OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 011 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, October 30, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 30, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 011 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 011 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 011 (Version officielle) 147 011 30 10 2013 2013/10/30 14:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for St. Paul's . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ Translation ] Supreme Court of Canada Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, once again Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats have failed to show respect for Quebeckers.

By appointing a judge to the Supreme Court who is supposed to be from Quebec but does not meet the basic criteria or even live in Quebec, the federal government failed in its duty to respect Quebec's separate legal system. By including Justice Nadon in the list of the top three candidates, Liberals and New Democrats also participated in this pathetic ploy. Considering they once recommended a unilingual anglophone judge, we should not have been surprised. Furthermore, none of them stood up for Quebec's historical position that Quebec judges on the Supreme Court should be appointed from a list submitted by Quebec.

Yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously denounced the federal government's unilateral actions in appointing Justice Nadon and condemned the fact that this decision is depriving Quebec of one-third of its representation on the Supreme Court, just as important cases are being considered. The Quebec nation's civil code and fundamental rights deserve respect. The federalist parties here in this House have still not figured this out, unfortunately.

[ English ] Aerospace Industry Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in September, I was honoured to host an all-party aerospace caucus tour in Manitoba during Aerospace Week, celebrating over 75 years of industry excellence. The aerospace industry is very important to the economy and to the people in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre . In fact, key employees from Magellan and Boeing live just down the street from my home.

The industry is near and dear to my heart, because it has created partnerships with educational institutions, delivering training to students, who become immediately employable. I know a number of the 5,500 people who are employed by Manitoba's more than 40 aerospace related businesses. I have had a chance to speak with many of these hard-working Canadians, and they appreciate the investments our government is making in the industry. I commend the work being done by the aerospace industry in Manitoba. I am thrilled that the industry is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for my constituents.

[ Translation ] Disarmament Week Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is Disarmament Week. Canada was once a leader in disarmament issues. Take, for example, the motion that was unanimously adopted by the House in 2010 regarding nuclear disarmament and the Ottawa convention on anti-personnel mines. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. With Bill C-6 , the Conservatives are undermining the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Cluster munitions primarily kill civilians. Canada is withdrawing from the Arms Trade Treaty, which 114 countries, including the United States, have signed.

What is more, last week we learned that this government is easing controls on Canadian military equipment exports. I could go on. Unlike the Conservatives, the NDP wants to build a safer world through multilateralism and conflict prevention. Have a good Disarmament Week.

[ English ] David Ernest Hornell Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to recognize the valour of David Ernest Hornell, a native son from Mimico in my constituency of Etobicoke—Lakeshore . Flight Lieutenant Hornell was a brave leader who successfully completed 60 missions with the RCAF around Iceland, Scotland, and Canada's east coast during World War II. In 1944 he was aircraft captain on a patrol near the Faroe Islands when his plane was attacked and badly damaged by a German U-boat.

Nevertheless, he succeeded in delivering his depth charges on target, sinking the submarine, and then brought his plane down, ablaze, on the heavy seas. There was only one serviceable dinghy, which could not hold all eight members of his crew, so they took turns in the water. At one point, Hornell had to be restrained by his comrades when, though at the end of his own strength, he proposed to swim to a distant lifeboat that had been dropped from the air. When the survivors were rescued after 21 hours, Hornell was weak from exposure. He died shortly thereafter.

He was awarded posthumously the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to Commonwealth forces. This Remembrance Day, let us remember all those who, like David Hornell, died in the name of freedom.

David Ling Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to David Ling, who recently passed away. Losing his own dad at a young age, he helped his mother keep the family together and kept the original farm operating to provide. David and his wife Edith built their farm in North Winsloe, originally as commercial farmers and later specializing in beef as pioneers of Prince Edward Island's organic farming industry. He and his wife created a successful organic farming operation.

They became a mainstay, selling beef, pork, and produce at the Charlottetown Farmers' Market, with hundreds of happy customers. He saw himself as a steward of the land and never stopped trying to find new ways to improve organic farming practices. A long-term member of the NFU, he stood up consistently for the rights of farmers. His legacy is “how to nurture and treasure the land, water, and environment”, and his drive was “to share what he learned with other farmers in the hope that they would catch the visions too“” We give our regards to his wife Edith, daughters Lisa and Kathy, and special granddaughter Ella.

We thank David.

(1410) Mississauga Legends Row Mr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the creation of Legends Row, Mississauga's walk of fame, where we have paid tribute to the achievements of the many distinguished Mississaugans, past and present. It was a pleasure to recently attend the Legends Row inaugural induction ceremony, where ten accomplished residents of Mississauga were honoured. This year's inductees included Bruce McLaughlin, Johnny Bower, Chuck Jackson, Oscar Peterson, Silken Laumann, members of the Canadian rock band, Triumph, Lata Pata, Paul Henderson, Dr.

Joseph Wong, and Tommy Hunter. Through their actions and accomplishments, these individuals, such as Triumph band member and founder of Mississauga's Metalworks Studios and Metalworks Institute, Gil Moore, have contributed to the economic and cultural success of Mississauga and Canada. Congratulations to Mississauga's legends.

[ Translation ] Employment Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for the 90 workers in Baie-Comeau who lost their jobs, as well as the members of the Unifor local who were forced to accept the cuts imposed by their employer, Resolute Forest Products. The Conservatives can boast all they like about how they have championed job creation and economic growth, but all evidence points to the contrary. More and more jobs are being lost, and workers like those at the Baie-Comeau paper mill are being forced to accept inferior working conditions.

Over the past five years, over 1,000 high-quality jobs have been lost at the two largest private employers in Baie-Comeau alone. Furthermore, this morning we learned that Alcoa, the city's largest employer, is threatening to shut down its plant and lay off 1,000 workers as early as November 2014. I would also like to reiterate the NDP's commitment to helping businesses across Canada remain competitive and to ensuring high-paying, sustainable, high-quality jobs for Canadian workers, including young Canadians. The very survival of our regions is at stake.

[ English ] Remembrance Day Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on November 11, I would like to invite the people of St. Catharines to join me at the newly restored downtown cenotaph to honour the wartime sacrifices of veterans, like the soldiers of the local Lincoln and Welland Regiment , who liberated the strategically vital Dutch city of Bergen-op-Zoom in October, 1944. Throughout wars in Europe, Korea, and Afghanistan, Canadian soldiers have fought for freedom and justice, and their service allows Canada to be one of the most peaceful and prosperous nations in the world.

On Remembrance Day, we owe it to them, ordinary men and women like any of us, who left their homes and families behind to face extraordinary risks so that they could protect us from some of the most dangerous threats in our history, to honour those sacrifices. We appreciate their courage, their commitment, and their love of country. Canadians will always and forever remember their sacrifice.

China and Mongolia Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it was an honour to accompany the Governor General on his state visit to China and Mongolia. His Excellency has always been a strong advocate for academic excellence. We were able to expand upon the person-to-person collaborations not only with political figures but with educators and students. Having been an educator for 34 years, I was proud to see the enthusiasm shown by our hosts regarding the use of the Canadian curriculum at all levels of education.

The same sense of pride was evident when discussing economic issues and how central Alberta businesses, as well as organizations such as Access Prosperity and Alberta's post-secondary institutions, can benefit from this renewed co-operation. Our numerous round table discussions allowed us to expand and strengthen our economic, cultural, and knowledge-based collaboration. Our discussions with Canadian businesses and NGO leaders helped to enforce just how well Canada is perceived in China, Mongolia, and throughout the world.

Windsor Rotarians Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my best wishes to a group of Windsor Rotarians who are preparing for a 13-day November visit to Africa. They are to assist in numerous development and humanitarian projects designed to help Ghana's most vulnerable and impoverished citizens. Led by a doctor and a group of nurses, a dozen Windsorites are about to change the lives of hundreds of Ghanaians by digging water wells and building schools, libraries, and in particular, an intensive care unit for newborns.

They will be distributing mosquito nets, providing eye exams and prescription glasses, and handing out soccer balls and uniforms, which were donated by Windsor's youth. The Rotarians remind us that our lives need not be dominated by bad news all day. Good news and good deeds are still very much part of the Canadian fabric. Pride in community and a willingness to serve still resonate across our country. On behalf of all parliamentarians, we wish them safe travel and a safe return.

(1415) Persons Case Awards Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this week the Governor General presented the 2013 Persons Case Awards to five outstanding individuals who had advanced equality for women in our country. This year's recipients are Constance Backhouse and Julie Lalonde from Ottawa, Nahanni Fontaine from Winnipeg, Susan Shiner from St. John's, and Cherry Smiley from Vancouver. These women's scholarly work has contributed to ending violence against aboriginal women, ending sexual assault and harassment and supporting safety for women and girls in Canada.

I join with all Canadians to congratulate this year's Persons Case Award winners and I thank all of those who, like them, work in their own community to support equality for women across our great country.

Violence Against Women Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we heard the news that Canada ranked 20th in the world for gender equality. While some may have been shocked, too many Canadian women know this to be their reality. One way women experience inequality is through violence perpetrated against them because they are women. Today I had the honour of announcing our national tour to listen and consult Canadian women with my Motion No. 444, which calls on the federal government to enact a national action plan to address violence against women.

In speaking of gender-based violence, we must remember two things: one, ending violence against women is possible; and two, Canadian women have the absolute right to live in dignity without violence. Today I had the honour of standing with some of the strongest advocates for women's rights in the country. We heard from Kate McInturff from the CCPA, who said that the problem of violence in women's lives came at too great a cost of all Canadians to bear. Intimate partner violence costs us $7.4 billion a year and sexual assault $546 million.

Indigenous women, racialized women, all women in Canada know that an end to violence against women is needed. We need an action plan to end violence against women.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Chungsen Leung (Willowdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, families in my riding of Willowdale want safer streets for their children. That is why they are shocked by the Liberal leader's priority to legalize marijuana. He claims that making pot legal would make it more difficult for children to access drugs, pointing to the regulation of alcohol as an example. Parents in my community see through the Liberal leader's rhetoric. We know that according to the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, teens are twice as likely to have consumed alcohol in the last year than pot.

Regulated rules for alcohol do not prevent teens from getting access to it, just like the Liberals' plan to legalize marijuana will not make it tougher for our kids to access drugs. In fact, it will do just the opposite. By sending the message that recreational drug use is acceptable, the leader of the Liberal Party is once again showing us that he lacks the judgment to lead. Clearly he is in over his head.

Co-op Week Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. speaker, Reverend Moses Coady started the co-operative movement many years ago during the depression in Cape Breton. This effort helped rural communities across the Maritimes to improve their economic and social circumstances. Mr. Coady led a movement that spread across Canada and around the world. Today, co-operatives in Cape Breton are thriving. Two weeks ago, our co-operatives' advocate, the member for Ottawa—Vanier , travelled around my riding in celebrating Co-op Week.

My colleague accompanied me to credit unions, co-op grocery stores, the United Farmers Co-op country store, the Bras d'Or Farmers Vegetable Co-op, and the Victoria Fisheries Co-op in Neil's Harbour. There are 9,000 co-ops across the country, with 14 in Cape Breton. As rural Canada continues to struggle with economic hardships and out-migration, the co-operative movement, with more assistance from the federal government, could help them prosper.

I support my colleague's efforts to create a special parliamentary committee to determine the needs of Canada's co-operatives so we can help build on this model for many years to come.

Middle East Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, UN special rapporteur Richard Falk has shown his biased, ill-informed and, frankly, anti-Semitic views regarding the Middle East peace talks. His recent comments threatening the state of Israel with sanction at the International Court of Justice are totally unhelpful and do nothing to help the Middle East peace process. Those comments actually poison the environment for peace. Canada has been clear on this issue.

We believe in a two-state solution where final status issues are to be resolved directly between the two parties without preconditions, but which also recognizes the right of the state of Israel to live in peace and security. Richard Falk's latest rantings come from the same man who implied that the Boston terrorist attacks this past spring were somehow the fault of the U.S. and of Israel. Mr. Falk must resign from his role at the UN because his continued service damages the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and damages what little credibility Mr. Falk and the UN still have.

I also call on the leaders of the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party to make their views on Richard Falk public. Do they stand with our government or do they accept Mr. Falk's remarks?

(1420) Ethics Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with a tip of the hat to Aaron Wherry, I would like to tell a story about the world's most intriguing pizza shop. Mr. Prime was selected to manage the shop by Mr. and Mrs. Canuck, the owners. Let us call him the prime manager. He had been having trouble with his drivers Mike, Pam and Patrick, apparently caught stealing from the cash register, right under the nose of his night manager, Nigel. Nigel even gave one of them money to pay back what he stole. Nigel was an honourable man who resigned, except when he was fired.

Nigel acted alone, except when he was helped by a few, like Chris the cashier and Art the accountant. Dave, Marj and Carol all know they are the prime manager's buddies. They sit in the corner and eat pizza all day. Now Mr. and Mrs. Canuck are fed up with these changing stories. Fortunately for them, they can trust honest Tom to hold the prime manager to account and take over the shop in 2015.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it has been six months since the member for Papineau became Liberal leader. In that time he has announced only one concrete policy he has for Canada, his plan to legalize marijuana. In contrast, our Conservative government has been getting things done for Canadians. We have signed the biggest free trade deal since NAFTA, begun efforts to provide more fairness in competition for consumers, and maintained our laser-like focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We are opening the market to 500 million new consumers.

While we have been focused on the economy, the leader of the Liberal Party has been focused on legalizing drugs. His plan will make marijuana easily available to our children and will increase risk of disruption in our communities. Our Prime Minister will keep illegal drugs off our streets. Clearly, the leader of the Liberal Party is out of touch with law-abiding Canadians.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the Prime Minister a chance to be crystal clear and to give a straight answer. Did his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, resign or was he dismissed by the Prime Minister? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wright and I both agreed that his actions were completely inappropriate. That is why he is no longer working for us. He has accepted the responsibility for his actions. He is being held accountable.

Obviously when things like this happen, we would expect the other side of the transaction, Mr. Duffy, to do the same. That has not been done and that is why he should be removed from the public payroll. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, why is the Prime Minister so afraid to answer such a simple question? [ Translation ] The question was crystal clear. Did Nigel Wright resign or was he dismissed by the Prime Minister ? The Prime Minister has told us two versions of the same story. It is impossible for both to be true. Which is it?

Why does the Prime Minister not tell us what really happened? Why does he not tell Canadians the truth for once? [ English ] The Speaker : I would urge all members, certain statements like that which have an implication that a minister or member is not telling the truth have been found to be unparliamentary. The right hon. Prime Minister. [ Translation ] Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the facts are very clear. Mr. Wright's actions are unacceptable and that is why he is no longer working for me. He is no longer on the public payroll and, for that reason, Mr.

Duffy should not be either. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, how many cheques were issued by the Prime Minister 's lawyers to buy Mike Duffy's silence?

(1425) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that allegation is false. I said that it is not unusual for political parties to provide legal assistance to caucus members from time to time. [ English ] It is the case, as I said yesterday, that all political parties do provide legal assistance to their members. I believe that is done in his party as well. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, is negotiating a $90,000 backroom deal to buy the silence of a senator a valid legal expense? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I think I have been very clear that my view was that Mr. Duffy should repay his expenses, expenses he took inappropriately from the taxpayers of Canada. That is not the obligation of the Conservative Party and Mr. Duffy has not yet done that. The fact of the matter is that parties do assist their members in good standing from time to time with legal expenses. In fact, it is the case. The member can confirm it is the case that his political party has on a number of occasions provided him with substantial legal assistance. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, what work was done by the law firm Nelligan O'Brien Payne to earn a $13,000 cheque from the Prime Minister 's lawyers? [ English ] Exactly what work was done by the law firm Nelligan O'Brien Payne on behalf of the Prime Minister to merit seeing members of the Conservative Party pay $13,000 to that firm? How is that possible? What real work was done if it were a valid legal expense? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party, as do other parties, provide legal assistance to their members of Parliament.

In the case of the leader of the NDP, it is my understanding, and he can confirm, that not only has his party in the past paid for certain legal expenses, it even paid findings of wrongdoing against him by a court of law. The party paid almost $100,000 in damages on his behalf. Could he confirm that? Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Wascana now has the floor and I would like to hear him. Hon. Ralph Goodale : Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister says on February 13 he ordered Mike Duffy to repay his expenses, but from that date until May 15, three full months, we are told the Prime Minister was never briefed on his hand-picked star senator, nor did he ask any questions. During that time, $90,000 in hush money was paid, plus $13,000 in legal fees, a Deloitte audit was subverted, a Senate report was corrupted, and a false story was concocted about a bank mortgage. When did the Prime Minister first hear that his staff, for which he is accountable, had counselled Mike Duffy to lie? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already answered that question. At the same time, the Liberal position on this is truly unbelievable. The Liberals are trying to make victims out of these three senators and disgraced Liberal senator Mac Harb. They stole hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars. It is inappropriate and Canadians have been quite clear. They cannot accept accountability through an election, so they want us to do that accountability.

That is why there is a motion in front of the Senate now to expel these three senators without pay and that is why we are going to move forward with that. I only hope that the Liberals and the NDP will come on board and help us get that accountability. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the last question. Let us see if he will answer this one. From May 15 to May 19, the Prime Minister said he had full confidence in Nigel Wright. He called him an honourable man showing leadership. He said he was just protecting taxpayers, just helping a dear old friend.

Then suddenly Mr. Wright was thrown under the bus with Duffy. What changed? What new information did the Prime Minister receive in those five days, from Wednesday to Sunday, that transformed Mr. Wright from being a brilliant chief of staff into a base manipulator who had to be fired?

(1430) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright has accepted full and sole responsibility for his actions. He knows that what he did was inappropriate. At the same time, the Prime Minister has said quite clearly that had he known this was taking place, he would have in no way approved of such action. While the Liberal leader is talking about pipes in his token role as Liberal leader, we are talking about pipelines. We are talking about growing the economy.

Those are the things that Canadians want us to talk about and those are the things we are going to continue to concentrate on as we go forward. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply troubled by the Prime Minister 's incredible excuses and maybe it is because of the track record.

They recall that illegal in-and-out financing scam on the Prime Minister's watch, a police raid, charges laid, a guilty plea, a conviction and the biggest possible fine; then the illegal conduct that cost him a cabinet minister in Labrador; now the charges laid in Peterborough, robocalls, voter suppression, electoral fraud, that deal to get rid of Alan Riddell, and of course, the Prime Minister on tape about an insurance policy for Chuck Cadman. Is there a pattern here? The Speaker : It seems there is not a great deal in that question about actual government business.

I heard a lot of questions about party business, which there have been previous speakers on, but I see the hon. parliamentary secretary rising. I will allow him to answer. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this would be a good time to give another story. I know how fond the House is of stories. I have two daughters, a seven-year-old and a five-year-old, two beautiful girls, Natalie and Olivia, and each week I give them an allowance. Part of that allowance might be for cleaning their rooms.

Both Natalie and Olivia know that sometimes their mother might clean their rooms. They both know that they should not ask for an allowance because they did not actually do the work. If my five-year-old and seven-year-old can figure this out, how is it that these senators cannot figure it out and how is it that the opposition supports that type of activity from our senators? Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if, as the Prime Minister says, he does not defend the actions of Mr. Duffy, why then is he literally paying to defend the actions of Mr. Duffy? Right Hon.

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, all political parties will provide legal assistance to members of its caucus in good standing. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks this is a problem, why would he have his party not only pay his legal expenses but even pay nearly $100,000 of wrongdoing damages imposed by a court of law? Why? That is something the Conservative Party certainly does not does do. Why did he do it? Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, well now that he has told us what they does not does do, let us look at what they does do.

Senator Duffy announced that he would repay his expenses on February 22. His expenses were paid back on March 26, more than a month later. What was negotiated between the Prime Minister 's own lawyers and Mike Duffy's lawyers during that month? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, I have been very clear. I said that Mr. Duffy should repay the expenses himself, expenses he had inappropriately claimed from the Senate for expenses he had never in fact incurred. That was the position. My understanding, the understanding of this caucus and the entire Canadian public, was that Mr.

Duffy had indeed repaid those expenses himself. That proved not to be the truth. Mr. Wright, who paid them on his behalf, is no longer on the public payroll. Mr. Duffy should not be on the public payroll, and neither should other senators who have behaved inappropriately as well.

(1435) Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, how many people knew that lawyers from the Prime Minister 's Office and the Conservative Party were negotiating that deal with Mike Duffy? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, Mr. Wright has not only been very clear. He has been very clear about his sole responsibility and his dealings with others on this matter. He is being held accountable for that.

I wonder how many members of the NDP are aware that this party leader not only claims expenses for court cases he loses but also expects his political party to actually pay, for him, the damages imposed by a court of law. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Conservative Party fund approved paying Mike Duffy's legal bills for this deal. How could someone at the Conservative Party approve paying Duffy's legal bills if Nigel Wright acted alone? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, once again, that question has been clearly answered. What is not, of course, being answered is why in fact the Leader of the Opposition keeps changing his own story. Yesterday he got up in this place and said that Mr. Duffy was the victim of extortion because people were trying to get him to pay back monies he never should have claimed in the first place. We expected Mr. Duffy to repay his money, just like I think his own party would expect him to repay damages in court. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am concerned for your safety, in that you might be impaled on the Prime Minister 's increasing proboscis. Did the Prime Minister offer Mike Duffy a guarantee that in turn for going along with the repayment scheme, the Conservative-controlled Senate would let him off the hook? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question is there. I am reminded by that particular statement that the finding against the Leader of the Opposition was for libel. Our view is very clear. The Senate has a choice in front of it. It has a motion in front of it.

That motion suggests and says that the three senators who have clearly abused the public trust on these matters should be taken off the Senate payroll. On this side of the House, we firmly agree with that motion. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is why the previous, clear question was so important and that is why Canadians notice that the Prime Minister did not answer it. I will repeat it. Did the Prime Minister's Office offer Mike Duffy a guarantee that in return for going along with the repayment scheme, the Conservative-controlled Senate would let him off the hook?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I think has been illustrated many times, the Senate makes its own decisions in these matters. Senator Tkachuk, the chair of the committee, has been very clear that this is the case. It is also clear that we do not always agree with those decisions. However, it is very clear what we expect in this particular case. There has been a breach of public trust, claiming expenses to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars that should never have been claimed, and there should be appropriate action taken to remove those senators from the public payroll.

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that would be an independent Senate. Let us look at an email exchange from February 11. Mike Duffy to Nigel Wright, “What does Marjory's letter mean for our talks?” Nigel Wright to Mike Duffy, “I had no foreknowledge of it. When I learned of it I asked for all unilateral action from [the Senate leader's] office to cease before being cleared with me.” That is Senate independence? They were controlling it out of his office.

(1440) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Senate committee that the member refers to was the committee of Senator Tkachuk, not Senator LeBreton, who was the government leader in the Senate. The Senate made its own decisions. The Senate has been very clear on that matter. We believe, to be very clear about this, that the senators, having failed to repay any expenses they took inappropriately in due course, should be removed from the public payroll. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, can the Prime Minister explain the difference between Senator Patrick Brazeau's illegal expense claims and the equally illegal claims made by his close friend, Carolyn Stewart Olsen? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is making allegations against people without having all the facts. [ English ] It is really interesting to see the comportment of this particular individual, making allegations without any substantiation against some individuals, against some senators.

However, at the same time, when he is actually caught doing that and convicted in court for having done that, he then expects his political party to pay the fines and the damages for him. That is the kind of person we are dealing with over there. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, actually, Carolyn Stewart Olsen admits that she wrongly charged taxpayers, and an admission is indeed the best form of evidence. If she also wrongly charged taxpayers, exactly like Patrick Brazeau, the only question that remains is this. Why is she still sitting in the Senate?

Why not the same treatment for her? The only answer that we know is that she is very close to the Prime Minister . Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, that allegation is made without any facts, without any information, without any substantiation. I go once again. If the leader of the NDP thinks it is so inappropriate for a political party to assist its members with financial expenses, why would he not pay back those expenses to his party? In fact, why would he not admit to asking his political party to pay nearly $100,000 in a court-determined wrongdoing on his behalf?

Why would he not admit that is wrong and commit himself to repaying the money to his party? Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has confirmed what Mike Duffy disclosed, that the Conservative Party has paid $13,000 in legal fees related to his bogus expenses. That represents hours and hours of lawyers' time, working on a $90,000 deal and a cover-up with the Prime Minister's Office. Why is Senator Duffy the only Conservative senator who had his legal fees paid? Is that the price of buying Mr. Duffy's silence about the PMO cover-up? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we have said quite clearly, from time to time the party will assist members when they require some legal assistance. Here again go the Liberals, with their partners the New Democrats, trying to defend these three senators and disgraced Liberal senator Mac Harb, because they took money from the Canadian taxpayers. We know the Liberals are going to defend the status quo constantly. They did that for 30 years with the senator from Puerto Vallarta. We should not expect anything different.

If only these Liberals were as passionate about repaying their illegal campaign contributions, then maybe we would make some progress, at least on one file. [ Translation ] Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party covered Mike Duffy's legal fees in relation to his fraudulent expenses. Writing a cheque to cover expenses does not cost $13,000. This is proof of direct negotiations with the PMO to organize and cover up this scandal. If the Prime Minister thinks that Mike Duffy's behaviour is unacceptable, why is he the only Conservative whose legal fees the party covered?

Exactly how much did the Conservatives pay to buy Mike's Duffy's silence? (1445) [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I just said, from time to time of course we do assist caucus members who require legal assistance. Let me say this again, just in passing. I have another story, because I know how much we like them. One of the first things I taught my daughters when they could speak was their address, so that if they got lost, they would know to tell the police or anybody where they lived.

Only the Liberals and the New Democrats are standing up for people who clearly do not even know where they live. These are people elevated to the Senate. I will let them stand up for those people. We will stand up for the taxpayers who want accountability, and that motion would bring it. [ Translation ] Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, no one believes the Prime Minister . Canadians are not fools.

They do not believe that this extremely controlling Prime Minister knew nothing about the $90,000 cheque given to Mike Duffy or about the 13 seasoned employees who were covering up the scandal. If the Prime Minister was so angry about Mike Duffy's expenses, why did he authorize the Conservative Party to pay his $13,000 legal fees? When will the Prime Minister testify under oath about this Conservative scandal? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, only the Liberals would stand up for three senators and disgraced Liberal senator Mac Harb, who have admitted they took money that they actually did not earn. Only the Liberals would stand up for those people. What we want to do is this. We want to pass a motion that would suspend them without pay. We want to do that because Canadians cannot extract accountability from these people by throwing the senators out at the next election; so what Canadians want us to do is to pass this motion.

They want the Liberals to get out of the way and let us bring accountability back to the Senate and respect taxpayer dollars, and that is what we will do. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in referring to the Senate, the Prime Minister said, “The time for making apologies over there has long passed”. However, on Friday, Senator Carignan offered Patrick Brazeau a deal if he apologized. Last night Conservative senators were still making deals. Can the leader of the Conservative Party tell us why we should believe him when his senators are actively doing the opposite of what he says? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, now we hear it from the NDP. The New Democrats are also trying to defend these senators. We are very clear: These senators accepted payments that they did not earn. They did not earn those payments. Not only should they repay those payments, but Canadians expect some level of accountability, and that level of accountability is to pass this motion in the Senate that would suspend them without pay. That is what Canadians want. That is what the overwhelming majority of the members in this caucus want.

Only the Liberals and the New Democrats are defending these four disgraced senators. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Deloitte audit into Pamela Wallin included a letter from Senator David Tkachuk. He advised Ms. Wallin to withhold information from auditors, saying, “...she should restrict herself to the information that auditors asked for...”. In other words, do not co-operate any more than absolutely necessary. Did Senator Tkachuk speak with anyone in the Prime Minister 's Office about providing this advice to Pamela Wallin? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the issue here is that these three senators and disgraced Liberal Senator Mac Harb accepted thousands of dollars in expenses that they did not earn. That is the issue. As I said yesterday, if Eugene can figure it out, and if my daughters Natalie and Olivia can figure it out, surely the NDP members can hear what all Canadians are saying, that they want accountability and they want us to pass this motion in the Senate that would suspend these senators without pay.

They cannot get that from electing these senators because they have not allowed us to pass that bill, but they can expect that from us here if they would get out of the way and let us pass that motion. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that we should trust Mike Duffy implicitly, but at least he, unlike the Prime Minister , has proof to back up his stories. That is how we found out about the cheque for $13,560.

Can the Prime Minister clarify the role that Cassels Brock & Blackwell and Nelligan O'Brien Payne played in the Wright-Duffy affair? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there go the NDP members again defending poor Senator Mike Duffy. My gosh, Mike Duffy is the guy who called himself the Duffinator. He interviewed the highest people, the most powerful people, but somehow he wants us to believe what the NDP believes, that the only thing he was afraid of were kids in short pants. Give me a break.

Somehow he was forced on the ground to accept $90,000 in expenses that he did not earn. He is the only one who still has not paid a dime for his expenses. He should not be rewarded, as the opposition want, by a seat in the Senate and a paycheque every two weeks. (1450) [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, in this case, the only ones who are trying to defend anyone are the Conservatives, who are trying to hide and save face. When the Prime Minister says that this is “why Mr.

Duffy should be removed from the Senate”, does he mean with or without health care benefits?

[ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, to hide and cover things up, how awkward that must be for the member. How awkward it must be for her to ask that question when it was her leader who 17 years ago was offered a bribe, decided to hide that and cover it up for 17 years. Think of what we could have accomplished, what the people of Quebec could have accomplished, if only he would have come clean 17 years ago with the fact that he was offered a bribe from the mayor of Laval. That is called hiding and that is called a cover-up.

Sealing Industry Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the ban on seal products adopted in the European Union was a political decision that has no basis in evidence or science. So too are calls to boycott Canadian seafood because of the seal hunt. The radical global activists who support such bans claim they abhor eating meat, but they probably all have leather handbags and belts. This week, Anthony Bourdain stood up for good food and our coastal and Inuit communities. Will the Minister of the Environment comment on Anthony Bourdain's defence of the seal hunt? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great question. Opposition to the seal hunt has had a devastating impact on northern and coastal communities. I commend Mr. Bourdain for standing up against a decision that is not based on science. I invite Mr. Bourdain to Nunavut to take

part in a traditional feast with country food like seal meat. Our government will continue to fight for Canadian sealers and their way of life in our rural coastal communities.

[ Translation ] Ethics Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on May 19, the Prime Minister stated, “It is with great regret that I have accepted the resignation of Nigel Wright as my chief of staff.” Monday, on the radio program Maritime Morning , he said that Mr. Wright was fired. Then, yesterday, all of a sudden it was, “Mr. Wright no longer works for me.” There are a lot of versions. Which is the real one? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Nigel Wright has of course accepted sole and full responsibility for his actions. He knows that what he did was wrong, and he is prepared to accept accountability for that. At the same time, the Prime Minister has also mentioned that, had he known, he would have in no way approved such a scheme. However, we also have an opportunity now to expect accountability from our senators, those senators who accepted funds that they were not entitled to. We need the opposition Liberals in the Senate to get out of the way so we can suspend these senators without pay. [ Translation ] Ms.

Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians know better. They know very well that the Prime Minister and his entourage tried to hide something from them. During the briefings on the Senate scandal, the Prime Minister must have known that Nigel Wright did not act alone. He must have know, for example, that Arthur Hamilton, Benjamin Perrin, Ray Novak and Jenni Byrne, among others, were involved. That being the case, why did the Prime Minister wait until October 24 to confirm that Nigel Wright did not act alone? Why? (1455) [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I did on Monday, I would refer the hon. member to affidavits that were filed in court. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister changes his story daily on the Senate. First, only one person knew about the payoff between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy. Then “a few” did. The Prime Minister first said his chief of staff resigned. Then on Monday he claimed Wright was fired. First we heard about one cheque. Now we hear about two.

Why will the Prime Minister not apologize for misleading Canadians? When will Canadians hear the truth? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Really, Mr. Speaker, the only person changing the story is the Leader of the Opposition who actually said at one point that he did not get a bribe, or he did get a bribe. He had to think about it. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Yesterday he said it was inappropriate to get legal expenses paid for, but now we know that he did get them paid for.

The NDP leader is all over the map on this and completely inconsistent. The only thing we want to make sure all Canadians understand is that when it comes to protecting their taxpayer dollars, the moral of the story that I wanted to complete the other day about angry Tom and his three chairs is that we can only depend on the— The Speaker : The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley . Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, thank you for that small mercy. On the one hand, we have unelected Conservative and Liberal senators ripping off taxpayers.

On the other hand, we have a Prime Minister 's Office coordinating the cover-up and the payoff. Right in the middle of the whole sad affair, we have a Prime Minister refusing to tell Canadians what actually happened. When the scandal first surfaced, what did the Prime Minister do to fix it? Nothing. When the audit was whitewashed by his senators, what did he do? Nothing, but New Democrats will keep asking the questions until we get the answers Canadians deserve. If the Conservatives want to stop defending the Senate, they should join us and abolish it. Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP does not want to abolish the Senate. The reason we know it does not want to abolish the Senate is that we will be arguing for reform or abolition before the Supreme Court in just a couple of weeks. Does the House know who is not even showing up to make any argument? The NDP. In fact, the two NDP governments that made any argument at all have argued to make abolition as difficult as possible. We know the NDP position on the Senate is nothing more than a grand public relations exercise, and it will never deliver.

On this side of the House of Commons, just like Eugene, we will deliver.

National Defence Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, last June the previous minister of defence said, “Any Afghan vet injured in combat will not be released as a result of those injuries”. He even went further, “...everyone would be better off if the hon. member had chosen to contact my office...”. Last week we did just that. We contacted the minister's office. It did not help Corporal David Hawkins, who suffered injuries in Afghanistan and was released last Friday with less than a year of service left before he qualifies for a pension.

Will the minister today honour his predecessor's promise and reinstate Corporal Hawkins? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we want to thank Corporal Hawkins for his service and sacrifice for Canada. Before being released, members of the Canadian Armed Forces work with the military on a transition plan. Ill and injured Canadian Forces members are provided with physical, mental and occupational therapy services for their eventual transition to civilian life. Members are not released until they are prepared. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, imagine firing an injured soldier before he is eligible to collect his pension. That is what is happening. Ten years is what it takes to get the pension. People with nine years service are given the pink slip by the Conservative government. That is uncaring, with no compassion whatsoever. My question is to the Minister of National Defence . When will the government change its policy to ensure that it is demonstrating respect for members of our Canadian Forces and not denying them the opportunity to have a pension by not allowing them to continue their service in the forces? Hon.

Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member has his facts wrong. In fact, members are not released until they are prepared. It is pretty hypocritical coming from the member, when his party did nothing to help veterans in the country. It did nothing for the military. That has changed under our government, and I am very proud of that.

(1500) Steel Industry Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for over 100 years, Stelco made steel in Hamilton, providing good, high-value jobs. However, when Stelco ran into trouble, it was sold off to U.S. Steel on a solemn promise to maintain jobs and investment in my home town of Hamilton. The Conservative government then rubber-stamped that U.S. Steel takeover. Well, if it was not obvious before, it certainly is obvious now: U.S. Steel has broken that promise, and we want to know what the government is going to do about it. Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, first of all, it is actually not true. Production is going to continue. This company, U.S. Steel, has had a drop in revenue of 11%. On Monday of this week, it announced a loss of almost $1.8 billion. That is not something that the government can yell and scream about and correct. There are difficulties in the private sector. However, one of the things that U.S. Steel manufactures in Canada is steel pipes that are used in pipelines.

The NDP comes before the House and says no pipelines to British Columbia, no Keystone XL pipelines, and then comes before the House again and asks what is happening to all the jobs in steel manufacturing. He should talk to his own colleagues. Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will fight to protect the jobs of the senators, but they will not lift a finger to protect the jobs of Hamiltonians. The fact is, the Conservatives have totally mismanaged foreign investments. They approved the Stelco takeover.

They retreated in court when it came to defending jobs, and now they are standing idly by while they shut down the blast furnace permanently. There is no doubt that U.S. Steel broke its promises to Hamilton. Why will the minister not do his job, stand up to U.S. Steel, and stand up for Canadian workers? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the agreement that we had will keep jobs in Hamilton and keep jobs in Lake Erie. What she is describing is entirely not true with regard to the matter before us.

Again, we have the NDP leader and an NDP environment critic going to Washington, D.C., saying not to approve Keystone, do not approve the Enbridge line, do not approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline, have no more pipelines, and yet those steel pipelines are actually manufactured in Hamilton and Hamiltonians are losing their jobs. It is little wonder. It was John Quincy Adams who once said that being all things to all people means being nothing to no one. That is today's NDP.

Health Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, like most Canadians, I have never been one to look forward to the times when I have to visit a hospital. They are places we go to get better and are staffed by qualified people to help us. However, the complicated tasks that they undertake can lead to unintended injuries if we do not ensure we have proper policies to protect patient safety. Could the Minister Health please inform the House what our government is doing to improve patient safety? Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his incredible advocacy to protect patient safety. Recently I was pleased to announce a significant investment in the Canadian Patient Safety Institute to help reduce harm, save lives, and protect the health of Canadians. This investment will ensure, as the member says, that medication is safer, that surgeries are safer, and that home care is also safer. We have seen this approach work. We have seen it work now in 700 hospitals across the country and we look forward to much more success.

At the end of the day, our government is working very hard, with the support of the hon. member, to make sure that we protect patient safety.

Ethics Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. Has the Government of Canada, or the Conservative Party, paid any legal fees for the member for Peterborough , who is facing very serious charges under the Elections Act? They include wilfully incurring election expenses in excess of the limit, wilfully exceeding the contribution limit by paying election expenses of $21,000 out of his own funds, and knowingly providing the Chief Electoral Officer with false documents that failed to report a $21,000 election expense. Has the Government of Canada paid his legal fees?

(1505) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no, the Government of Canada has not paid his legal fees.

National Defence Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are dismayed to learn that seriously injured soldiers are being kicked out of the military before they qualify for their pensions. In June, the former defence minister said that injured members are not released from the military until they are prepared to do so, yet today another injured soldier is facing discharge. Will the new Minister of National Defence intervene and immediately put a stop to this disgraceful practice? The NDP supports our troops. Why will the Conservative government not? Hon.

Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member actually has it wrong. Before being released, members of the Canadian Armed Forces work with the military on a transition plan. Members are not released until they are prepared. That has not changed, certainly not under this defence minister and not under the previous defence minister.

Employment Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, every MP in the House has heard from businesses from their riding who are having trouble finding workers with the right skills to fill the jobs that are available. These mismatches are among the greatest challenges facing continued economic growth. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development can update the House on our efforts to help unemployed people or underemployed people get these jobs? Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the member for Peace River for his diligent efforts on behalf of workers in his riding. The Conservative government believes that employers are best positioned to make decisions about skills training, not government bureaucrats. That is why our government is introducing the Canada job grant next year. This grant will help Canadians access skills training that leads to a guaranteed job at the end of that training.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are among many organizations that said the status quo simply does not work and that they support putting decisions in the hands of job creators.

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the situation for Atikamekw students in Manawan is unacceptable. The Conservatives have cut $430,000 from education services. An entire

section of Simon P. Ottawa elementary school has been deemed unsafe. The minister proudly marked the opening of the Otapi school in Manawan two years ago, but that does nothing to fix the problems at the elementary school. This situation is urgent. Will the minister promise to release emergency funds to fix the problem? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if the member were even remotely serious about the problem she is referring to, she could have at least had the decency to inform me personally or to inform my office, which she did not do.

As for her question, I will take the matter under advisement. I have no idea what she is referring to. Since she did not have the decency to give me any warning, I will look into the situation and get back to her.

[ English ] Ethics Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, on December 22, 2008, the Prime Minister broke all records, appointing 18 senators in one single day. That included Senators Brazeau, Duffy, and Wallin. Everybody knew the new senator from Prince Edward Island did not really live in Prince Edward Island, and everybody knew the new senator from Saskatchewan did not really live in Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister appointed all members of his personal staff. The Prime Minister appointed Nigel Wright. I agree with the Prime Minister that there is one person responsible for this scandal.

I ask the Prime Minister if he now feels he should accept some personal responsibility for this sordid mess. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. Serving in the House of Commons or the Senate is an extraordinary responsibility, but it is also an incredible honour. What do Canadians expect for that? They expect that we will do our best and that we will be honest in our dealings. That is all they ask. In this case, we have senators who have clearly broken the rules.

They accepted payments for expenses that they did not incur. Canadians are clear as well; they want accountability for that. That is what this motion in the Senate would do. We ask the opposition to help us. We ask the Liberals in the Senate to get out of the way and let the senators pass this motion that would suspend these senators without pay.

(1510) Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today the Leader of the Opposition used question period to engage in a discussion regarding a proboscis, or an elongated appendage of the body. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will agree with his House leader and his caucus that these types of statements do not lead to decorum in this place. Perhaps he will measure the size of his constitution by whether he decides to rise and apologize for this unparliamentary discourse. Mr.

Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, while listening to the sensitivities, I was about to get up because the member for Mississauga—Streetsville twice uttered something much more serious than what my hon. friend across the way has suggested. However, if the hon. minister is sensitive to these particular statements, then I am sure she would like to take up the conversation with her friend from Mississauga—Streetsville. The Speaker : I think it would be appropriate for all sides to take a step back from some of the language that is being used.

At the time it was used, I regret that I did not catch it, but I can confirm that “proboscis” is in the Oxford English Dictionary , which gives not only the definition but also the word origin and etymology. It comes from the Greek, meaning “to feed”, but the second definition is, of course, the human nose, and it first entered into the English language in 1630. I cannot claim to have the same level of vocabulary as, say, a William Buckley, so that one did get by me. Previous Speakers have tried to draw some lines around certain phrases. We heard some of them today, and I cautioned the House earlier.

My advice to all members on all sides is that when Speakers attempt to draw those lines, members should try to stay clear of them and not try to tiptoe up to them and see how far you can lean over. I think it would help the level of debate during question period and I know the Chair would appreciate it on a personal level.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Public Accounts of Canada Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise when we are dealing with the proboscis of a pachyderm. That is really when we get into some issues, but we are not on those issues today. [ Translation ] I have the honour to table today, in both official languages, the Public Accounts of Canada [ English ] The Government of Canada is committed to strong financial management and reporting to ensure accountability and transparency.

For the fifteenth consecutive year, the Auditor General of Canada has provided an unqualified opinion on the Government of Canada's financial statements, and the Government of Canada can be justifiably proud of this record. Certainly we are, on the Conservative side of the House.

[ Translation ] Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie respecting its participation at the 29th regional assembly of the America Region of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, which was held this summer in Quebec City, from August 19 to 22, and also at the VII La Francophonie Games, which were held in Nice, France, from September 11 to 14, 2013.

[ English ] Petitions Food and Drugs Act Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions that I would like to present to the House today. The first one asks the House of Commons to support

an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act's mandatory labelling of genetically modified food.

(1515) Canada Shipping Act Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks the House of Commons to support

an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act in relation to derelict vessels and wrecks. That is the subject of my private member's bill. On the west coast and other parts of Canada, derelict vessels are an enormous problem.

Volunteer Service Medal Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the final petition calls on the House to introduce a new volunteer service medal. To be known as the Governor General's volunteer medal, it would acknowledge and recognize volunteerism by Canadian troops.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today from petitioners who are saying that the continuing practice of shark finning, which is the practice of removing the fins and discarding the remainder of the shark back into the sea, is having a devastating effect on shark species around the world. They therefore call on the Government of Canada to immediately ban the importation of shark fins to Canada.

Foreign Investment Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it my honour today to table four petitions from many constituents in my riding of Guelph with regard to the Canada-China investment treaty. My constituents are very concerned about the lack of public consultation and the secretive process by which the treaty was negotiated. They are also concerned that the treaty will provide state-owned enterprises with the ability to claim damages and complain to the federal government about laws or regulations, made at any level of government, that reduce their expectation of profits.

The petitioners ask the government to take immediate steps to limit the influence of state-owned enterprises over our democracy in the interest of ensuring that the power over Canadian laws remains in Canadian hands.

Mining Industry Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents in my riding regarding issues concerning the mining industry in Canada and around the world.

Health Benefits for Refugees Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two petitions. The first is from dozens of people in my community protesting the cuts to the interim federal health program for refugees. Vulnerable refugees are now being denied basic health necessities, such as medication, psychiatric treatment, and hospitalization. Even in cases where they now qualify for some medical benefits, there is so much confusion that in many cases, they are not even applying for such benefits.

Amnesty International, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, and the Canadian Association of Community Health Centres, among others, strongly oppose this unjust treatment of refugees.

Pensions Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from many constituents in the Toronto area who are protesting the change to old age security that will negatively impact those with lower incomes, who will have to work two years longer or lose the benefits for two years. It will also impact young people, who will not have access to these jobs.

Immigration Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition calling on Parliament to offer an unequivocal, sincere, and public apology to those home children who died while being ashamed of their history and deprived of their families, to the living and elderly home children who continue to bear the weight of the past, and to the descendants of the home children who continue to feel the void passed down through generations while continuing to search out relatives lost as a result of a system that victimized them under the guise of protection.

Food and Drugs Act Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first deals with my Bill C-257 , on mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods. The petitioners are saying that genetically engineered food labelling is already compulsory in many countries and is known to be both practical and useful. They call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-257 to require mandatory labelling of all food in which the presence of genetically modified ingredients can be detected.

Animal Welfare Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second series of petitions deals with my Bill C-322 .

Folks are saying that because horses are commonly administered drugs that are strictly prohibited from being used, at any time, in all other food processing of animals destined for human supply, and because horsemeat products generally being sold for human consumption in domestic and international markets are likely to contain these prohibited substances, they call upon the government to enact Bill C-322 , which would prohibit the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption as well as of horsemeat products for human consumption.

Multiple Sclerosis Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the debate concerning CCSVI should be based on science, evidence, and improving the quality of life for Canadians with MS, who wonder how the government is going to judge the radically different CCSVI data from the east and west of Canada. Canadians with MS ask that if the debate was about evidence, why did the Minister of Health not meet with CCSVI groups across the country and with Canadians who had been treated to learn of their experience?

Why did she not include experts in CCSVI in her scientific expert working group, and why was the decision to kill Bill S-204 was taken eight months before the Senate hearings? The petitioners are calling on the minister to consult experts, undertake phase three clinical trials on an urgent basis, and require follow-up care.

(1520) Mining Industry Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about youth not being interested in public affairs, current events, and civic responsibility, but I received petitions that I am presenting today from some young people in a high school in Winnipeg, the Seven Oaks School Division Met School, Garden City Collegiate Met School Justice League. They have collected names on petitions in the Winnipeg area.

The petitioners are calling on this House to act to ensure corporate responsibility from Canadian mining companies abroad and particularly for the regulation of conflict minerals so that as they travel and cross borders, countries are able to discriminate those that have aided in sustainable development versus those that have not.

National Strategy for Dementia Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people from the London area who want to draw the attention of the Minister of Health and this House to the fact that the federal government needs a national strategy for dementia and the health care of persons afflicted with Alzheimer's. The petitioners ask that the Minister of Health and the House of Commons pass Bill C-356 , which was introduced by the MP for Nickel Belt , and they ask the minister to initiate discussions within 30 days of the act coming into force.

The petitioners want specific national objectives to be set, and they want to encourage greater investment in research for the discovery or development of treatments that would prevent and reverse the effects of dementia and Alzheimer's.

Katimavik Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition regarding Katimavik on behalf of residents of Thunder Bay, Calgary, Bracebridge, and Ottawa. The petitioners are demanding that the Government of Canada immediately restore funding and relaunch the youth volunteer program, Katimavik. The petitioners want our government to recognize the importance of Katimavik to Canadian youth who participated in it, the non-profit organizations it served, and the communities it operated in and helped across Canada.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

Privilege Statements by Prime Minister Regarding Repayment of Senator's Expenses—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 17, 2013 by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay regarding alleged misleading statements made by the Prime Minister during oral questions on June 5, 2013. [ Translation ] I would like to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for raising this matter, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , the House leader of the official opposition , the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine , the member for Winnipeg North , the member for Richmond—Arthabaska and the member for Avalon for their comments. [ English ] In raising this question of privilege, the member for Timmins—James Bay claimed that answers given by the Prime Minister during question period on June 5 with respect to a financial transaction between his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, and Senator Mike Duffy completely contradicted information later revealed in July through a Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation.

The hon. member focused on the Prime Minister 's June 5 assertion to this House that decisions regarding the transaction ....were not communicated to me or to members of my office. He concluded that the discrepancy meant either that staff in the Prime Minister 's Office withheld information from him and knowingly allowed him to respond to questions in the House with false information, even perhaps without his knowledge, or that the Prime Minister chose to ignore the truth. This, he said, was evidence enough for a finding by the Speaker that a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred.

He likened the present situation to one faced by Speaker Jerome on December 6, 1978 after it had been ascertained that a former RCMP commissioner had deliberately misled a minister, who then provided the incorrect information to a member, thus impeding him in the performance of his duties. [ Translation ] The member for Timmins—James Bay then referred to my ruling of May 7, 2012, in which I reiterated the three conditions that need to be established when alleging that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House.

In doing so, he acknowledged that only one of the three conditions had been met, namely that the statement in question was known to be misleading.

He then stated that further study was required in order to determine whether the other two conditions had been met, namely whether the Prime Minister knew at the time that what he told the House was incorrect, and that in making the remarks the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House. (1525) [ English ] The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons countered that the Prime Minister had, in fact, indicated both inside and outside the House that he had answered questions based on the information he had at the time.

The government House leader then recalled the long-standing practice in this House of accepting the word of a member. [ Translation ] Furthermore, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that the ruling of Speaker Jerome, as cited by the member for Timmins—James Bay was not instructive in the present case as that finding of prima facie privilege was firmly based on an admission by an official that he had deliberately misled a minister.

He concluded that, since no answers provided in the House were known at the time to be incorrect, there was no intention on the part of the Prime Minister to mislead the House. [ English ] The importance of this issue for members individually and collectively cannot be overstated, as it speaks to the very privileges upon which our parliamentary system is founded.

Members frequently have risen in this House to defend their need, and indeed their right, to be provided with accurate and truthful information in order to fulfill their parliamentary obligations, and Speakers have frequently underscored the need for clarity and accuracy as well. That said, many of my predecessors in the chair have reminded the House that in most instances, claims related to disputed facts are not grounds for prima facie findings of privilege.

As Speaker Fraser indicated on December 4, 1986, at page 1792 of Debates : Differences of opinion with respect to fact and details are not infrequent in the House and do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege. As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition at page 510: In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue.

As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege. [ Translation ] More recently, Speaker Milliken expanded on this and the role of the Chair in such instances when on January 31, 2008, at page 2435 of House of Commons Debates , he stated: …any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge.

The same holds true with respect to the breadth of a minister’s answer to a question in the House: this is not for the Speaker to determine. [ English ] While the Speaker might not be tasked with assessing the content of replies with respect to the their accuracy or appropriateness, the Chair does, however, have an important if strictly limited role when it is alleged that the House has been misled. In this particular instance, the matter centres on allegations of the House being deliberately misled, so certain precedents and practices are germane to the case.

As the member for Timmins—James Bay and the government House leader have both indicated, my ruling of May 7, 2012, is of particular relevance.

At that time, at page 7650 of the Debates , I stated: It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House. [ Translation ] Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , at page 234, lends further support to this assertion, indicating that: …before the House will be permitted by the Speaker to embark on a debate in such circumstances [it must be demonstrated] that a Member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled or an admission of facts that leads naturally to the conclusion that a Member was intentionally misled, and a direct relationship between the misleading information and a proceeding in Parliament, is necessary. (1530) [ English ] Coupled with this is the time-honoured tradition of accepting a member's word in the House.

Many of my predecessors have reiterated that principle over the years, just as Speaker Sauvé did on May 27, 1982, when she explained, at page 17823 of Debates , that: I cannot attach greater credibility to the word of one hon. member over another. The Speaker cannot interpret statements made by hon. members which must be accepted at face value. The hon. member [...] claims he had been misled. I accept that. He claims he has been deliberately misled.

I accept that too, but as an assertion, not as a fact upon which I could find privilege; because the minister, who has the same right to have his word accepted in this House, says there is no attempt to mislead, deliberately or otherwise, and I accept that, too. To uphold these conditions and practices, as the Chair must do, the threshold of proof is high. It should be no surprise then that in the rare instances when prima facie has been found, little or no doubt was left as to the validity of the claim made.

The ruling of December 6, 1978, in which Speaker Jerome found that a prima facie contempt of the House existed, rested on the official's own admission that the minister had been deliberately misled, and it was on that basis that Speaker Jerome stated in the Journals of December 6, 1978, at page 1857: [ Translation ] I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, to obstruct the House itself. This precedent stands in contrast to most others.

Among them, and perhaps more analogous to the issue now before the House, is Speaker Milliken's ruling of February 25, 2004, where he concluded at page 1047 of House of Commons Debates that there was no prima facie breach of privilege since: ...no evidence has been brought forth to show that…department officials deliberately intended to deceive their superiors and so obstruct hon. members in the performance of their duties. [ English ] The Chair has carefully reviewed the evidence brought forward, as well as what was said in the House, searching for evidence that the conditions laid out in my ruling of May 2012, and in Speaker Milliken's ruling of February 2011 that informed it, have been met.

The Chair has not found that evidence. The member for Timmins—James Bay himself doubted that all enumerated conditions for finding a prima facie privilege have materialized when he conceded: The other two elements, however, do need to be clarified, and this is the reason I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to find that there is a prima facie case so that the issue could be studied at greater depth by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[ Translation ] He cast further doubt when he asked, “Did the Prime Minister know at the time that the statements he gave to the House were misleading?” and “Did the Prime Minister intend to mislead the House?” By his own admission, neither question can be answered with certainty. [ English ] These same doubts were echoed by the House leader of the official opposition and the member for Winnipeg North .

That the Prime Minister has acknowledged that he did not himself have full information when he provided an answer during question period last June 5 does not lead the Chair to conclude that the two missing conditions have been met. Nor is it appropriate for the Chair to speculate on whether the Prime Minister ought to have known of Mr. Wright's actions or been told of them by the individuals in his office who are now said to have known about them.

The Chair understands that members have strong views on both sides of this very public and evolving issue, but I must remind the House that the Chair is bound by very narrow parameters in situations such as this one.

Based on accepted practices, precedents and usages, as well as a thorough scouring of the evidence presented and statements made in the House, the Chair cannot, in the current circumstances, find evidence that the Prime Minister 's statements to the House were deliberately misleading, that he deliberately provided incorrect information, that he believed his statements to be misleading or that he intended them to be misleading. Accordingly, the Chair can find no valid procedural grounds for finding a prima facie case of privilege at this time. I thank honourable members for their attention.

Government Orders Government Orders (1535) [ English ] Canadian Museum of History Act Hon. Lynne Yelich (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages) Bill C-7. Third reading moved that Bill C-7,

An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to the bill earlier this week. It is a pleasure to stand here again and have the opportunity to speak to bill C-7 , which was formerly Bill C-49 . It represented the creation and the transfer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history. It is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today. First, I find Canada's rich history to be absolutely fascinating. For example, Quebec, which was founded in 1608, is Canada's oldest city.

Almost half the buildings in the historic district of old Quebec were built before 1850. Today, this 135-hectare area is a UNESCO world heritage site. The history of John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier, and the other Fathers of Confederation negotiations at the Charlottetown, Quebec, and London conferences led to the beginning of the Canada we know today. The living history we experience now such as Commander Chris Hadfield's amazing journey comes to mind. Last spring he mesmerized people around the world, me included.

There is no doubt his name and his mission will be forever part of our collective Canadian history. As members can imagine, I am delighted with our government's commitment to provide Canadians with an opportunity to learn more about our history. We have already outlined initiatives we are taking to ensure Canadians have greater access to our history. I would like to mention just a couple of them. The second Canada History Week will take place next July and communities throughout the country will celebrate history with local events.

As well, we established the Canada history fund to recognize outstanding students and teachers of history. When I spoke before the House on October 21, I also mentioned these initiatives, as well as others. For example, beginning in 2014, we plan to increase funding for the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and the Canadian Encyclopedia . These are great tools that all Canadians can access online. We have also provided support for the Historica-Dominion Institute to create two new Heritage Minutes each year between now and 2017.

I am proud of the efforts of our government and I am proud of how we have worked to promote our Canadian history. The proposed Canadian museum of history will play a key role in allowing Canadians to learn more and share our country's unique past. In fact, it will be housed on the banks of the Ottawa River in what we all now know as the Canadian Museum of Civilization. This beautiful building was designed by renowned architect Douglas Cardinal, whose incredible work could be a

chapter in a story of our cultural heritage. Mr. Cardinal offered an excellent observation about the Canadian Museum of Civilization's progression into the new Canadian museum of history. He said: I love the fact that the museum keeps evolving and growing, and people still feel that it's a national monument that can expand and serve all of Canada. On October 21, I provided a

summary of the bill's progression through the House. As I have mentioned, we spent over 20 hours debating the legislation. We discussed it from many different angles: the need for a museum devoted to Canadian history; how it would be financed; as well, as the logistical details and how it would progress to its opening in 2016. The legislation has received significant study and I am pleased to say that we have progressed to third reading stage.

In fact, when we asked for participation from Canadians across the country and what they thought should happen with the museum, we received over 20,000 pieces of advice from Canadians. This is clear evidence that Canadians are engaged in this process and are quite willing, when given the opportunity, to participate in a dialogue as to the direction the museum should take. At the same time, I know some of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the new museum. I want to assure the House that we have heard their comments and I would like to briefly address some of them.

The issue of the new museum's independence has been raised on more than one occasion. Rest assured, the Canadian museum of history, like all national museums, indeed, all crown corporations, will operate at arm's-length from the government. I am so impressed by the people who manage our museums across the country, our small museums in small town communities or our large museums like Pier 21 and the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It is their commitment and effort that promote Canadian history in our country. These are the people who should be, will be and are responsible for the content in our museums.

(1540) Our government is establishing a new mandate for the Canadian museum of history, one focused on the history of our country. Once that is done, it will be the museum's capable board of trustees, its director, its management and all of the employees who will determine how to present our country's history. I also heard members speak to the important issue of research. Nothing in this bill limits the ability of the new museum to carry out research. It will have exactly the same powers as the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, and research is an essential component of that museum.

It will remain and continue to be an essential part of the new museum. I understand the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum have recently developed a joint research strategy. It confirms the essential role research will play in both museums over the next decade. It is available on the Canadian Museum of Civilization's website for anyone who would like to learn more about it. Let me also reassure the House that the new legislation will not have an impact on international travelling exhibitions. Potentially, we will see them increase to talk across the world about Canada's history.

Our government recognizes the importance of these exhibitions from an educational perspective. We also know from a business perspective how much potential revenue they can create, not just for the museum but also for the surrounding region and area. Nothing in the legislation in any way jeopardizes the museum's ability to present these exhibitions, which have been so popular with the Canadian public. I am particularly pleased that the future Canadian museum of history is negotiating partnership agreements with the institutions across the country that devote themselves to our Canadian history.

This is an amazing way to reach out to people across the country. Three of these are already in place, one with the Royal BC Museum, one with Calgary's Glenbow Museum and an agreement was signed just last summer with the Manitoba Museum. I understand that plans are already being made for the current partners to send and receive collections from each other. Other partnerships will soon follow. The Canadian museum of history will be a must see for the thousands of people who come to this region each and every year. However, its reach will be far greater than that.

Partnerships like the ones I have described will allow the Canadian museum of history to work with museums across the country, each and every one. In so doing, we will make our national collections accessible to as many Canadians as possible. Geography will not interfere with our ability to ensure that Canadians see and learn what our history is all about. The new museum will lead a network that will connect history museums across the country so they can access some of the 3.5 million items that are in the national collection.

Like all museums, the Canadian Museum of Civilization has a vast majority of its collection in storage. This will be a wonderful way to provide greater access to our treasured artifacts. Because of space and issues that prevent all of our artifacts from being displayed, it will see those artifacts travel across the country and be displayed not in storage, but in a position where they can viewed, studied and admired. Before, everyone had to travel to the national capital region to appreciate first-hand an important part of their heritage.

Now they will be able to go to museums much closer, in fact in their own communities. It is an incredible resource and partnership that is being created through this process. At the same time, there are museums across Canada, in the very communities where we live, including my riding with the St. Catharines Museum and Welland Canals Centre. There are more than 2,500 of them. They cover different aspects of our history and many have fascinating collections to begin with.

We want to ensure that these smaller museums will be able to share their exhibits with the Canadian museum of history and to access the new museum's collection. With that goal in mind, we have put new support in place to make it easier for them to approach the new Canadian museum of history and access the national collection. In addition to this, several changes have been made to the Canadian Heritage museums assistance program to assist small Canadian museums.

(1545) The exhibition circulation fund would not only support the borrowing of collections from the Canadian museum of history, but would also extend the support to small institutions that were previously ineligible. A requirement that exhibitions must travel outside of the province or territory has been removed in the case of history exhibitions to encourage small institutions to exchange exhibitions with each other. It is a requirement that has long been an issue for smaller museums that would like to deal directly with each other.

This new piece of legislation, under the guidance of the Canadian museum of history, would allow that to happen. We have also made sure that the aboriginal heritage component would give priority to exhibits focused on historical events and key figures, and would encourage exhibitions in non-traditional spaces, such as community centres. To sum up, this new national museum would work with museums across Canada to ensure that as many Canadians as possible have the opportunity to learn about our achievements.

In addition, the Department of Canadian Heritage is using many of its internal resources to support access to Canadian history. The Canadian Conservation Institute is putting a priority on the conservation of objects related to the road to 2017. Finally, the Canadian Heritage Information Network's Virtual Museum of Canada would dedicate 25% of its annual budget, up to $500,000, to virtual exhibits related to the road to 2017. That brings me to the 150th anniversary of Canada's Confederation. As everyone in the House knows, in just a few years, we will celebrate this momentous event.

What a perfect time to welcome a new Canadian museum of history. Since Confederation, we have grown as a country and accomplished so many great things. In the lead up to 2017, we will promote the people, places and events that have marked our history. As the House knows, this year we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first Canadian expedition in the Arctic. Next year, it will be the 150th anniversary of the Charlottetown and Quebec Conferences, which led to the founding of Canada. There are also the 200th anniversaries of the births of Sir George-Étienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald.

We will also remember the sacrifices of two generations of Canadians during the First and Second World Wars. I look forward to paying tribute to all of our veterans. In commemorating people and events such as these, we become aware that we stand tall today because of the millions of men and women whose courage, hard work and perseverance helped to establish this great country. They are renowned artists such as filmmaker Denis Villeneuve, painter Emily Carr, singer Céline Dion, pianist Glenn Gould, writer Gabrielle Roy, Nobel Prize winner Alice Munro and many more.

Sports heroes such as Clara Hughes, the only athlete ever to win multiple medals at both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games, and hockey legends Maurice "The Rocket" Richard, Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky are also a part of this celebration. As is our multi-sport champion, Lionel Conacher, who was inducted in the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame in 1955, the Canadian Football Hall of Fame in 1964 and the Lacrosse Hall of Fame in 1965. No wonder Canada has a reputation as a leading sports nation. Distinguished scientists have also made us proud.

For example, Frederick Banting, whose discovery of insulin has helped to save countless lives. Impressive, is it not? It is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the incredible people who have made this country what it is. The upcoming anniversary is tailor-made to learn more about our history, pay tribute to the people who have left their mark on this country and reflect on our legacy. The Canadian museum of history would do just that. It would be based in the national capital region. It would reach out to people across the nation through a network of museums in their own communities. It would entertain us.

It would educate us. For many, it would inspire us to learn more about the people, places and events that brought us to where we are today, a free and democratic country envied by many around the world. There are four specific changes. I would like to reiterate those that are being made within Bill C-7 . The first is a change of the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history. The second is for the purpose of mandate change in terms of the direction that the new museum would be taking.

The third is that the capacity and powers of the museum would remain the same, intact as they are today. The fourth is that there would be no change to the governance structure of the existing structure; no interruption of the corporation's ability to operate; no impact on employees, officers or trustees; and no change in legal responsibilities.

(1550) We have before us the opportunity to prepare for 2017. The creation and the renewed mandate of the Museum of Civilization to the museum of history puts us in that position. It allows for us not only to celebrate what is historical, obvious and important from a Canadian perspective here in Ottawa, it actually sets the foundation for us to have this historical celebration, a study of our history, a learning opportunity of our history across our country.

There are thousands of museums, smaller museums in smaller communities that were never in a position to access or use the over 3.5 million artifacts, many of them at or currently in storage at the Museum of Civilization. They will be able to travel across this country. When those artifacts and exhibits travel across the country, there is an opportunity to ensure it will be done safely and that each one of those artifacts will be insured by the Government of Canada through the museum.

We have before us the living and breathing opportunity to see where we are going as a country in terms of the celebration of our 150th anniversary. We also see that our historical life, the life of Canada, when put on a road map, is one of envy for the rest of the world.

One of the things I learned during my time at the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was that when studies are done across this country, across this world, on where individuals or families would move if they were to leave their country of origin, of the seven billion people who walk on this earth, one billion said that Canada would be their first choice. With that profound understanding, we should consider ourselves fortunate.

With 35 million people living in this country, there are a billion who believe this would be the country to live in if they were to move from their country of origin. It says to all of us here in the House that this is our opportunity to show the world. The Canadian museum of history is setting the foundation to say to the rest of the world that we are prepared to talk about not only how great our country is now but how our country was built, how our country started and where our country is in terms of its position in the world. I appreciate the opportunity to present this afternoon.

I certainly hope that all members of the House, regardless of their party, regardless of where they sit in the House of Commons, will see there is an opportunity for us to put a renewed focus on our country's history, and that history begins at the Canadian museum of history right here in Ottawa. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I sense my colleague's great interest in history.

Having sat on a museum board for a number of years in the Northwest Territories and having faced the inevitable decline of federal funding toward other museums across this country that try very hard to hold up the history of this country, I see the government investing a whole bunch of money into an Ontario-centric museum here in Ottawa and leaving behind all the museums in all the small communities across this whole country which, over the past two decades with the Liberal and the Conservatives, have seen one cut after another on any kind of federal support for these marvellous museums.

The museum in my hometown, the Northern Life Museum, has over 10,000 artifacts that go back through centuries in northern Canada, collected by the Oblate missionaries. We do not get any funding anymore from the federal government. That collection is priceless. What will the government do for small museums across this country? Will it continue to build monuments here, or tear apart old monuments to create new ones in the capital region? Mr. Rick Dykstra : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. I hope he was listening closely to what I was speaking to this afternoon.

I hope that perhaps he would have had a chance to go through all the pages of the transcript of when the former Minister of Canadian Heritage and now the Minister of Industry appeared at committee to explain and to extrapolate on the very point he is making. Part of the legislation will allow the small museums in the Northwest Territories that the hon. member speaks to, and small museums across this country, to not only participate in a more meaningful way in Canada's history but to actually have access to the artifacts that sit here in Ottawa and Gatineau. The artifacts will be spread across the country.

The small museums can now partner with other small museums. It is good for Canada and good for small communities.

(1555) Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his new responsibility and I look forward to working with him on the heritage committee. He said during his speech that the birth of Canada was in 1867. I am sure he will correct that. He knows it is not true. The birth of Canada was centuries before. Since he knows that, can he commit to keep the artifacts of New France in Quebec City instead of bringing them to Ottawa? Mr. Rick Dykstra : Mr.

Speaker, I certainly want to thank the member for his kind words and also congratulate him on being elected as second vice-chair of the heritage committee. I look forward to working with him. I would like to respond to his point. In fact, our confederation was in 1867. Prior to that there was Upper and Lower Canada, I acknowledge that, but our Confederation as a country was 1867.

Part of what we are trying to do with this piece of legislation is not to become centric in terms of our focus of there only being one location for all of these artifacts and all of our Canadian history should be located in one place, but that there can be an exchange, an interaction and delivery of those historical pieces to other communities so they are not just enjoyed in one community but across this country. Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for St.

Catharines and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage , for carrying forward on the legislation, Bill C-7 . I heard what was said by the New Democrats on this matter and it needs to be pointed out as being factually not true. The member said that our government has not done anything for small museums. That is absolutely not true. The Canadian Museums Association represents all of Canada's hundreds of small museums all across this country.

They all unanimously support the creation of this museum because this one museum in the national capital would create a hub-and-spoke model from which all small museums all across the country will benefit. Our government, in spite of the worst recession since the Second World War, created the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, the Canadian Museum of Immigration, the Canadian museum of history. We have increased funding for small museums all across the country.

All of them will benefit by the creation of this museum, which is why provincial governments, whether they are New Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, are all supporting the legislation. All the museums associations, all the historic associations, all of them are supporting this because it is a no-brainer to support a great national institution as we go to our 150th birthday and celebrate the brilliance that is Canada. The opposition should stop being so blindly partisan in opposing everything just because it came from a Conservative.

This is going to be a great institution from which all Canadians will benefit for years to come. Mr. Rick Dykstra : Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to the thank the Minister of Industry for his intervention. We can see the passion upon which, as Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages , he built the strategy that is going to see the Canadian museum of history established and opened, hopefully within a very short period of time, 2016.

We can also see the fundamental understanding that he and the government has for our history and the industry, which is museums that display who we are, what we are and what we will become. I want to thank him for all of his efforts as Minister of Heritage because it was something he did with a lot of passion and that is quite evident in the points he made this afternoon. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Conservatives are saying that they care about history and about our heritage.

However, the Conservatives cut the budget of Library and Archives Canada. Historians across the country agree that these cuts really hurt. The Conservatives also laid off 80% of Parks Canada archaeologists. There are now only about 10 archeologists left to take care of 167 national historic sites. Why did the government make those cuts? Why did it introduce such a bill and make cuts that are so detrimental to science, history and heritage? (1600) [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra : Mr. Speaker, I guess the member is trying to point out that there somehow were cuts.

The Minister of Industry and former Minister of Heritage just pointed out very clearly and succinctly that there have been investments made in small museums and there have been investments made in large national museums. Not only are we concerned from a heritage perspective, not only are we concerned from a historical perspective, but we are also concerned about the small communities that depend on these museums and their understanding and delivery of their services to know about our Canadian history.

With third reading of the bill, we have an opportunity to promote and show across this country in a Canadian non-partisan way that it is time to deliver on the Canadian museum of history. It is time to move the bill forward, and I will look for the member's positive support this afternoon rather than the negative tone that the opposition seems to be taking when we have a bill that is about the future of our museums, which speaks to the history of our country. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a comment.

The former minister made reference to the Canadian Human Rights Museum. It is going to be located in downtown Winnipeg. It is a very impressive facility and no doubt it will be an absolute world class museum. I wonder if he might want to pay tribute to individuals, such as the visionaries behind it. Izzy Asper and Gail Asper were a driving force in making the museum a reality. Many different private individuals from across Canada have actually contributed. We have even had contributions from other countries. I am thinking specifically of the Mahatma Gandhi statue that was contributed from India.

In looking at our treasures, we also need to recognize that it is not just government; the private sector and others play a very strong role in the operations of our museums, wherever they may be. Mr. Rick Dykstra : Mr. Speaker, whether it is Kathleen Powell, the director of our museum in St.

Catharines, or those who work in all of our museums across the country, whether small community museums or national museums, I certainly am proud and would be happy to step forward and congratulate everyone who is currently working in a museum or has worked in one in the past, as well as all those who are part of what we are from a Canadian historical perspective. I would submit that if I make those acknowledgments and thank all of those individuals, I certainly do not want to point to the federal government as being the only entity that is involved in the process. That is absolutely not the case.

I have hundreds of support quotes from across the country, from private and public sector individuals, to support the cause we are working on here. I would then ask the member to support this legislation.

Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following question period, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley referred to me and some comments that he believed he heard during question period. I am not sure what he was referring to specifically, but obviously, if he and other members of the House felt that I had used a word or language that they felt was inappropriate or unparliamentary, I would certainly withdraw those comments and apologize to the House. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : I thank the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville for his clarification on the earlier point that he referenced. I am sure the House appreciates his remarks also.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Canadian Museum of History Act The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7,

An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-7. Third reading Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer . The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split her time with another member, as noted? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe

(1605) Ms. Irene Mathyssen : Mr. Speaker, New Democrats oppose Bill C-7 , which proposes to change the name and mandate of Canada's most visited and most popular museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Let me explain why I have taken this position and why this House should vote down this bill. First, the process the government is using to change the museum is flawed and it lacks transparency. Second, the changes to the mandate of the museum are unacceptable. The government wants to shut down the Canada Hall social history exhibit.

It wants to ignore the contributions of hard-working, salt-of-the-earth Canadians, contributions they made to Canadian history. My third and strongest objection is to the government and its apparent desire to dictate how the history of Canada is to be told. Governments should not be involved in determining what its people know and do not know about themselves. Museums must be left to the museum professionals. The Conservatives should stick to politics and leave history to the experts. They have no business rewriting what Canadian history is and how it is told.

As to my first point, members might ask how changes to the Museum of Civilization lack transparency. We are told that the re-branding, renaming and remaking of the Museum of Civilization is going to cost $25 million, but where is this money coming from? Which programs in the Department of Canadian Heritage are being trimmed and cut in order to pay for these unneeded changes? The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has refused to answer these questions.

Besides the lack of transparency around the money, the Canadian Postal Museum, which was housed within the Museum of Civilization was unceremoniously closed, without notice or consultation. What possible reason could the government have to still the voice of the pioneers of our postal service? Even though the Museum of Civilization performed national consultations about the changes at the behest of the government, these consultations appear to have been an empty public relations exercise giving the false appearance of transparency. According to experts, these public consultations were not true consultations.

Notes were not taken. Concerns were not addressed. The real decision-making is not happening out in the open. The decisions are actually being made behind closed doors. How is that transparent? How is that democratic? As for my second objection, to the reorientation and renaming of the museum, my colleagues across the aisle might be wondering what the harm is in changing the name of the Museum of Civilization to the museum of history. In fact the name change is just a hint of the larger changes in the museum's mandate.

Besides, most of the museum is already dealing with historical content and, until now, did not require a change of name. The Conservatives want to eliminate all things at the museum that are anthropological or part of social history. They want the museum to be all about the heroic and a “who's who” approach to history. They want to emphasize dates and events. Anthropology has been part of this museum's mandate since 1907, but now the government seems to want Canadian history to be a simple and tidy story. Let me remind the House that history is messy. History is complicated.

History is best told from a holistic approach. History is more than just famous people and famous events. The museum currently uses a broad approach, and this is what we want to see remain. Let me ask my colleagues across the aisle why they want to cut out the history of ordinary folk. What is wrong with the history of how things really were for everyday Canadians in the past? What is it in the current museum that they want removed? What do they want Canadians to forget about, besides the Senate scandals? This country was built both by its famous people and its ordinary people.

However, the government wants to sideline different stories, including stories of first nations and those marginalized due to class, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. The Conservatives want a museum that ignores the contributions of diverse and ordinary Canadians. That is why the government wants to eliminate Canada Hall. That is why it wants to get rid of what has been called the largest and finest social history display in the country.

(1610) Canada Hall took 20 years to build and is made up of a series of life-size replicas of historical Canadian cities. This exhibit is a benchmark for the telling of social history in this country. It displays the lives of a wide breadth of ordinary Canadians from coast to coast to coast. These displays encapsulate an entire uninhabited history of this land. I, for one, defer to and support museum professionals such as historians, anthropologists, archivists and archaeologists, and they are telling us not to reorient the museum to concentrate only on famous people.

Famous people are not the only important people in Canadian history. Allow the museum to continue to tell the history of regular Canadians, of the people who built this country by their devotion to the land and by their determination to carve a future. Canadian social history should not be sidelined. Canadians and visitors to Canada ought to be able to learn about all the different people who made this country, even those who are not famous. Social exhibits like Canada Hall are about all of us. I am calling on the government to leave the mandate of the Museum of Civilization alone. If peop