and education. Yet on that side of the House, the New Democrats just do not get it.

The orange bloc no development party opposes all resource projects. It opposes hydrocarbon development, mining projects, the nuclear industry, and it even opposes the forestry sector. When will the NDP start sticking up for Canadian jobs and Canadian families?

Grey Cup Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the field is set: showdown under the prairie sky. The 101st Grey Cup: Steeltown versus Queen City. Who will be victorious? In one end, the mighty Hamilton Tiger Cats; in the other end, some guys dressed in green. After clawing their way from behind in the CFL East final, the Ticats devoured the Toronto Argonauts to win 36 to 24. Under the leadership of head coach Kent Austin, the Ticats have touched down in Riderville to stalk their prey, hunt the pig skin, and sprint to victory.

While the Ticats may not be in their natural habitat, they will mark their territory and bring the cup home to Hamilton. As the member of Parliament for Guelph, I would like to thank the Hamilton Ticats for choosing Guelph's Alumni Stadium as their home away from home. They have entertained us, brought our community together in the celebration of sport and contributed to Guelph's prosperity. Tigers, eat 'em raw. Go, Ticats, go.

(1115) Health Ms. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, during the local Brandon byelection debate last night, the Liberal candidate said that marijuana should be controlled the same way that tobacco is. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? How irresponsible of a policy is that? Smoking rates among our youth are already too high. The Liberal Party and the Liberal candidate clearly missed the memo that 16% of Canadian youth are still smoking. That is why our government has been working hard to reduce those smoking rates.

The Liberals should get on board with our approach, which is aimed at helping to ensure Canadian youth are healthy and productive and are not smoking cigarettes or marijuana. Our government is working toward a zero per cent smoking average for youth. It is a shame that the Liberal candidate in Brandon and the Liberal leader do not agree.

[ Translation ] Ethics Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, back home in New Brunswick, people were already ticked off at the Conservatives for giving their buddies overpaid jobs for life, when New Brunswickers cannot even get their employment insurance, which they paid for with their own money. Now the double standard has gone even further. Sylvie Therrien had the courage to blow the whistle on the unfair quotas imposed on employment insurance inspectors that forced them to go after the unemployed. Well, the Conservatives fired her.

When it comes to their friend Irving Gerstein, who conspired to cover up Mike Duffy's crimes and tried to use his contacts to change the Deloitte report, there were no consequences. If the Conservatives are as tough on crime as they claim, they should leave whistle-blowers and the unemployed alone and instead throw out Gerstein. They treat the unemployed like criminals, when the real criminals are their buddies in the Senate. They should be ashamed.

[ English ] Ethics Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned the shocking reports that disgraced Liberal Senator Colin Kenny was removed from his caucus over accusations of sexual harassment. The victim says he made inappropriate sexual comments, asked her to wear high-heeled shoes and repeatedly put his hand on her waist when the office door was closed. Even worse, the leader of the Liberal Party 's office ignored the victim's plea for help for three months, as she had notified them in August that she was being harassed.

On behalf of Canadian women from coast to coast, I would like to express our outrage and my deepest sympathies to the alleged victim. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently finalizing a study on sexual harassment. We have learned that sexual harassment is a form of violence, with a tremendous impact on the health, well-being and economic security of women. Our government will continue to focus on eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Ethics Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that when he told Nigel Wright he was “good to go”, he was saying that Mr.Duffy should repay his own expenses. Why did Mike Duffy need authorization from the Prime Minister to repay his own expenses? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as we could see through all of the documentation that the member is referring to, Senator Duffy, right to the end, was trying to justify these inappropriate expenses. The Prime Minister was very forceful in the fact that Senator Duffy had to repay these inappropriate expenses on behalf of taxpayers. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, just after the Prime Minister gave the nod to Nigel Wright, negotiations began with the Conservative Party for repayment of $32,000 of Mike Duffy's expenses.

If the Prime Minister approved the $32,000 repayment plan, how is it plausible that he was not aware of the $90,000 repayment plan? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister responded in this House yesterday, he did no such thing. He did not approve of the Conservative Party paying back any of the funds. As we know, the Conservative Party did not pay back any of the inappropriate funds of Senator Duffy.

The Prime Minister was very clear to the senator when he tried to justify his inappropriate expenses that he repay those expenses that he did not incur. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when the chair of the Conservative Party's fundraising arm, Senator Irving Gerstein, realized that the party would have to pay back $90,000 and not $32,000, what did he say to the Prime Minister ? (1120) [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, Mr.

Speaker, I think Senator Gerstein made an announcement at our convention that the Conservative Party would not pay the $90,000 of inappropriate expenses that Senator Duffy had incurred. We expect on this side of the House, and we were told, that Senator Duffy used his own resources to pay those expenses back. We obviously know that was not true. What is very evident from these documents that the opposition is referring to is that it is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are being investigated by the RCMP at this point. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, we are talking about a cover-up involving a large group in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister claims that when Nigel Wright spoke to him on February 22, his chief of staff was seeking permission for Mike Duffy to pay back his expenses. Can the member explain, then, why Mike Duffy would need permission from the Prime Minister to pay back his own expenses? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : As I just answered, Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to documents.

In those documents it is quite evident that throughout Senator Duffy was trying to justify these inappropriate expenses constantly. He was told on February 13 by the Prime Minister that he needed to repay these inappropriate expenses. He kept trying to defend these expenses. They were not appropriate. He needed to have those repaid. We were subsequently told, all Canadians were told, that he did that using his own resources. We know that not to be true.

However, we also know, as stated on page 72 of the same document that he refers to, that the Prime Minister did not know of the arrangement between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve better than sham responses like that. We are talking about improper expense claims, PMO-orchestrated cover-up, whitewash of an audit and a continuing police investigation. According to the RCMP, Senators Tkachuk and Gerstein tried to ensure the audit would go away.

They knew an investigation into Mike Duffy's residence could raise additional trouble with the Conservatives. Was the Prime Minister aware of the problems surrounding Senator Duffy's residency? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, Mr. Speaker, on February 13, the Prime Minister was very clear to Senator Duffy when he was approached by the senator to try to justify his inappropriate expenses. He told him he had to repay those expenses. He then went on TV and said that he had repaid those expenses using his own resources.

We know that not to be true. What these documents also show is that the Prime Minister took immediate action. When he found out about this on May 15, he ordered his office to work with and assist the RCMP, freeze any emails, provide any information that they needed. It also shows on page 72 that this Prime Minister did not know the scheme that had been hatched. Had he known, he would have in no way endorsed such a plan. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is campaigning in Manitoba today. My question is related to the fraud squad.

Manitobans want to know why the taxpayers from Manitoba are still paying for the salaries of four Conservative senators and three Conservative staffers, all of whom the RCMP have alleged were participants in the PMO–Duffy payment and cover-up. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned this question yesterday, as well. The Prime Minister , as we know, was in Lac-Mégantic yesterday making a very important announcement with respect to funds to assist the people of Lac-Mégantic.

We also know that the Prime Minister has shown extraordinary leadership with respect to the Philippines and the devastation that has been caused there. He might call that campaigning. We call that governing. We call that looking after the priorities of Canadians. Whether it is in Newfoundland or B.C., across this country, Canadians know they can count on this Prime Minister and this government to spread their values to work on their behalf before, during, and after an election.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member can say what he will, but everyone knows that the Prime Minister is in Manitoba today because he is scared of what is happening in Manitoba. That is the reality. He is out there campaigning. My question is in regard to Patrick Rogers. He is the policy director for the current Conservative minister from Saint Boniface . He is being allowed to keep his job. Why? The RCMP has alleged that he also has been involved in the PMO whitewashing of the Senate report and scandal. Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what is scary is that the leader of the Liberal Party would go to an elementary school and talk about legalizing marijuana. That is what is scary. What is scary is a Liberal Party that wants to undo all of the gains that western Canadians have seen. They want to reverse marketing freedom for our farmers. They want to reinstate the gun registry. Their only major economic plank, of course, is to reorganize crime so they can tax marijuana.

I do not think the people of Manitoba want that type of person leading their government. What they want is a government that will cut taxes, work for them, work for their families, and work hard every single day before, during, and after an election for the values Canadians think are so important.

(1125) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, what is scary is that absolutely no one believes this Prime Minister . What is scary is that we have a fraud squad that works out of the Prime Minister's Office or have been disseminated out of the Prime Minister's Office. Since the Prime Minister 's deputy chief of staff, Jenni Byrne, worked directly for both Dan Hilton and Senator Gerstein, both of whom the RCMP allege knew about the dirty deeds, what did she know, and why is she leading the campaign in Brandon, Manitoba? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have a great candidate in Brandon—Souris who is leading that effort to make sure that the people of Brandon—Souris still have a member of Parliament they can count on, a member of Parliament who is not just visiting the riding for the purposes of an election. They do not need a Toronto Liberal telling them that all the things they believe in are wrong.

They do not need a Toronto Liberal telling them that legalizing marijuana is the most important thing that this government should be looking at. What they want is a Conservative who will represent them before, during, and after an election, who will focus on their priorities, who will focus on their values, who will bring continued economic prosperity to the people of Manitoba. That is what they will get from the candidate in Brandon—Souris. Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, RCMP documents show that Senator Irving Gerstein was actively helping to clean up the mess around the audit into Mike Duffy's residency and expenses. Senator Gerstein even called someone he knew at Deloitte, somebody, by the way, who just happened to be a maximum donor to the Conservative Party. Was the Prime Minister aware that Senator Gerstein attempted to use his influence to alter that audit? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again, what the documents the gentleman is referring to clearly show is that the subjects of this investigation are Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright. Senator Duffy had inappropriate expenses that he should not have claimed, and at the same time, Nigel Wright made repayment of those expenses, and that obviously was not proper. Of course, the documents also show that the Prime Minister did not know about this, but when he found out on May 15, he immediately went to his office and ordered that the PMO assist the RCMP, providing any and all information they needed. That is a sign of real leadership.

That is the type of leadership Canadians have come to depend on from this Prime Minister. Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, at some point, the government is going to have to answer questions about undue influence. The list of Conservatives involved in the Mike Duffy affair from the Prime Minister's Office, the Senate, and the party continues to grow, yet few have been reprimanded. My question to the Prime Minister is, will there be any consequences for Senator Irving Gerstein, from him, for attempting to subvert this audit? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the subjects of the RCMP investigation are Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy. They are the ones who are being investigated for their actions. The NDP, of course, is trying to cast a wide net over everybody. If he lives by that standard, I guess all 101 members of the NDP caucus should resign, in light of the fact that they accepted $340,000 in illegal campaign donations from their union friends. Let us get back to the facts.

The fact of the matter is that Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he never should have. Nigel Wright inappropriately repaid those expenses. That is what is being investigated. The Prime Minister's Office is assisting. Had the Prime Minister known, he would have in no way endorsed such a plan. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that member gives farcical answers. While Conservatives have orchestrated a cover-up and whitewashed an audit, Canadians are not amused.

The Duffy Deloitte audit stopped as soon as the senator repaid his improper expenses, but RCMP documents show that this was part of a larger plan to end questions into Senator Duffy's residency. Did anyone in the Prime Minister's Office ask Mike Duffy's lawyer to withhold information about his residency from Deloitte? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what the RCMP documents show is that as soon as the Prime Minister found out about this, he went back to his office, and as it is stated here, Rob Staley, the legal representative of the PMO, “advised my office”, that is the RCMP, “that he had clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation the RCMP requested”. PMO employees have all provided privacy waivers through their legal counsel. The PMO has also waived solicitor-client privilege for those emails.

That is the type of leadership Canadians want from a Prime Minister . That is what they are getting. At the same time, let us focus on the issue at hand. Senator Duffy made inappropriate expense claims, and Nigel Wright inappropriately paid those back.

(1130) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member does not seem to understand the seriousness of these allegations. We know something was going on within the Prime Minister's Office. We have now seen the emails. I have another very simple question. Did the Prime Minister know about the plan hatched between Benjamin Perrin, Janice Payne, Senator Tkachuk, and Senator Duffy to pay off Mr. Duffy's improper expenses in order to prevent further investigation by Deloitte? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I just answered that question. The Prime Minister stated that he found out on May 15 that it was Nigel Wright who repaid those expenses. We had all heard earlier that Senator Duffy had used his own resources to pay back those expenses. We know that that was not true and that a different scheme was hatched. As soon as the Prime Minister found out on May 15, as I have just said, and as stated on page 21 of the report, the Prime Minister took immediate action, showed incredible leadership, and ensured that his office assisted the RCMP to get to the bottom of this.

As we know, had he known about this plan, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP documents show that Benjamin Perrin, a PMO lawyer, was the primary legal advisor helping the Prime Minister's Office develop the agreement to repay Mike Duffy's illegal claims. Perrin is a close friend of the Prime Minister . Why did the Prime Minister mislead the House when he said that Perrin was not involved? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, what the RCMP is investigating is the relationship between Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright. That is quite evident in all of the documents the member is referring to. I would also refer the member to page 21 of the same documents, which show the leadership the Prime Minister took. I would also refer him to page 72, where it is quite clearly stated by the RCMP that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of this agreement between Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright. [ Translation ] Mr.

Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the question was about Benjamin Perrin, but I did not get an answer. Nigel Wright was fired or resigned—who even knows—because he arranged an agreement to repay Mike Duffy's illegal expenses. Irving Gerstein helped set up this agreement. Irving Gerstein also tried to manipulate the audit report of the senators' expenses produced by the independent firm Deloitte. Why are there consequences for Wright but not for Gerstein? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the reports the member referenced quite clearly indicate that it is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are the subjects of this investigation. With respect to reports, I think all members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, are routinely given advice by different people.

I know that in committee, when we are reviewing reports, political staff sit behind all of us, but ultimately, it is up to the members of Parliament, it is up to those who are elevated to the Senate, to make the decisions and to stand by the decisions they make. That happens every single day in this place, and I suspect it should happen in the Senate, as well. [ Translation ] Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP documents have revealed that a scheme involving more than a dozen people, including employees in the Prime Minister 's Office, ended with Nigel Wright giving Mike Duffy a cheque.

Do the Conservatives expect us to believe that the Prime Minister had no idea that the amount of claims to be reimbursed went from $30,000 to $90,000? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the documents quite clearly state that the Prime Minister did not know that this plan had been hatched by Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy.

At the same time, Nigel Wright, in earlier affidavits, already identified the people he had brought into his confidence with respect to his using his personal resources to repay those inappropriate expenses. [ Translation ] Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, again according to the RCMP, Conservative employees were afraid that Mike Duffy would hand over his documents. Emails from Nigel Wright and Senator LeBreton indicate that they wanted to avoid having Mike Duffy release documents during the Deloitte audit.

How is it possible that the Prime Minister was never informed of objections raised by employees such as Christopher Montgomery, who was the director of parliamentary affairs in the office of the government leader in the Senate at the time? (1135) [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. What the documents show, on page 21, is the level of assistance the Prime Minister Office's did offer. Some thousands of emails were turned over with respect to this ongoing RCMP investigation.

The Prime Minister was very clear to the PMO that it was to assist in any way possible with respect to the investigation. I think it is very clear that the Prime Minister showed extraordinary leadership. The moment he found out about this, he ordered his office to completely assist with the RCMP. That is the type of leadership Canadians expect from a prime minister, and that is the type of leadership they get day in and day out from this Prime Minister . [ Translation ] Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Irving Gerstein knew that Mike Duffy racked up more than $32,000 in illegal expense claims because he refused to cut a cheque for $90,000. However, they would have us believe that the Prime Minister knew nothing of it. Everyone knew that Mike Duffy could embarrass the government. Senator LeBreton was afraid of what would be revealed if Mike Duffy handed over his documents. If the Leader of the Government in the Senate was worried about potential damage, why would she not have told the Prime Minister ? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said countless times in this House, the Prime Minister was approached by Senator Duffy on February 13, trying to justify his inappropriate expenses. The Prime Minister told him he had to repay those expenses back and that if he did not, he could not expect the support of this caucus going forward. We were very concerned with the fact that some senators, including former disgraced Liberal senator Mac Harb, seemed to have defrauded Canadians of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Are we concerned about that? Yes. That is why we moved, and the Senate moved, to suspend these three senators. Unfortunately, the opposition did not support that. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary secretary mused about what the residents of Markham want from their government. I can tell the member that they certainly do not want the Prime Minister 's hand-picked, taxpayer-funded lawyer negotiating a backroom deal to hide who was actually paying Mike Duffy's expenses and then deleting all the email evidence afterwards. Who deleted Mr. Perrin's emails?

Who instructed them to do so, and what were they hiding? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what I said was what the people of Oak Ridges—Markham want. I suspect that is why they sent me to Parliament, to fight on their behalf, with one of the largest vote counts in the entire country, second, of course, only to the member from Calgary. I note that there are some 42,000 people in my riding who voted for me to come here to represent them.

I also note that at the same time, the people of Markham were very clear when they also elected the member for Thornhill . Two out of three is not bad; one more to go. With respect to Mr. Perrin, of course, there are Treasury Board rules that outline how emails are dealt with when an employee leaves. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, all those people from Oak Ridges—Markham did not send their member here to defend fraud, which is what he is doing today. [ Translation ] Negotiating an agreement with Mr. Duffy is not acceptable conduct from a member of the bar.

Has the government or the Minister of Justice contacted the Law Society of British Columbia and the Law Society of Upper Canada to ask them to investigate Mr. Perrin's professional conduct? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. gentleman liked me. I am hurt to hear that somehow we have had a change in our relationship. I still like him and of course will show that non-partisan spirit that I have shown in the past.

I suspect the member is just upset because yesterday on Power & Politics I said that in fact I am not Hamilton Tiger-Cats fan, I am actually a Saskatchewan Roughriders fan. As one of the members of the GTA, not supporting a GTA team, I suppose he is upset at that. The reality is that the Saskatchewan Roughriders have great fans. They deserve to have the Grey Cup. I wish them very well and hopefully they will bring home the Grey Cup for Saskatchewan. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one answer in six months.

Police documents show there were conversations between Nigel Wright and the Prime Minister about the Duffy arrangement. If that arrangement did not get a “good to go” from the Prime Minister , is it then the government's position that Nigel Wright lied? Then, what about Chris Woodcock? Did he lie? Did Ben Perrin lie? Did Patrick Rogers? Arthur Hamilton? van Hemmen? Novak? Byrne? MacDougall? Hilton? Did the entire Conservative fraud squad lie to the Prime Minister ? Is that the government's position?

(1140) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the documents quite clearly show that the Prime Minister did not know that this scheme had been hatched. The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that had he known he would have in no way allowed this to happen. What is also very clear is that as soon as the Prime Minister found out, he went back to his office and ordered the full and complete assistance of his office to the RCMP.

Again I contrast that to the leader of the Liberal Party who hid the fact that one of his senators was being investigated for very serious crimes for three months. When it comes to showing leadership on matters that matter to Canadians, they can always count on this Prime Minister . That is why the leader of the Liberal Party is in way over his head. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the people of Surrey are upset about a cover-up hatched in the Prime Minister 's own office. Yesterday we asked why Conservatives broke the law by deleting Benjamin Perrin's email about the cover-up.

The parliamentary secretary replied, “we expect all staff to follow those rules”. This is about erasing evidence. Will the Conservatives now acknowledge rules were broken when Benjamin Perrin's emails were erased? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. gentleman to Treasury Board Secretariat rules with respect to how emails of employees who are departing offices are dealt with. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister keeps saying that the Prime Minister is prepared to co-operate fully with the RCMP. If that is the case, why were Benjamin Perrin's emails deleted, as the RCMP report indicates? Is this not precisely an example of a total lack of co-operation? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are rules in place. Those rules are set by Parliament and enforced by the Treasury Board Secretariat with respect to how emails of departing employees are handled and managed.

Those are the rules set forth by the Treasury Board Secretariat, and I suspect those rules were all followed. [ Translation ] Mr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, during its investigation, the RCMP was unable to obtain the emails of Benjamin Perrin, the former counsel for the Prime Minister , because they had been deleted. Therefore, the Prime Minister's Office has not shown full co-operation and Treasury Board rules were not followed. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm these two statements? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is actually handled by public servants. It is not handled by political staff. There are Treasury Board Secretariat rules that are in place. They are the ones who manage the process when an employee leaves the office. Those rules were followed. Those rules are undertaken by the Treasury Board Secretariat. I have answered that three times. He can maybe ask it again and I will answer it exactly the same way.

Those are managed by Treasury Board Secretariat, and I suspect the rules were followed. [ Translation ] Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, will the parliamentary secretary tell us whether the decision to delete the emails and ignore the rules was made by Benjamin Perrin or another staffer at the Prime Minister 's Office? Who deleted the emails? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have said, documents upon the departure of staff are managed according to rules included in the Treasury Board guidelines.

Public Safety Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, a former senior adviser to Pierre Trudeau, is facing some serious accusations. My thoughts are with his former assistant who blew the whistle on his disturbing actions ranging from making special requests about what type of clothes she would wear to work, to even touching her hips when the office door was closed. Shockingly, the Liberal leader's chief of staff knew about these allegations for months before the senator left the Liberal caucus only yesterday. Could the parliamentary secretary please tell the House what our government has done to crack down on sexual predators?

(1145) Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, these allegations are incredibly serious. If the Liberal senator is found responsible, he should face the full force of the law. What is also disturbing is that the Liberals' top adviser knew of these allegations for months and did not say anything. Our government ended house arrest for serious crimes like sexual assault and kidnapping. Unfortunately, but I suppose not surprisingly, the Liberals voted against our efforts to protect women against sexual predators.

Furthermore, the Liberal leader has even mused that he wants to end or repeal mandatory minimum sentences for anyone. Canadians want to know. Is that so his caucus can avoid spending time behind bars?

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP documents have revealed the secret strategies used by the Prime Minister 's Office to manipulate what happens in the Senate. Nigel Wright and his friends got angry when the Senate dared suggest that the government should make massive investments in first nations education. That is incredible. It is obvious that those guys in their ivory tower have never visited an aboriginal school. Instead of investing in fraudster senators, when will they invest in first nations education? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, he first referenced the Senate affair and that of course is between Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright. However, when it comes to investing in aboriginal communities, I think the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has shown extraordinary leadership on this file. He is working day in and day out.

The difference between our side and that side is that we do not just talk about making a difference for aboriginal communities, we work with them to make a real difference in the lives of our aboriginal communities across the country. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, people on that side tie funding to performance, and aboriginal schools are struggling with chronic underfunding. It makes no sense. That is why the NDP launched a petition this week to defend the interests of aboriginal children and put an end to chronic underfunding of schools.

Will the minister finally step up and create the conditions that will give all children equal access to education and quality schools? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if the member is so concerned about first nations children in reserve schools that he feels it necessary to demand they be funded at a fair level that enables them to succeed, he should convince his leader and the members of his party to support the bill on education for first nations children.

For the first time in history, we have a bill before us that will create the conditions to ensure the success of students on reserves, and we are asking the NDP to support our initiative. [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, at the AFN youth summit this week, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said he may consider withdrawing the proposed education legislation. B.C. first nation educators have already come out against the Conservative education plan and so have chiefs in Ontario and Quebec. Why is the minister waiting? He should withdraw his proposal right now.

What first nation educators, students and communities want to know is whether the minister will work with them instead of imposing legislation. Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that no decision has been made as to whether or not a bill will be tabled. We are in the process of consultation with first nation and provincial stakeholders to determine the best way of ensuring we meet the challenges of youth on reserve.

Again, the NDP would rather dismiss the problem and do nothing, but we believe that by continuing to work with first nations we can achieve positive results. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' own national panel on elementary and secondary education on reserve said, “education reform must be based on strong, positive...outcomes, not on an average cost per student approach”. They saw the indications of a gap in funding, the lack of equipment, few supports for special needs students and school facilities in disrepair. The minister can act now to close that gap.

Will he commit to providing equitable funding for on-reserve students?

(1150) Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I indicated clearly that currently we have a system where the NDP and the tax-and-spend Liberals would have us throw more money at a problem that is failing the students on reserve year after year. Instead of throwing money at the problem, we are suggesting that we work together to find a solution that will bring about results. I know the NDP does not care about results, but on this side of the House we do and first nations do.

Automotive Industry Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, despite the hollow pro-consumer rhetoric being sold by the Conservative government, middle-class Canadians headed south for Black Friday would clearly hit roadblocks if a car is on their shopping list. Automakers are ordering U.S. dealers not to sell to Canadians despite the fact that taxpayers lent them billions of dollars to stay in business. Paying up to $10,000 more for a car in Canada is nothing short of highway robbery, especially when many of these cars are Canadian made.

When are the Conservatives going to start really fighting for Canadians and do something about this inequity? Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course, this government is committed to keeping Canada's automotive industry alive and well, innovative and globally competitive. That is exactly why we recently renewed the automotive innovation fund, which the NDP voted against. We are working very hard to create high-quality jobs and a globally competitive market.

In fact, I want to point out to the member that Canadian sales in August were up 6.5% compared to last year. That is great news for a recovering economy. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, they talk big and can say whatever they want, but there is still a $10,000 disparity. Talk is cheap. We want to see more action done on that file. The suggested Canadian retail price for a car made in Alliston, Ontario, is $9,000 more than if that car were bought in the U.S. Empty words are not going to close this gap. When are consumers going to get real fair trade when it comes to purchasing cars made in Canada?

Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, every automotive maker in Canada, such as Chrysler, Toyota in my riding, are reporting record sales. They continue to grow. The reason we have such a recovering economy in Ontario is because on this side of the House we continue to reduce taxes for consumers so that they can in fact afford these types of goods. What is the Liberal solution to this? It is to raise the GST back up like they did before and then generate more tax revenue through the sale of illegal drugs.

That is not our position on this side of the House. We are improving— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

Champlain Bridge Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about cars, let us talk about stalled cars. [ Translation ] Yesterday, The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated announced that a second lane on the Champlain Bridge would be closed, after it discovered that the crack that led to the closure of the first lane had gotten worse. People are worried. There is an increasingly real risk that the Champlain Bridge may not hold up until the new bridge opens in 2021.

Can the government tell us what contingency plans it has if the Champlain Bridge is shut down completely before it is replaced in eight years? Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the safety of users of the Champlain Bridge remains a priority for the Government of Canada. That is why we undertook major renovations, injecting $380 million in maintenance work, to ensure that the existing bridge is safe until the new bridge opens. Mr.

Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not know why, but I am not reassured, and neither are people from the greater Longueuil community. A lack of planning is exactly how we got to where we are today. Successive governments never thought that the bridge would eventually reach the end of its lifespan and that we would need new bridge before cracks started appearing all over. It is disheartening to see the Conservatives making the same mistakes. Does the government understand how urgent it is to work with local elected officials and municipalities?

It needs to develop a contingency plan as soon as possible in case the Champlain Bridge is shut down completely before 2021. Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we do not need lectures from a party that has always opposed investments for repairs. In 2009, 2010 and 2011, the NDP did not want to ensure the safety of the existing structure when it came time to vote on the budget.

(1155) [ English ] Status of Women Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, child, early and force marriage is a barbaric practice that not only prevents development, but has a devastating effect on the health, education and economy of entire communities. It is a violation of the freedom and human rights of young girls. What is the Government of Canada doing to fight this terrible practice? Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great commitment to this issue.

Yesterday, Canada made history with the passing of the first ever stand-alone resolution on the issue of child, early and forced marriage at the 68th UN General Assembly. In this resolution, 109 countries joined with us, another important step in our government's efforts to free millions of women and girls from the inhuman practice of early and forced marriage. This is leadership of which all Canadians can be proud. We will continue to champion human rights around the world. We are not afraid to speak out on these issues for fear of being seen culturally insensitive or politically incorrect.

These women and girls deserve the same education and opportunities as everybody else.

Air Transportation Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the inquiry into the tragic Cougar helicopter crash in Newfoundland and Labrador claiming the lives of offshore workers has strongly recommended that the federal government establish a transportation safety board as part of the C-NLOPB. Today, I ask the government this. Why has it ignored that critical recommendation and failed to act to protect the offshore workers in Newfoundland and Labrador? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, of course our thoughts continue to go out to the families of the victims of this tragic accident. Our government is committed to strengthening aviation safety for all Canadians. Transport Canada reviewed the Transportation Safety Board report and our government has taken action to address the recommendations. Transport Canada worked with industry to develop these new regulations, which will improve the safety of offshore helicopter operations for both passengers and crew.

The Environment Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this summer the Mackenzie Valley Review Board gave conditional approval for cleanup plans for the old Giant Mine. The Conservative's response has been to reject recommendations on independent reviews, on health and on citizen input. Giant Mine is the poster child for why we need strong environmental regulations. Buried underground are 237,000 tonnes of arsenic. Why is the minister refusing to take all measures to ensure this poison is never released? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, contrary to what the member alleges, we are currently reviewing the environmental assessment report submitted by the Mackenzie Valley Review Board. We will make a decision that is in the best interests of northerners and all Canadians.

Multiculturalism Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, at this time each year Canadians gather in solemn commemoration of the Holodomor, perpetuated by the Soviet regime on the Ukrainian people 80 years ago. In 2008, our Parliament passed

an act to establish a Holodomor memorial day, and to officially recognize the Ukrainian Famine of 1932 to 1933 as

an act of genocide. Could the Minister of State for Multiculturalism please tell us why it is important that all Canadians remember the atrocities that took place during the Holodomor? Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on the fourth Saturday of November we join Ukrainian communities across Canada in commemorating Holodomor Memorial Day. Holodomor was a horrific act of genocide carried out by Joseph Stalin's soviet regime through the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians.

Our government has been committed to raising awareness of Holodomor through the establishment of a monument to the victims of communism in Ottawa. We have an obligation to ensure future generations of Canadians learn about and remember the Holodomor. We will always remember them.

[ Translation ] Air Transportation Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, after moving aircraft maintenance away from Montreal, which was against the law and caused the brutal closure of Aveos, Air Canada is continuing its efforts to undermine its Montreal facilities. The company is quietly moving many of its specialized, high-paid positions to Toronto, and the federal government refuses to do a thing about it. After the 100 or so crew scheduling jobs were moved last year, now another 30 or so planning and parts shipping jobs are being relocated to Ontario.

Will the Minister of Transport do something to keep jobs in Montreal, or does she thinks it is normal for Air Canada' head office in Montreal to become just a post office box? (1200) [ English ] Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good question and we will certainly get back to him as soon as possible. As a government, our commitment is to the health and safety of all Canadians in all workplaces.

[ Translation ] Firearms Registry Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will do anything to achieve their own ends—they will even mislead Quebeckers and Canadians. After rejecting an RCMP report in 2009 that demonstrated the usefulness of the firearms registry, the Conservatives were even more meanspirited. Under false pretences, they censored a 2012 study that highlighted the benefits of the firearms registry. How can the Conservatives claim to act in the public interest, when they hide the truth because the facts contradict their ideology?

Why will they not simply transfer the data to Quebec, which sees the advantages of having a firearms registry? [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we accept the decision of the Supreme Court. We will continue to bring forward measures to keep our streets and communities safe and we will continue to treat law-abiding hunters, farmers and sports shooters with the respect that they deserve.

Public Service of Canada Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, in 90 minutes the House will debate amendments to Bill C-461 dealing with public sector salary disclosure. For weeks, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has become quite fond of saying that on that side of the House the Conservatives will always stand up for taxpayers, and I want to put that theory to the test.

Will the government support amendments to Bill C-461 , fully supported by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, to lower the salary disclosure bar for public servants from the ridiculous $444,761 to a more defensible sum, and that is the salary of a member of Parliament? Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the NDP and the Liberals voted against this legislation in the first place. In fact, every time we bring forward new measures to increase government transparency, the opposition parties vote against them.

The fact is that all salary ranges for public servants are already disclosed. Our amendments would ensure that information about the top earners in the public service is revealed. After 13 years of Liberal scandals, we brought forward the Federal Accountability Act. We take no lessons from the opposition parties when it comes to accountable government.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings [ English ] Ways and Means Notice of Motion Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I have the honour to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2) I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

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 three petitions.

Petitions Navigable Waters Protection Act Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first petition asks the House to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Cowichan River on Vancouver Island in B.C. has experienced dangerously low water levels in recent years. The situation poses a significant health risk to salmon stocks. The Cowichan River supplies drinking water and recreation opportunities to thousands of residents. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-495 and to reinsert the Cowichan River into the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

(1205) Taxation Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Parliament of Canada to support Bill C-201 , which would allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so they could secure and maintain employment at a construction site that would be more than 80 kilometres from their home. That bill was presented by the member for Hamilton Mountain .

Genetically Modified Alfalfa Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in my final petition, the petitioners call upon Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa to allow proper review of the impact on farmers in Canada.

Mining Industry Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of my constituents in Guelph on the regulation of Canadian mining companies operating abroad. The petitioners are concerned about the impact of mining activity on indigenous and non-indigenous communities. Their concerns range from environment destruction, weak environmental assessments, the failure to fully and adequately secure the consent of local communities, complicity in human rights violations and the use of government sanctioned militias as security forces.

The petitioners call on the federal government to implement binding legislation that would regulate the activities of Canadian mining companies overseas to ensure compliance with international human rights standards and promote long-standing Canadian values of respect for the rule of law, good governance and democracy.

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 question will be answered today: Question No. 24. [ Text ]

Question No. 24--

Mr. Peter Stoffer :

With regard to Correctional Service of Canada (CSC): (

a) how many adults serving custody sentences in the federal correctional system previously served in the Canadian Forces (CF) and RCMP from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (

b) how many of these adults specified above served their custody sentence in (

i) federal minimum security prisons, (ii) federal medium security prisons, (iii) federal maximum security prisons; (

c) how many offenders on conditional release previously served in the Canadian Forces and RCMP from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (

d) what is a breakdown on the types of offences committed by adults with previous service in the CF and RCMP for those serving custody sentences in federal correctional facilities and offenders on conditional release from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (

e) has CSC determined a re-conviction rate for adults who previously served in the CF or RCMP from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (

f) what is a breakdown of the types of rehabilitative needs adults who previously served in the CF and RCMP accessed while serving their custody sentence or conditional release (including psychological, social, or occupational training opportunities) from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; and (

g) how many adults serving their custody sentence or conditional release with prior CF or RCMP service were treated for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or Operational Stress Injuries from 2001 to 2013 inclusive?

Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, CSC does not formally track information pertaining to federal offenders who may have served in the Canadian Forces and in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As a result, a manual case-by-case review would be required in order to accurately respond, and this cannot be completed within the time frame provided.

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Drug-Free Prisons Act The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12,

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-12. Second reading The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Winnipeg North had sixteen and a half minutes remaining for his remarks, and of course he will have the usual ten minutes for