OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 025 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, November 27, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 27, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 025 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 025 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 025 (Version officielle) 147 025 27 11 2013 2013/11/27 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 Charlottetown. [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Rails to Relevance Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, how often do we hear people ask, “What are we going to do to ensure that Canadian youth get involved with civic affairs, with democracy, and start voting and participating in our society?” I am so proud of a small high school—it is not that small, really—in my riding, Claremont high school in Cordova Bay, that answered this question with something they called “Rails to Relevance”. The global studies program there decided to offer for students in grade 11 the chance to take the train from Vancouver all the way to Ottawa and learn about the country on the way.

I was on board doing onboard seminars with my friend from the NDP, our local MLA, Lana Popham. They saw their country all the way from Vancouver to Quebec City and were able to be here in Parliament. In Parliament, I am grateful to my colleagues, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration , the leader of the official opposition, and the leader of the Liberal Party for meeting with these wonderful students. Thanks to Mark Neufeld. Thanks to Sally Hansen, the local school district, VIA Rail, and everyone who made this fantastic trip possible.

Violence Against Women and Girls Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the “16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence” campaign reminds us that violence against women and girls comes in many forms, including pornography. Just last week, here in Ottawa, I hosted leading anti-porn researcher Dr. Gail Dines to address decision-makers on the harms pornography has on youth and children and the merits of an opt-in filter approach. Pornographic images are becoming extremely violent and have an increasingly harmful effect on its viewers.

In fact, on the first day of this campaign, I received a letter from a 10-year-old boy who courageously shared with me his addiction to porn and asked our government to take action. The facts are sobering: boys who frequently view porn are more likely to be supportive of sexual coercion. We have a duty to protect our youth from sexual abuse. We are all part of the solution to end violence against women and girls.

[ Translation ] FAB3R Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to tip my hat to four people from Trois-Rivières who deserve recognition. Last week, Chantal Rochette, Yves Lacroix, Martin Magny and Yves Auger became the owners of a new business called FAB3R. By acquiring GL&V Group's manufacturing division in Trois-Rivières, they are keeping quality jobs close to home and have become a prominent partner in economic development.

An $8 million business is definitely something to be proud of, but it is also a huge responsibility that these four investors are taking on because they did not want to see the factory close its doors. I would also like to mention that the 155 employees joined in the effort by signing a collective agreement that is valid until 2020, which shows the potential for modern labour relations between bosses and their employees. I would also like to thank Richard Verreault, president and CEO of GL&V Group, who will remain an important business partner for the new company.

He has proven his dedication to the Trois-Rivières area. I wish FAB3R all the best.

[ English ] Typhoon Haiyan Relief Efforts Mr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on November 8, Typhoon Haiyan slammed into the Philippines with devastating force, killing thousands of people and leaving millions more homeless. In my riding of North Vancouver, the Metro Vancouver Philippine Arts & Cultural Exposition Society, also known as MV-PACES, responded by organizing a typhoon relief event in support of those affected.

This Friday, at 7 p.m., I look forward to joining the team at the new Barangay NorthVan community centre, where we will be holding a telethon seeking donations for the Red Cross. These donations are worth twice their weight, since our government is matching eligible charitable donations through the federal Typhoon Haiyan relief fund. Following the typhoon's landfall, our government responded quickly by committing $20 million and our world-renowned disaster assistance response team, known as DART, to address the escalating humanitarian crisis.

Working together with governments, aid agencies, and dedicated local organizations like MV-PACES, it is both my hope and belief that we will be able to help survivors and save lives.

Hanukkah Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on the first day of Hanukkah, Jewish families in Canada and around the world will gather to light the menorah and celebrate with their loved ones. The Hanukkah story is one of perseverance and great resilience, a story of hope and triumph against oppression. The Hanukkah candles help us all remember the universal desire for the right to celebrate and express our own beliefs. [ Translation ] Hanukkah is also about freedom, the freedom to be who you are and affirm your beliefs. We should never take for granted the freedom that we hold so dear.

During Hanukkah, Canadians are joining together to speak out against all forms of discrimination and hate, anti-semitism in particular, as we celebrate our differences and the freedom that created them. [ English ] Canada is home to a strong and vibrant Jewish community that will be celebrating tonight with the lighting of the first candle. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our parliamentary caucus, happy Hanukkah, chag sameach .

(1410) Physical Fitness Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to encourage fellow parliamentarians to join the movement to encourage healthy physical activity. Today fewer than 15% of young Canadians will engage in even one hour of physical activity, the minimum recommended amount. What is at stake? It is health benefits for all our people and spiralling health costs. Each day, our dynamic Minister of Health promotes healthy goals. In the other place, Senator Nancy Greene Raine will today address these issues.

Each of us here can make a difference. One way is to approach our mayors and councillors to proclaim National Health and Fitness Day, which will occur next on June 7, 2014. Another thing we can do is support Sports Day in Canada, organized by ParticipACTION, to take place this Saturday, November 30. A great way to start is by wearing your sports jersey on Jersey Day, this Friday. While governments can play a role, the responsibility to be healthy and active rests primarily on the shoulders of parents across Canada.

The private sector is stepping up, as the people at Canadian Tire recently demonstrated with their new public service motto: “We all play for Canada”. Let us work together to make Canada the fittest nation on Earth.

Luc Baronette Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to House of Commons security constable Luc Baronette, who lost his battle with brain cancer this past Friday. To his spouse, Nicole, his four-year-old daughter, Adele, and his other daughter, Danika, who will be two at Christmas, our deepest sympathies. Our thoughts and our prayers go out to them at this time. Luc was 33 years old and was from Sudbury. He was a 12-year veteran of the security services here on the Hill and competently moved through the ranks throughout his career.

His friends tell me he was a special character who could light up a room with his laugh and that he enjoyed golfing, fishing, hockey, motorcycles—well, anything that burned gasoline, for that matter. He had a sense of humour like no other, and his love for his friends, colleagues, and family had no boundaries. Luc was a volunteer firefighter. He worked with our seniors and had a special affiliation with our war veterans. On behalf of all parliamentarians, again, we offer our condolences to Luc's family. Luc will be missed.

Tusarnaarniq Sivumut Association Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a wonderful partnership between Nova Scotians from my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's and the youth of Canada's north. Julie Lohnes, from Rose Bay, Nova Scotia, started the Tusarnaarniq Sivumut Association, lnuktitut for Music for the Future, an organization that supplies musical instruments and workshops to Inuit youth.

The association celebrated its fifth anniversary with a sold-out annual benefit concert that included two fiddle workshop students, Colleen Nakashuk and Avery Keenainak, from Pangnirtung, Nunavut. They joined an already exciting lineup that included Juno award-winning singer-songwriter Lennie Gallant as well as the Riverport and Area Community Choir and master fiddlers Gordon Stobbe and Greg Simm. Congratulations, Julie, on a resounding success. We thank her for all the hard work she does not only for her community but for the youth of Canada's north.

Mother of Member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I recognize one of the most impressive Canadians I have ever met, someone who loves northern Alberta and Fort McMurray, a true pioneer and early entrepreneur, a great Canadian. With her husband, she owned and operated many successful businesses over 50 years in Fort McMurray, including Fort McMurray's first newspaper, the McMurray Courier , where she acted as reporter, writer, editor, and publisher. She has volunteered literally thousands of hours on countless non-profit boards.

She has also volunteered thousands of hours for Canadian democracy and to uphold conservative economic principles. As a woman, she has had to fight many times for her voice to be heard and became, as a result, one of the first female members of the Fort McMurray Chamber of Commerce. On her 80th birthday, she launched her own written book, More Than Oil: Trappers, Traders and Settlers of Northern Alberta . She is a trailblazer, a historian, a world traveller, a master cook and baker, continues to work more than 50 hours a week, and is the most honest person I know.

She also works tirelessly to serve her family, her community, and Canada. I thank Mrs. Frances Kathaleen Jean: my hero, my friend, my mother.

[ Translation ] Violence Against Women Mrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to mark 12 days to end violence against women, which take place from November 25 to December 6. The purpose of these 12 days is to raise public awareness about violence against women and services available. Violence against women can be physical, sexual or psychological. It is up to all of us to work toward eliminating these forms of violence that, contrary to popular belief, cross all class, cultural and religious boundaries. Violence against women is hidden all around us.

People need to know how to identify and report it so that victims can be set free and put their lives back together. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the tremendous work of organizations that help women in violent situations. I would like to thank the following women's centres: Entre Ailes Sainte-Julie, Contact'L de Varennes and Carrefour pour Elle. They have such a big job to do, and their work is critical to giving courage and dignity back to these women. In closing, I invite all of my House colleagues to wear and distribute white ribbons as a sign of solidarity with the victims.

By wearing the ribbon, we express our objection to all forms of violence against women.

(1415) [ English ] Ukraine Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is proud to have deployed 500 Canadian election observers to monitor Ukraine's 2012 parliamentary elections, and I was honoured to be one of those observers. During those elections, independent Ukrainians and international election monitors pointed to government interference as well as significant flaws and irregularities in the voting process.

In particular, there were five electoral districts where the integrity and voting process were seriously compromised, so seriously, in fact, that as a result, Ukraine will hold repeat elections for five of these electoral districts on December 15. To improve the integrity of these upcoming elections, our government today announced that it would support an observation mission composed of 25 observers. This decision demonstrates Canada's continuing commitment to supporting the people of Ukraine's journey toward democratic development.

Our mission will help to discourage electoral fraud and support free and fair elections in Ukraine.

[ Translation ] Status of Women Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Status of Women appeared before our committee yesterday. It was only the second time that she had come to discuss her department's plans and priorities. The NDP asked her about how women's equality has declined since the Conservatives were elected, but the minister did not reply. When we asked her if she plans to launch a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women, she did not reply.

When we asked her if she plans to develop a national action plan to address the high rate of violence against women, and why her government has no moral qualms about denying abortion services for victims of war rape and young girls forced into marriage, she did not reply. This week we learned that, in Canada, over half of all single mothers with young children are living below the poverty line. The minister did not once mention child care, pay equity or reducing poverty among Canadian women, who desperately need help. Canadian women deserve better.

[ English ] Typhoon Haiyan Relief Efforts Mr. Lawrence Toet (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Development just concluded a trip to the Philippines where he witnessed the devastation caused by Typhoon Haiyan first hand. While there, he met with survivors of this devastating typhoon. He also met with local government and United Nations officials, as well as with international and Canadian humanitarian organizations.

The minister toured the Canadian Red Cross field hospital, which is working to provide essential health services such as medicines and maternal and child care to 100,000 people. The minister also met with members of DART who are providing clean water and medical assistance. As a result, the minister has announced Canada will be extending the deadline for the matching of funds donated by Canadians to December 23. I am sure we all want to encourage Canadians to continue to donate generously as Canada continues to be among the world's leaders in our response to this tragic typhoon.

By-elections Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on Monday night, we saw a strong red resurgence in Manitoba because of the hard work of two outstanding Liberal candidates and the commitment of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. I would like to pay tribute to Terry Hayward and Rolf Dinsdale, the Liberal candidates from Provencher and Brandon—Souris who are with us today. Terry and Rolf are remarkable and did an incredible job and made us proud. It is clear from the by-election results that the Liberals in the great province of Manitoba are stronger than ever. Manitobans want change.

They do not support the divisive politics of the Conservatives or the NDP and they have grown tired of the many scandals of the Conservative government. That is why on Monday we saw support for the Liberal Party dramatically surge. On behalf of all Liberal parliamentarians, I would like to thank both the candidates for putting themselves forward for public service and striving to represent the constituents of Provencher and Brandon—Souris, indeed all Canadians. In Manitoba the Liberal Party will continue to work for hope and change.

(1420) International Trade Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today our government launched the global markets action plan. This plan is a blueprint to create jobs and opportunities through trade. Our government will concentrate its efforts on markets that hold the greatest promise for Canadian businesses and focus on core commercial objectives within those markets.

Businesses in Vancouver South and across Canada are excited that this new plan would play to our strengths and ensure that all Canada's diplomatic assets would be harnessed to pursue commercial success by Canadian companies and investors. While the NDP would rather have an economic isolation plan, and the Liberals have no plan at all, our Conservative government has signed the historic CETA agreement and built the Asia-Pacific gateway corridor, which combined with NAFTA gives Canada trade access to over half the global marketplace.

It is only our government that understands that when our businesses succeed abroad, all Canadians benefit from the jobs and opportunities that are created at home.

Ethics Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Conservatives arrived in Ottawa promising Canadians they were going to fix the ethical morass Liberals left behind. It has been seven long years, and now things are even worse than when they got here. Now even long-time Conservatives are sick and tired of these scandals. Former Conservative staffer David Sachs penned a strongly worded warning to Canadians:

[The] Prime Minister...has long employed the cynical strategy of total denial when faced with controversy, disregarding the public’s right to the truth. He said that he wanted his own party to demand answers from the Prime Minister . Well, Mr. Sachs, welcome to the team. The New Democrats have been demanding answers for over six months. We believe Canadians deserve the truth about the Senate scandal and the PMO cover-up. I implore the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary to put aside their evasions, put aside their farce, and come clean with Canadians today.

Firearms Registry Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last week, the media reported that Environment Canada bureaucrats were seeking bids for a contract worth up to $60,000 to study the use of lead bullets and shot and their impact on the forest floor. What an absurd waste of taxpayer dollars. In fact, I rather suspect this study would have turned out to be a pretext for imposing additional needless restrictions on law-abiding hunters and sports shooters. Fortunately, we have a Conservative government and a Conservative Prime Minister . We acted.

The Minister of the Environment cancelled this tender as a waste of taxpayer dollars. As Conservatives, we believe that hunting, angling, and trapping are central to the livelihood, recreation and tradition of many Canadians. Unlike the Liberals and the New Democrats, who probably support this tender and would recreate the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, our Conservative government will always defend the right of Canadians to hunt and fish.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the written deal between the Prime Minister 's Office and Mr. Duffy there was a provision specifically stipulating that the Prime Minister himself would publicly state that Mike Duffy met the residency requirements allowing him to represent Prince Edward Island in the Senate. Was the Prime Minister aware of this, yes or no? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my position is well known. Obviously there are members and senators who have more than one residence.

People cannot claim travel expenses when in fact they are living at a long-term residence. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the written Duffy deal included a script for the Prime Minister . The Prime Minister was to say that Duffy “meets and has always met all requirements necessary to sit as the Senator from PEI”. It sounds like what we just heard. The next time he stood in the House it was to say, as he just did, “...all senators conform to the residency requirements. That is their basis for appointment”.

That is what he said, but the Prime Minister was doing that to read straight out from the script prepared between his office and Mike Duffy, making good on his end of the cover-up deal. Did the Prime Minister really expect Canadians to think that was just a coincidence?

(1425) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my position on this has been known for a very long time. Obviously, when we appoint members to the Senate, they are required to fulfill the conditions of appointment to the Senate. Various members of Parliament have more than one residence. In my judgment, the issue was very different. The issue was that one could not legitimately claim travel expenses when in fact one was at a long-term residence. That was the problem. That was the problem we insisted that Mr. Duffy address.

He did not, and the party and the Senate ultimately took action on that matter. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy made a deal in writing with a script for the Prime Minister . Nigel Wright said that he had to obtain authorization from the Prime Minister himself. An hour later, the Prime Minister said: [ English ] “We are good to go”. [ Translation ] Everything was fine; they were good to go. During that hour, did the Prime Minister agree to make that statement, yes or no? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I said what I think, and I clearly said what I think to Mr. Duffy. [ English ] I said to Mr. Duffy very clearly that this was not a question of residence; this was a question of him claiming expenses that he did not actually incur. He was claiming travel expenses when living at a long-time residence. In my view, regardless of how someone chose to interpret the rules, that is not a reasonable

interpretation of the rules. For that reason, I believe he should pay the money back. Mr. Duffy had said he had done so when he had not done so, and he left the Conservative caucus. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that on the 22nd Nigel Wright asked for approval to order Mike Duffy to pay his own expenses. That makes no sense because as far back as June, the Prime Minister had claimed that he had already given that order on February 13. Therefore, what did the Prime Minister really approve during that fateful hour? Right Hon.

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is addressed in the very document that the member cites, and I would refer him to that document. Mr. Wright was very clear that Mr. Duffy was going to repay his own expenses. He never suggested at any time that he was going to pay those expenses, quite the contrary. For that reason, Mr. Wright no longer works for me and Mr. Duffy is no longer a member of the Conservative caucus. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he had learned on May 15 that the Conservative Party would be paying Mike Duffy's legal fees. Why did the Prime Minister continue to say for months afterwards that Nigel Wright had acted on his own? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duffy said that he had repaid taxpayers for his inappropriate expenses. However, that was not the case at all. It was Mr. Wright who did so. When I learned this, we took action. That is why Mr. Wright no longer works for me and Mr. Duffy is no longer a member of the Conservative caucus. [ English ] Mr.

Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP said Irving Gerstein called Deloitte twice to interfere with its audit of Mike Duffy's expenses. He tried to back channel audit information and then pressed on hoping that Nigel Wright's $90,000 payment would make that audit go away. Will the Prime Minister please explain to Canadians why Senator Gerstein still enjoys his complete confidence? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, what is at issue here is that Mr. Duffy made claims to repay inappropriate expenses when he in fact had not done that.

That was actually done by Mr. Wright. Obviously, that information was not properly disclosed to me or to others. For that reason, those two individuals are under investigation and we have taken action against the appropriate individuals. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP said that on February 22, Irving Gerstein offered to “assist”, telling Nigel Wright that Conservative donor money could be used to repay Mike Duffy's housing expenses. He is still in the Conservative caucus. He is still the chair of the Senate banking committee. He is still in charge of their donors' money.

Why does Senator Gerstein still have the Prime Minister 's complete confidence?

(1430) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again the member cites the RCMP. The RCMP is clear that there are two individuals who are under investigation, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright. The issue at hand here is the fact Mr. Duffy made claims to repay inappropriate expenses when he had not done so. Mr. Wright had done that on his behalf. He had not sought authority to do that. He had no approval to do that. That fact was misrepresented to me and to others. For that reason, we have taken action against the appropriate individuals. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, we know that Senator Gerstein said he would help Nigel Wright by providing Conservative donor money to repay Mike Duffy's debts, which, by the way, would have violated three sections of the Criminal Code. Why is the Prime Minister still defending Senator Gerstein, and how can he still have confidence in him? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is clear that two individuals are under investigation in relation to the fact that Mr. Duffy claimed that he repaid expenses, but did not. On the contrary, Mr. Wright did. Mr. Wright did not provide this information.

He was not authorized to do it and he did not give me or anyone else that information. For that reason, we took action against the individuals concerned. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, is that the Prime Minister 's code of ethics, the Criminal Code? In other words, if one is not under criminal investigation by the RCMP, no matter how reprehensible, it is not really wrong. Is that the standard that he is holding the government to? What is the ethical difference between a $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright and a $32,000 cheque from the Conservative Party?

Here is a hint. The answer is not $58,000. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are two individuals who are responsible for the payment in question, a payment that was made without authority and that was not properly reported or disclosed. In this party, we hold those who undertake actions responsible for their own actions. Unlike the leader of the NDP, we do not slander a whole bunch of other people, and we do not forget for 17 years— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister still has the floor. We need a bit of order. The right hon. Prime Minister.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper : Mr. Speaker, as soon as I became aware of this information I revealed it publicly and gave all of the information to investigators. We do not do what the leader of the NDP does, forget for 17 years to provide this information to the— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Good to go, Mr. Speaker. Mike Duffy did not have a health card from P.E.I. Mike Duffy did not pay his taxes in P.E.I. However, Mike Duffy wanted a guarantee from the PMO that he would keep his $1.3 million P.E.I. Senate seat.

The Prime Minister 's own staff agreed in writing that the Prime Minister himself would publicly state that Mike Duffy met the residency requirements to sit as a senator from P.E.I. Again, did the Prime Minister know his office agreed in writing he would probably vouch for Mike Duffy as part of their cover-up deal? That is in fact what he did. Is he going to try to pretend he did not know? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, my position on this matter has been known for a very long time. I listened to the comments from the leader of the NDP.

He should once again read what the RCMP said. The RCMP interviewed everybody involved. The RCMP looked at thousands of emails. The RCMP said clearly that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of any such payment to Mr. Duffy. They are absolutely clear. If the leader of the NDP had any honesty, he would accept that judgment.

(1435) Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : In fact, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP documents show that Senator Irving Gerstein approved a plan to pay off Mike Duffy's expenses using party money. The documents also prove that Mr. Gerstein used his contacts at Deloitte to try to interfere in the Mike Duffy audit. That is what the documents show. The Prime Minister now claims that he is all so terribly shocked by that behaviour. The only question is this: why is Senator Gerstein still sitting beside him in the Conservative caucus? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, once again, there are two individuals under investigation, and of course it is not that individual. There was no payment of Mr. Duffy's inappropriate expenses by the party, but the leader of the NDP would be an expert in that, having received six figures worth of payments from his political party. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the only reason there was no payment from the Conservative Party was because the price was too high. Are we talking principle or price? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what was inappropriate here was that Mr.

Duffy claimed to have repaid inappropriate expenses when he had not done so. On the contrary, it was Mr. Wright who paid those expenses, and those two individuals had not sought authority and had not properly disclosed that information. That is why, when we learned of that, we took the appropriate action. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this story was fabricated in his office by people still working for the Conservatives. Where is the ethical principle? Why are they still there? Why have only two people been fired? Right Hon.

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Once again, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wright was responsible for this. He is no longer in our employment. Mr. Duffy and other senators who broke rules have been dealt with harshly by the Senate, not simply exiting from the Conservative caucus but are under suspension without pay. When presented with the facts, we have taken the appropriate action. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us look at those documents again. On page 45 of the RCMP document, Nigel Wright confirmed in an email that the Prime Minister knew that Mr.

Wright had “personally assisted” Mike Duffy. What did the Prime Minister know about the personal assistance that Mr. Wright gave Mr. Duffy, one clear answer for once. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have addressed that issue on many occasions, but let me say that RCMP investigators concluded, after spending months looking at this, that they are not aware of any evidence that the Prime Minister was involved in the repayment or reimbursement of money to Senator Duffy or his lawyer. It could not be clearer than that. Hon.

Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen publicly denied that she was ever told by the Prime Minister 's Office to change the Senate report on Mike Duffy. According to the RCMP: ...Senator Stewart Olsen's version of events to police was incomplete, and not consistent with the facts. In other words, she was not telling what we call the truth. Why is Carolyn Stewart Olsen still sitting in the Conservative caucus? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it was Mr. Duffy who made claims about having repaid inappropriate expenses.

Those claims were completely untrue. The fact of the matter was that Mr. Wright had paid those expenses on his behalf. As those two individuals did not properly disclose that information, they are the ones responsible. That is why they are under investigation and why we have taken the appropriate actions.

Taxation Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, another Conservative insider, Jim Love, was appointed chair of the Royal Canadian Mint in 2006, and appointed as a tax policy adviser by his buddy, the Minister of Finance , in 2007. Mr. Love has just been organizing a “tax avoidance scheme” to hide millions of dollars in offshore tax havens. Why has he not been fired yet? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is referring to is, of course, a dispute between two private parties before a court. I am obviously not going to comment on that.

What I am going to point out is the record of the government when it comes to combatting offshore tax evasion and tax cheats. Since this party came to office, we have identified over $4.5 billion of such funds that are recoverable by the Government of Canada.

(1440) Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, why did the government give a plum job to someone who was to act as a tax adviser on policy for the Conservatives when they knew, or ought to have known, that he was organizing stratagems so that rich Conservative families would not pay their taxes? How can they justify that? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I just said, under this government, the Canada Revenue Agency has identified over $4.5 billion recoverable to the taxpayers of Canada.

Every single year, we bring forward in the House areas where we have identified the possibility of inappropriate tax avoidance and tax evasion to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That is the real reason the NDP votes against those measures every single year.

Ethics Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to puzzle Canadians with his support of Irving Gerstein in the Senate. The senator repeatedly tried to intervene in blocking an audit. He tried to offer donor money to pay off Mike Duffy's expenses, which would have violated three sections of the Criminal Code, yet the Prime Minister continues to support Mr. Gerstein, continues to defend him and will not even answer the questions posed to him about Senator Gerstein. Why is the Prime Minister still defending him? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I simply point out what the real issue here is. The real issue is that Senator Duffy made inappropriate expense claims and claimed publicly that he had repaid them, when he knew that was not the case. It was in fact Mr. Wright who repaid them, and Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy did not properly disclose this transaction. When we became aware of that, we made sure that it was reported publicly. We have taken the appropriate action, and it is those two individuals who are under investigation for this particular affair. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the issue is that the Prime Minister has repeatedly pretended that if he had known about what was going on, he would have acted on what was going on. Now we know, because of the RCMP's investigation, that Irving Gerstein certainly knew and was involved in everything that was going on. Instead of having consequences for Mr. Gerstein, the Prime Minister continues to keep him in his caucus, continues to allow him to sit as chair of the Senate banking committee, and still has him in charge of all of their donor money. Why does the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in Irving Gerstein? Right Hon.

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, not only have I said that I did not know about this particular transaction, but as soon as I became aware, we made sure that it was reported publicly. We have also made sure that all investigators have received the relevant information. That is why these two individuals are under investigation, as they should be, and we will continue to assist. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister now knows that, according to the RCMP report, Irving Gerstein was very much involved in this affair, he tried to block the Deloitte audit and he also offered to pay Mike Duffy's expenses with Conservative donor money. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister continues to defend Mr. Gerstein and refuses to criticize him. Can the Prime Minister explain why he continues to defend Senator Gerstein? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party leader's statements are false. The RCMP did not say that.

It said that two individuals are under investigation for an inappropriate payment. We are co-operating with this investigation, and we have taken appropriate action against these individuals.

Taxation Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Royal Canadian Mint's board of directors, who was appointed by the Conservatives, is suspected of using tax havens to transfer funds, advising clients on how best to use these tax havens and engaging in tax evasion to avoid taxes here. Who, in this government, was aware of Jim Love's activities? Will the government launch an independent investigation into his activities? (1445) [ English ] Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as has been already stated, the case reported in the media is a dispute between two private parties. Our government has a strong record when it comes to combatting offshore tax evasion and cracking down on tax cheats. Since we came to office, the Canada Revenue Agency has identified over $4.5 billion by cracking down on these cheats. This is in stark contrast, by the way, to the mere $174 million identified in the last year of the Liberal government. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I note the minister says it has identified money. How much has it actually collected?

It is Conservatives who cut the organized crime unit of the Canada Revenue Agency, cut investigators looking to catch tax cheats and then expanded a tax on charities. Jim Love, a Conservative friend and insider, chair of the board at the mint, is now facing allegations of helping clients use offshore tax havens. Why? It is to avoid paying Canadian taxes. This is about tax fairness. It is also about billions of dollars in lost taxes. When will the Minister of Finance stand up to his well-connected friends and take action to stop these tax-- The Speaker : The hon. Minister of National Revenue. Hon. Kerry-Lynne D.

Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that we are resisting any efforts to combat tax evasion, of course, is categorically false. The decision to transfer the special enforcement program into the regular audit program was made entirely by CRA officials based on their assessment and knowledge of best practices. As I said before, we have an unparalleled record in identifying the billions of dollars that have gone astray through tax cheats, and we are aggressively looking at all those files.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, well-connected Conservative friends should not come ahead of Canadians. That is the point here. The government has now abandoned any pretense of a balanced foreign policy. It turns out that appointing the CEO of Rio Tinto to restructure the department was just a start. Its new trade-only foreign policy puts business interests ahead of national interests. Why are Conservatives ignoring our diplomats and letting CEOs of multinationals dictate our foreign policy? Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Our government stands up for Canadian values, and our government stands up for Canadian interests, whether it is human rights abuses in Iran, where Canada led last week at the United Nations in getting, once again, 83 countries to stand with Canada in condemning the terrible human rights practices, or whether it is standing up for the human rights situation in Sri Lanka with the leadership of our Prime Minister. That has been noted right around the world. Canadians can count on our government to always stand up and do the right thing. [ Translation ] Ms.

Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, trade is only one aspect of international relations, and we cannot and must not limit ourselves to that alone. Instead of moving forward with a balanced foreign policy that defends the interests of all Canadians and Canada's global interests—like peace, security, development and democracy—the Conservatives are saying that only the interests of private companies matter. Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs pleased that his department is being taken over by the Department of International Trade? [ English ] Hon.

John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government takes a principled foreign policy. Whenever we address foreign policy priorities, we are never afraid to do so, even when we do it alone. Our government promotes job creation. Our government promotes economic growth. We have focused on the economy, so that we have more dollars to pay for important priorities like health care and education. We will continue to promote Canadian values and Canadian interests in every corner of the globe.

International Trade Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters. That is creating jobs and opportunities. Opening markets for Canadian exporters is a key aspect of our government's economic action plan. Unlike the NDP, which is opposed to trade, and the Liberals, who have no plan for the economy, Conservatives understand the importance of opening new markets for Canadian exporters. Could the Minister of International Trade please update the House on the next steps in Canada's pro-trade plan?

(1450) Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Souris—Moose Mountain for his timely question. Today, our government launched the global markets action plan. This new trade promotion plan will entrench the concept of economic diplomacy by harnessing government resources and services in order to maximize the success of Canada's exporters and investors in key foreign markets. Our target is to grow Canada's small and medium-size enterprise footprint in emerging markets by 10,000 companies.

It is an ambitious target, but I am confident that Canadian small and medium-size enterprises are up to the task. That is how we create jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

Food Safety Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians should have confidence that the food they are feeding their families is safe. However, the Auditor General says that the current government is failing when it comes to food safety. CFIA's response to the massive XL food recall created total confusion. It is little wonder: the department is still using an untested draft emergency response plan from 2004. Why did Conservatives ignore multiple warnings and then fail to fix Canada's food recall system? Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member is incorrect, and the Auditor General did not say that. In fact, the Auditor General said that Canadians can have confidence in the fact that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency identifies potentially unsafe foods, investigates quickly, and also removes those foods from the shelves so Canadians are not purchasing them and taking them home. In terms of the management plan, that is one of the recommendations. In fact, CFIA officials have already been working on that, and they expect to have their final emergency plan in short order. [ Translation ] Ms.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report is clear. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency does not appropriately manage the food recall system. The agency does not have the means to verify whether companies affected by a recall of contaminated food have appropriately disposed of the recalled products. How much money has been or will be allocated to ensure that the agency has the necessary resources to appropriately follow up on recalled food? [ English ] Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what the Auditor General said is that the food recall system effectively removes unsafe food from the marketplace and quickly warns consumers so they are not purchasing unsafe food and taking it home to feed their families. That is what is most important for consumers. In terms of the Auditor General's recommendations, we have already been working on all of them. Many of them are administrative including, in respect to the XL Foods recall, ensuring we have tough penalties on businesses that do not share the right information with CFIA inspectors when they need it, and we are acting on that.

[ Translation ] Rail Transportation Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's pitiful management of safety does not stop with food safety. The Auditor General showed just how many problems there are with railway safety. We are not talking about an isolated problem. There are not enough inspectors and no follow-up when problems arise. What is more, the Conservatives are not taking into account how much risk is involved when it comes time to decide what needs to be inspected. What practical measures is the minister going to take to immediately correct these problems? [ English ] Hon.

Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is the government that actions itself very accordingly when it comes to rail safety. We have issued emergency directives and protective directives as well. We work very hard on rail safety. We have invested over $100 million. The Auditor General has made recommendations. Transport Canada has a plan to implement these, and we will be monitoring the implementation. Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives should stop protecting their insider friends and start protecting Canadians on rail safety.

The 2011 Auditor General's report found a long list of safety problems around the transportation of dangerous goods. These problems were flagged in 2006. It is now 2013, seven years later, and it is still all talk, all promises, and no delivery. When will the government listen to the Auditor General and start protecting Canadians?

(1455) Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have invested in rail safety in this government: over $100 million. We have increased the number of inspectors, and indeed last year the number of inspections was 30,000, the highest ever in this rail safety directorate. We are getting the job done. More important, we are firmly on the side of Canadians. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities absolutely gets that, and I value its partnership.

Infrastructure Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Conservatives love to issue press releases singing their own praises rather than providing municipal partners with the tools they need to repair crumbling bridges, roads, and sewers. The building Canada program, announced with great fanfare, is still nothing more than a sound bite. Municipalities know this, and as they set their budget priorities, they need details, not another vague phantom Conservative program. Spin and rhetoric do not fill potholes, nor do they build transit.

When are the Conservatives going to start treating municipalities like real partners rather than the pawns that they continue to treat them as every day? [ Translation ] Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is completely false. [ English ] Never in Canadian history have the municipalities had such a good partner as our government, which invested $30 billion in the building Canada fund.

We have worked all along with municipalities, and we will continue to do so with the new building Canada plan.

Employment Insurance Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, information provided in the P.E.I. legislature yesterday showed P.E.I. had a net loss of 1,100 people to out-migration, the highest number in 30 years. Why? It is because of the Conservative government's changes to employment insurance, which are an attack on the seasonal industries and seasonal workers, yet the regional minister allowed that young people should move away for better lives.

Why does the minister think it is okay for P.E.I. to lose its youth and split families asunder, and why does the minister champion policies that force islanders to leave? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that demagoguery was complete unadulterated nonsense. Not one person has to leave P.E.I. in order to search for available work to qualify for EI, not one single person. In fact, our statistics show that fewer than 1% of applicants for EI have not qualified for benefits as a result of the changes this government has made.

To the contrary, employers in Atlantic Canada are finding more people working in their communities so we do not have to bring in temporary foreign workers for the jobs that are available. The member should apologize for this campaign of fear that he is— The Speaker : The hon. member for York South—Weston.

Housing Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives allow the long-term housing agreements to expire, up to $1.7 billion in annual funding for housing will be lost. Low-income Canadians will bear the brunt of these cuts. They will no longer be able to afford to pay their rents when the rent-geared-to-income programs end. With housing costs at an all-time high, why is the minister allowing the funding to expire? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this government has invested more in affordable housing than any other government.

We are working together with our partners, the provinces and the municipalities. We are providing the funding, but working together with them, we are providing housing for over 880,000 individuals and families. Do you know what else we are doing, Mr. Speaker? We are helping vulnerable Canadians to get out of the situation of vulnerability by creating jobs and opportunity, by giving them skills through our youth employment strategy, our aboriginal training programs and our opportunities funds to help people with disabilities, so they can afford housing in their regions. [ Translation ] Ms.

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the last time that new funding was allocated to social housing, Jack Layton had to wrest it from the hands of the Liberals, and they are going to vote against it. Housing advocates are here today with FRAPRU to ask the Conservatives to make sure that there is adequate funding for social housing. My motion, Motion No. 450, calls for the renewal of social housing operating agreements. Will the Conservatives support my motion and will they commit to providing adequate, long-term funding for social housing stock? (1500) [ English ] Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that member knows what she said is completely false. We have renewed our investment in affordable housing; we provided $2 billion in previous investments for social housing, as well as our investment in our homelessness partnering strategy, with a focus on housing first, which is an evidence-based model. Experts across the country, programs across the country, and community groups are praising our efforts.

The investments we made to actually produce results, to help those individuals who are vulnerable get into homes, to get help, whether it is for their addictions or mental health issues, so that they can get— The Speaker : The hon. member for York Centre.

International Co-operation Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, I am very proud of other Canadians and this government for quickly coming to the aid of the victims of Typhoon Haiyan. In fact, our government first responded with $5 million in cash and quickly increased that to $20 million. We sent the DART team immediately and set up a first aid station in the Philippines. We have also included matching funds for those dollars that are committed by individuals. Can the parliamentary secretary please update this House with respect to the minister's announcement this morning? Ms.

Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the minister has seen the effects of the devastation in the Philippines. He has witnessed the resolve of the Filipino people and the work being done because of Canadian contributions. The minister decided that Canada can do more. I am pleased to confirm that our government is extending the Typhoon Haiyan matching fund deadline to December 23. As we approach this season of giving, I encourage Canadians to continue to donate generously to registered Canadian charities. Canadians are making a difference.

Government Advertising Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are using $200,000 of taxpayers' money to erase the title of “Government of Canada” from the public domain and replace it with a term that the Speaker and this House would find offensive. Sending out 2,600 government press releases that refer to the federal government in a manner that is in violation of Treasury Board policy is also something that is offensive. Will Conservatives commit to stop using taxpayers' money to rename the Government of Canada with such an offensive term as “the Harper Government”?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. I see the hon. President of the Treasury Board is rising to answer the question, but I think the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte may find it difficult to get recognized in the House for a little while. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this certainly is an interesting turn of events. I will answer the question. The hon. member knows, or should know, that it is a long-standing practice across various governments to have such nomenclature.

A simple check of online archives shows that the terms “Chrétien government”, “Martin government”, and similar variations appear in official government communications by various governments. In fact, journalists, if I may be so bold as to reference them in this chamber, the public, and in fact the Liberal Party itself use these official terms, including on the Liberal Party website. There is no harm done, no foul.

[ Translation ] Government Accountability Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, despite the Auditor General's repeated recommendations since 2011, the internal financial reporting in seven departments remains inadequate. Not only is it inadequate, but the Conservatives are so far behind that it will take years for the recommendations to be implemented, if they are ever implemented at all. Why do the Conservatives flatly refuse to be transparent when it comes to financial reporting? What are they afraid of? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, that is completely false. The Treasury Board Secretariat and all departments that have been audited have accepted all of the Auditor General's recommendations. This question refers to the audits of the financial controls in place in the departments. Under the Federal Accountability Act, our government created departmental audit committees, which provide objective advice about the quality and functioning of the departments' control and governance processes.

(1505) [ English ] The Environment Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents are hunters, and they are decent, law-abiding Canadians. Our government has stood up for their rights in abolishing the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. Last week we learned that bureaucrats are seeking bids for a contract to study the environmental impact of lead bullets on the forest floor. Surely there must be a better use of taxpayers' money than launching a study into the environmental impact of hunters' bullets. Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister agree?

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, hunting, angling, and trapping are central to the livelihood, recreation, and tradition of many Canadians. That is why I am proud that our government cancelled this tender as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Our Conservative government continues to stand up for law-abiding hunters and sports shooters.

Now, of course, we know that the Liberals and the NDP probably would have continued this study, on the grounds that the environmental impact of bullets on the forest floor would have been a good pretext for onerous environmental restrictions on the use of bullets, and they probably would bring back the long gun registry. We will continue to stand up for hunters— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières .

[ Translation ] Employment Insurance Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Commission nationale d'examen sur la réforme de l'assurance-emploi released its report today. After consulting representatives from all socio-economic sectors, which the federal government never did, the Commission concluded that the reform is problematic on a number of fronts, particularly in relation to the exodus of specialized workers, the significant drop in incentives for the unemployed to find work, the regional economies that rely on seasonal work, and so on.

Will the government study and consider the recommendations put forward by the Quebec commission to address these issues? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. The NDP waged a campaign of fear regarding the modest changes that we made to the employment insurance program. The NDP said that it was the end of benefits for seasonal workers. However, more than 99% of claimants have not been affected by the changes, and 80% of the claims rejected in Quebec this year were rejected because the claimants were outside Canada.

Not even NDP supporters would qualify for EI benefits if they were in Florida or Cuba.

[ English ] The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, in response to the devastating Typhoon Haiyan, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for a leaders' summit on climate, which is to take place in September of next year in New York. Ban Ki-moon has made clear, as have many scientists, the likely connections between these increasingly devastating weather events and the climate crisis.

Now that the deadline is looming for a new treaty to replace Kyoto, a treaty the Prime Minister says he supports, will he join the leaders' climate summit on September 24, 2014, in New York, to seek solutions while there is still time? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the Minister of International Development and others for their swift response to the effort in the Philippines. I think the Canadian response has been appreciated by our Filipino friends all across the country and of course by the Government of the Philippines as well.

On the matter of international climate change, obviously we continue to favour an international treaty that would have binding obligations upon all emitters. The Kyoto accord had binding obligations upon less than one-third of emissions, which is why it was not an effective instrument. We will continue to work with the international community in the hope of developing an effective instrument.

Presence in Gallery The Speaker : I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Kgalema Motlanthe, Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

(1510) The Speaker : I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the winners of the 2013 Governor General’s Literary Awards: Teresa Toten, Isabelle Arsenault, Matt James, Donald Winkler, Katherena Vermette, Fanny Britt, Nicolas Billon, Sandra Djwa, Yvon Rivard, Stéphanie Pelletier, and Eleanor Catton. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] International Trade Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to table, in both official languages, the document entitled “Global Markets Action Plan: The Blueprint for Creating Jobs and Opportunities for Canadians through Trade”. In a fiercely competitive global economy, Canada cannot be complacent. We must be more aggressive and effective than the intense competition we face as we advance Canada's commercial interests in key global markets.

Under the global markets action plan, our government is concentrating its efforts on markets that hold the greatest promise for Canadian business. We fully understand that when our businesses succeed abroad, all Canadians benefit from the jobs and opportunities that are created at home.

Committees of the House Health Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Health on the supplementary estimates (B) 2013-14.

Marine Mammal Regulations Mr. Greg Kerr (West Nova, CPC) Bill C-555. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-555,

An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a private member's bill,

an act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations on seal fishery observation licences. I want to thank the member for Yukon for seconding the bill. He has a real interest in this topic and definitely supports the seal hunt. The bill requires the Governor in Council to amend the Marine Mammal Regulations to increase the distance that a person must maintain from another person who is fishing for seals, except those with a legitimate observation licence. The bill is important because it concerns the safety of everyone involved in the seal hunt, including licensed observers. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Petitions Financial Administration Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition concerning my Bill C-473 , which would increase the number of women and improve their representation in decision-making positions, where ministers appoint boards of directors. The bill will be discussed on Friday in the House.

[ English ] Health of Animals and Meat Inspection Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions with hundreds of names from Hamilton and Brampton, Ontario, and Courtney and Comox, British Columbia. The petitioners are in support of my bill, Bill C-322 , saying that horses are commonly administered drugs that are strictly prohibited from being used at any time in all other food processing animals destined for the human food supply and that they are being sold for human consumption in domestic and international markets.

They call on Parliament to adopt legislation based on Bill C-322 to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act, thus prohibiting the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption, as well as horse meat products for human consumption.

Animal Welfare Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from hundreds of folks from Simcoe, London, Port Dover, Cayuga, Delhi, Hamilton, and other communities in Ontario. It deals with animal cruelty legislation. They say Canadians are tired of hearing about animals being abused while their abusers walk free. They see a link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans. They call upon the government to ensure the federal— The Speaker : Order. I would just remind members that the practice is to provide a brief

summary and when members are presenting more than one petition at a time, I think they should really focus on the brevity part of that. The hon. member for Guelph.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions signed by constituents in my riding of Guelph on the inherent rights of farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds. The petitioners are concerned with restrictions such as commercial contracts, identity preservation systems, and legislation that can criminalize traditional practices and harm farmers. They call on Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell seeds.

(1515) [ Translation ] Mining Industry Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, as they do every year, a delegation from Development and Peace came to see me, and every MP, in order to raise awareness of issues affecting communities in the global south. This delegation gave me a petition urging the federal government to create a legislated, extractive sector ombudsman mechanism in Canada to analyze complaints, make public its findings, recommend remedial actions and, finally, recommend sanctions by the government for mines that do not comply with standards.

[ English ] Consumer Protection Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today signed by dozens of citizens in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. The petition concerns new pay-to-pay fees that many telephone, Internet, television and banking companies have introduced. The petition notes that these charges effectively force Canadian consumers to pay an additional fee just so they can pay their bills. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to prohibit pay-to-pay fees and ensure that consumers are not charged for receiving bills in the mail.

Many articulate and well-meaning constituents have come to my office to discuss this issue and I urge the government to take this petition seriously.

41st General Election Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first petition is from residents of Ottawa, Surrey and Burnaby, British Columbia and it relates to the 2011 federal election campaign allegations of attempts to mislead voters leading them to miss their opportunity, in fact, their right to vote. The petitioners call for a full inquiry into this so-called “robocall” scandal.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to our national broadcaster, the CBC. The petitioners are from Quebec, Windsor, Ontario and from my own riding, particularly from Saturna Island. The petitioners call for steady and predictable funding. With the recent changes to Hockey Night in Canada, these concerns for CBC funding become even more acute.

Pensions and Benefits Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the federal government made a commitment to retirees of the federal public service, retired members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and retired federal judges for retirement pensions and benefits, including health insurance at predetermined levels of shared cost, as compensation for their years of service to Canada. The concern of the petitioners is that the Treasury Board is reportedly considering making non-negotiable changes that would double the cost of health insurance for federal retirees.

The petitioners, through this petition, want to make the Prime Minister aware that they are not necessarily happy with what is happening.

International Trade Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of many Canadians who want our government to decline to ratify FIPA, the Canada-China foreign investment protection and promotion agreement. The petitioners feel strongly that FIPA is not in Canada's interest and that the power of Canadian law should remain in Canadian hands. They feel this agreement would give Chinese state-owned enterprises the ability to claim damages regarding any Canadian laws they believe reduced their profits.

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 all 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.

Points of Order

Oral Questions

Points of Order Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the wisdom of the Chair is clearly shining here this afternoon with the time that you offered me to reflect on my words spoken in the House. I will concur with the Chair that they were indeed unparliamentary. I apologize unreservedly in an unqualified manner. However, on a matter of the business of administration of the House, I would ask the Chair to reflect on the following circumstance.

When the government provides key documentation from the executive that bears the name of a member of the House, it does make it difficult for the debate and discussion to occur within the House when that document bears the member's name.

(1520) The Speaker : As difficult as it may seem to the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, I have great confidence in his intellectual capability. I am sure that, maybe with the help of some others in his caucus, he may devise ways of doing it without breaking the rules of parliamentary tradition. I do have full confidence that he will be able to do that and look forward to what he comes up with.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) Bill C-13. Second reading moved that Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the House, for time to discuss this important bill at second reading, Bill C-13 , protecting Canadians from online crime. This is very important legislation, but it is well-recognized that it will require a holistic approach when it comes to the subject of cyberbullying. It will require efforts within the education system.

It will certainly require very direct and mature discussions with young people and others in the country when it comes to the awareness and understanding of the effects of bullying and cyberbullying. I want to indicate immediately that all elements of this bill to assist police with investigations online require a warrant. I emphasize that judicial authorization is deeply entrenched in Bill C-13 .

The bill and the government's long-standing commitment to help keep our streets and communities safe is very much in keeping with efforts of judicial oversight and focusing on all programs and all instances of having young people come to understand the terrible phenomenon of online bullying and its far-reaching effects. The bill is very timely and significant legislation. As all would know, it is aimed at improving the safety of Canadians, not only in their homes and neighbourhoods but also online, where so many spend an incredible amount of time.

All of the sections of the bill deal with electronic communications. This is our generation's preferred mode of correspondence. We now have to bring some of the elements of investigation also into the 21st century when it comes to electronic communications. The necessity for security with respect to online activities is becoming more apparent as our use of social media and other technologies continue to grow. Consider that, according to StatsCan, in 2010 roughly 80% of Canadian households had access to the Internet.

Maclean's magazine reports that more than 19 million Canadians, more than half the population, are now users of Facebook. In the 1990s, there were hundreds of websites. Now the numbers have swelled to billions. These numbers will only continue to increase and the technology involved will become more sophisticated, making it even more essential to develop a legal framework that will support the online safety of Canadians and will give our security forces commensurate tools to ensure safety Bill C-13 is comprised of two related but distinct parts.

The first addresses the particularly vile and invasive form of cyberbullying involving the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. The second aims to ensure that the Criminal Code and other federal legislation is keeping pace with technological changes. Both involve electronic communications and improving public safety. I am delighted that I am joined by my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety , for this debate. The bill proposes updates to offences and to the powers of police to investigate crimes committed using electronic networks or that use electronic evidence.

I would like to address both of these parts in turn, beginning with the key elements of the bill that address cyberbullying. We are all aware of the issues of bullying and cyberbullying and how they have become priorities for many governments around the world. Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet to perpetrate what is commonly known as bullying, but it is of particular interest and concern of late. This interest is due in no small part to the number of teen suicides over the past few years in which cyberbullying was alleged to have played a part.

We have heard of cases involving Rehtaeh Parsons in my province of Nova Scotia, Amanda Todd on the west coast, a young man named Todd Loik in Saskatchewan recently, and countless others. It is clearly a case of the worst form of harassment, intimidation and humiliation of young people, which resulted in a feeling of hopelessness, that there was no other way out, and they took their lives.

Having met with the parents of many of these young people and spoken to many young people within my own circle of friends and family, it becomes clear that there is a clarion call for Parliament and for our criminal justice system to respond. This is truly an issue in which I would hope the House would come together around our efforts to improve things. As I said, it goes well beyond this legislation and this Hill. It will require a very fulsome discussion of the implications and the understanding of what it means to post images and to use the Internet for the purposes of harassing another individual.

There appears to be a greater need and profound understanding of the impact that this form of bullying has on young people and its pervasiveness in the schools.

(1525) Online bullying increases the speed and the scope in which statements and images can be made and shared with many others, as we know. Once something is posted online, it is very difficult to control its further use or dissemination. Most times, it is from a cowardly, anonymous, malicious individual, whose identity is very hard to track. Cyberbullying victims also report that is it very difficult to retreat or escape from the cyberbullying activity. It is pervasive in the way in which telecommunications play such an important

part in young people's lives these days. [ Translation ] Canadians want to know what we can do to deal with cyberbullying. Questions have been raised about whether the Criminal Code deals adequately with this type of behaviour and recent technological advances. [ English ] Currently, the Criminal Code can in fact address most of the serious forms of cyberbullying through, for example, existing offences of criminal harassment per

section 264, uttering threats per

section 264.1 or identity fraud, found in

section 403. However, there is no offence in the Criminal Code that specifically addresses the contemptible form of cyberbullying that has emerged, involving the distribution of sexual images without the consent of the person depicted in that image. Addressing this gap in the Criminal Code is one of the goals of Bill C-13 . The bill proposes a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Essentially, this offence would prohibit the sharing of sexual or nude images without the consent of the person depicted.

It may be useful to better understand how this behaviour typically comes about. It usually begins, in some sense, with a non-criminal context of perfectly lawful, consensual recording of intimate images in a private setting. I specifically set aside any images depicting an underage youth. These images may be subsequently transmitted electronically to a partner, a practice commonly known as “sexting”. Upon the breakdown of the relationship, however, one of the known partners may distribute these images to third parties without the consent of the person depicted in the image.

It is now commonly known as “revenge porn”. It is important to note that this offence is not intended to criminalize sexting when it is done with consent. Rather it is the unauthorized, non-consensual distribution of these images that is targeted in this new offence. [ Translation ] I would like to take a moment to fully describe the specific aspects of the proposed offence. [ English ] The proposed new offence will prohibit all manner of distributing, sharing or making available of an intimate image without the consent of the person depicted in that image.

This is intended to capture all the ways in which intimate images are shared, including posting an image on a website, sharing via social media, email or in person, but will not capture the consensual recording or the private use of these images. The main element of the offence is that the sharing of the distribution would be done without the consent of the person depicted. The accused would not have to know that the person depicted in the image did not consent to the distribution or be reckless as to whether or not the person depicted consented to the distribution.

Bill C-13 also contains a three part definition of intimate images to help guide the courts in determining whether or not a particular image would be subject to the offence. There is clarity there in the determination and specific wording of what classifies as an intimate image. The definition is similar to those found in existing voyeurism and child pornography offences. Second, the image must be one which, at the time it was taken, was done in circumstances that gave rise to the reasonable expectation of privacy.

This would ensure that the offence did not capture the distribution of images in which the person depicted could not have easily have asserted privacy interests. For example, it may be difficult for people to assert a privacy interest if, in fact, the photo were taken while they were publicly displaying nudity. If they walked down the street without clothes and someone took a picture, there would be no expectation of privacy. Third, at the time of the offence, the image must be one in which respect the person depicted retains a privacy interest.

In other words, if someone posted a nude picture on a website and someone else then subsequently shared the image, it would be unlikely that the person would retain an expectation of privacy.

(1530) In addition, the bill contains a number of amendments that would complement this proposed new offence. I stress again that judges must look at these facts and interpret how the law would apply in the collection of evidence and in determining whether a warrant was warranted. As a means of prevention, the courts would be able to authorize and order a peace bond against a person who had intimate images in his or her possession, where there were reasonable grounds to fear that the person could then play into a new offence. That is, the person could post the offence or share those images.

As part of the sentence for the new offence, the court would be permitted to make a prohibition order, which would limit access by a convicted offender to the Internet or other digital networks unless the access was exercised in accordance with conditions set out by the court. There would be a very specific penalty that could attach with respect to limiting use to go back online. The court would also be authorized to order non-consensual posted images removed from the Internet. The existing provision allows the court to order the removal of child pornography and voyeuristic recordings.

That would be amended to include intimate images. I stress here that we have already made a number of Criminal Code amendments and have brought forward legislation requiring Internet service providers, for example, to report these images when they appear online. Additionally, the court could be authorized to order any tools used in the commission of the proposed offence, such as cell phones or computers, to be forfeited to the Crown. This is in keeping with other criminal acts we have seen, where vehicles and tools used in the commission of an offence can be seized by the Crown.

At the end of the process, the court would also be authorized to order the convicted offender to pay restitution to permit the victim to recoup expenses incurred to secure the removal from the Internet of these non-consensually posted intimate images. Finally, the Canada Evidence Act would also be amended to ensure that the spouse of a person accused of distributing intimate images could be eligible to testify for the Crown. That is, spousal immunity would be waived. We have done this, as well, in sections pertaining to protecting children.

The bill also proposes updating existing offences that are relevant to cyberbullying. For example, the offence of false messages and harassing phone calls, in

section 372, refers to behaviour conducted by letter or telegram, among other methods, but does not include more modern methods, as though the Internet or smart phones do not exist. I point out that many of the sections we are trying to update were enacted during the time of rotary dial phones and telegrams, well in advance of the arrival of the Internet. We are modernizing and bringing those sections into the 21st century. This offence is relevant and is an applicable offence in the cyberbullying context. However, as it is currently drafted, it would not apply to conduct committed via modern technology.

The bill is all about updating offences to make sure that any prohibited conduct done through any form of telecommunication would be captured. I also want to move on to the part of the bill that involves elements related to modernization of the Criminal Code and other federal legislation, some of which has caused some consternation. There has been some significant misinformation disseminated.

Specifically, the bill contains amendments to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to ensure that our laws are suitable for the technologically advanced world in which we live. They are meant to modernize both offences and investigative powers to make the Criminal Code more responsive to current criminal behaviour, which, as we know, is becoming more and more sophisticated. Organized crime, in particular, and those who prey on children very often use the Internet as the means to carry out these nefarious acts. There is a common thread in these amendments.

They all have as their primary objective providing law enforcement agencies with the tools they need in the 21st century to continue to respect their roles as protectors of the public while at the same time respecting the civil liberties of Canadians. They all require judicial authorization to carry out their duties.

(1535) Let me begin by stressing that the purpose of the legislative and investigative power amendments is not to give extensive new authority to the state to intrude into the privacy of Canadians. On the contrary, the new powers in this bill are carefully and narrowly constructed to respond to the investigative challenges posed by the advances that have occurred in technology over the past few decades and also to maintain the privacy protections and expectations of Canadians.

Modernizing investigative tools is especially important in investigations into these proposed new offences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which may be implicated in serious cases of cyberbullying. These updated tools would also, as they should, assist police in the investigation of all online crimes, and any crimes that involve digital evidence, such as fraud, the distribution of child pornography, and various forms of cyberattacks. What are these amendments? First, Bill C-13 proposes to create a new data-preservation scheme.

These tools would allow police to safeguard computer data while they apply to the court for a proper court order to acquire the data. Simply put, it is a do-not-delete order until such time as the police require the warrant. Next, Bill C-13 proposes to update the existing judicially supervised production orders. These amendments would result in a comprehensive toolkit involving a general production order, which is comparable to a search warrant, and four specific production orders for information with little or no privacy impact. They would help police commence investigations.

The production orders could only be used to obtain historical information before the specific production orders contemplated by Bill C-13 would allow police to do the following: determine where individuals were or what they were doing at a specific moment in time, meaning tracking information; obtain transmission data, such as an email address the communication was sent to; trace the path of the telecommunication to determine the identity of a suspect; and, finally, collect basic financial information.

It should be noted that police already have the ability to apply to the court for the same type of information in other areas. This bill also proposes to modernize two existing judicial warrant powers: the tracking warrant and the number-recording warrant. These warrants are unique in that they allow police to collect this type of information in real time. Finally, the bill also proposes some efficiencies with regard to wiretap applications.

These amendments basically are a codification of the practices of many of our courts, but the amendments would ensure that Canadian courts, as in all jurisdictions, would use the same process. The proposed amendments would create a single application for all judicial warrants and orders related to the execution of the wiretap authorization. This new process would make it clear that the judge who issued the wiretap authorization could also issue all the other supporting warrants or orders without requiring a separate application.

It is a streamlining process whereby the court would have a full picture of all the interventions. I apologize for some of the minute detail, but it is important that we are again emphasizing here that judicial authorization would be required in all instances in aspects of this bill. Data preservation and the sophistication and proliferation of information are what we are trying to get at while, at the same time, balancing this with Canadians' reasonable expectations of privacy.

What is envisioned in this bill are not massive scoops of information, or mega-data, as it is sometimes called, as is the case in other jurisdictions in European countries. This bill would not ask Internet service providers to collect anyone's information and keep it indefinitely. Like other warrants, these would be for a set, specified period of time. As I mentioned, this could be done as of a do-not-delete order for a period of up to 21 days, or in cases of foreign preservation information, up to 90 days. However, again, judicial authorization would be required.

The power, I suggest, would facilitate the investigation of offences where much of the evidence is in an electronic form and would be used, as I said, to go after the non-consensual distribution of intimate images in an era when crucial evidence can be deleted, sometimes even inadvertently, in the blink of an eye. As I mentioned earlier, in addition to proposing new investigative powers, the bill would modernize existing powers, bringing into the 21st century what the police are trying to do and protecting our communities. I would note that this is a bill that has tremendous support from the provinces.

We have had the Privacy Commissioner consulted on aspects of this bill. We look forward to further debate throughout this process as we move forward on what I believe is an important step to protect Canadians and protect information and at the same time respect the fact that this is the new way of communicating among Canadians and around the world.

(1540) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I took careful note of his fervent hope that the House will unite to support his bill. I took careful note, but I have some concerns. Three-quarters of his speech focused on the very serious problem of cyberbullying, particularly the distribution of intimate images, which led to Bill C-13 . My colleague introduced this bill in the House previously as Bill C-540 . I am concerned because most of his speech focused on exactly seven provisions or only five pages of the bill,

whereas pages 6 to 53, which include clauses 8 to 47, focus more on the tools given to police officers. The minister must know that, since his bill was introduced, experts and knowledgeable people in the field, including the Privacy Commissioner, have expressed concerns about these aspects of the bill. Why did he make things so complicated when he could have quickly obtained unanimous consent on the more specific part of the bill that he spoke so much about in his speech, the part about cyberbullying and the distribution of intimate images? Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my dear colleague for that question and for her participation in this very important debate in the House of Commons. [ English ] The legislation is consistent in that it deals with electronic communications broadly. Yes, there is a component that is very much in response to the pressing need to address cyberbullying, which has really put young people's lives at risk.

At the same time, there must be empowering elements of investigation, which are contained in the same legislation, that would pertain to not only the enforcement of the cyberbullying component, which is the new Criminal Code

section we have brought forward on the non-consensual distribution of images. We also cannot simply empower police to go after that single component of the Criminal Code. We must also allow police to use those same powers to enforce other elements of the Criminal Code. There is a common theme throughout for investigative powers. These were recommendations consistent with the federal-provincial-territorial document that was produced. I know that she aware of it. I note, as well, that while the Privacy Commissioner may have concerns, this is the time and the place.

I am sure the Privacy Commissioner herself may want to appear before the parliamentary committee to have her views known. However, I suggest to the her that when one examines the electronic communication sections the bill affects, we are empowering investigators to enforce the law and use the proper channels. Most importantly, judicial authorization is required, which sets it apart from previous bills. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister said a couple of times that in all instances, judicial authorization is required. I beg to differ. Clause 20 of the bill, specifically proposed

section 487.0195, addresses voluntary disclosure of information by, for example, telecommunications companies and Internet service providers. In a circumstance in which electronic information is voluntarily disclosed, they are given absolute immunity. Therefore, in a case where there is a co-operating party, there is indeed no judicial oversight and no sanction. In fact, there is immunity given. It is really not far from a warrantless search when we have a willing party holding the data. That, in our view, is the poison pill in this legislation.

We all support modernizing the Criminal Code to deal with the scourge of cyberbullying. I compliment the minister for bringing legislation forward that does that. The problem is that the poison pill built within it would have dramatic impacts on civil liberty and privacy, the very things that caused them to back away from the e-snooping bill. Would the minister please split the bill so we can all stand together, as he suggested, and have the House come together against cyberbullying? Will he please split the bill to take the poison pill out?

(1545) Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, I hope this might help the pill go down a little easier. The proposed

section to which the member refers in the Criminal Code does not displace existing court authorization requirement. In fact it is a very specific area, and I am glad he raised it. The provision would clarify that the police officer can lawfully ask—and he points out—that individuals and groups voluntarily preserve data or provide documentation, but only when no prohibition exists against doing so.

That is to suggest that organizations would still be bound by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, something known as PIPEDA, which makes it clear that an organization is entitled to voluntarily disclose personal information to the police, without the consent of the person to have the information relayed. However police have to have lawful authority to do so. They still have to obtain a warrant.

They can ask that the information be preserved and temporarily put on hold so that it cannot be deleted, but in order for police to access that information that is frozen, they must still obtain a warrant. There is no warrantless access. If I could quote the hon. member for Beauséjour , he said: The old tools, the old laws and regulations, and common law around search warrants, lawful access, etc., haven't kept up with the technology that organized crime is using. I agree with that. That is why we have to empower the police, modern investigators, to have modern tools to go after organized crime. Mr.

Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Justice for bringing this important and timely bill before the House of Commons. As members of Parliament, we have all heard from our constituents, from parents, about the concerns about cyberbullying. I am really pleased to see that the government is moving forward on its promise to do something about this.

I wonder if the minister can tell us, in the days since the legislation was tabled in the House, if he has heard anything from the families of the those who have fallen victim to this type of offence, if he has heard about their views on the legislation being debated here today. Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, clearly this is a very emotional issue, as one would expect, for families who have had loved ones take their own lives as a result of cyberbullying and cyberintimidation, which has had a very real emotional and tragic impact on their lives.

In fact I have consulted with them, in the efforts to draft this legislation in the most effective way. We have chosen to bring this matter forward as a priority in this House. As the justice minister, I worked very hard on this bill to try to get this balance right. For family members who have lost loves ones, I believe there is a very real recognition that this is in direct response to the tragedy that befell their lives. This is very much a response and a tabling of a bill that could easily have been named the Rehtaeh Parsons bill, the Amanda Todd bill or the Todd Loik bill.

This bill is something that would very much prevent and protect those same tragic acts from happening again in the future. That is our hope. We look forward to having this debated further in this House and in committee. I invite all members to support this legislation.

(1550) Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I certainly support legislation to stop cyberbullying, and I think many of the provisions on cyberbullying in this bill are good and necessary. However, like the member for Charlottetown , I am worried about whether the government is using this issue as a Trojan horse to increase our risk of being a surveillance state. I and many others feel that the government is trying to bring back Bill C-30 . My question is this.

Yesterday, the United Nations human rights committee unanimously passed a resolution to protect individuals from unlawful surveillance. It happened to be a resolution on which the government worked with the U.S. to water down. Does the member not think that, just as victims of cyberbullying deserve protection, people's privacy rights also deserve protection? Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, of course, as Minister of Justice , I very much respect privacy rights. That is why we have a Privacy Commissioner. That is why we consulted with her on this particular bill.

However, I find it very unfortunate and troubling that this misleading, inaccurate description is applied, that references are made to a Trojan Horse and that this is a bill with a poison pill. It is not. There is prior judicial authorization required in every single clause of the bill. There is no ability for police to act without warrants. There is no ability to seize Canadians' information. What we have done is put assurances here that would balance those concerns, that would put in place proper protections around the unauthorized distribution of information. Let us be clear on what we are trying to do here.

We are trying to put police investigative powers in place on the Internet, where so much information, and therefore, danger can exist. Unfortunately, technology moved at a much faster pace than the legislation that would enable police to do their job properly. We have seen many recent cases; for example, in Toronto, where there was information seized online that shut down a child pornography ring. We want to be able to give the police the power to do that, to protect children, protect information, protect finances and protect against terrorism.

All of this is about giving police those tools in the modern era. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, further to the exchanges that took place after the speech given by the Minister of Justice , if people are worried about poison pills, perhaps it is because that is what the Conservatives so often have to offer. Thus, it is not surprising that people are worried about this long-awaited bill.

I think it is worth reiterating the fact that my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour had introduced Bill C-540 , which addressed the issue of cyberbullying and, more specifically, the distribution of intimate images, following the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons. We even offered to fast-track this process. All members of this House agreed on these provisions. The government replied that it was working on the issue, and I do acknowledge that some federal-provincial-territorial meetings took place.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Justice say that he believed in a more comprehensive approach than simply claiming that Bill C-13 would solve the problem of cyberbullying, as the bill's fancy title would suggest. Let us hope so, because the bill's title certainly promises more than it can deliver. In fact, I am sure the Conservatives have hired someone just to come up with fancy titles, such as the “protecting Canadians from online crime act”. Still, I acknowledge that the provinces and territories were involved. There were meetings and discussions because they were the ones who raised the problems.

We know we need a more holistic and comprehensive approach. The motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord , Motion No. 485, offers a comprehensive approach to bullying, but the Conservatives voted against it. There is no reason to believe that Bill C-13 will put an end to situations that have been around for a long time. The Conservatives introduced a bill whose first seven clauses are exactly what everyone expected the Minister of Justice to introduce with respect to cyberbullying and the distribution of images. However, clauses eight and up must have come as a surprise to many.

Forty-seven is a lot of clauses. Experts on privacy and the Internet, as well as journalists, jumped at the chance to ask questions during the minister's press conference. No doubt the minister was expecting something other than those questions, all of them on the same subject, and for good reason. After what happened with the former public safety minister, people got worried about what was around the corner. I will be kind, but it was not funny when he introduced Bill C-30. It was to be expected that people would think Bill C-30 had risen from the ashes when they saw clauses eight and up of Bill C-13 .

The former justice minister, the one immediately preceding our colleague opposite, promised that those clauses would not be seen again. Journalists, who know a thing or two about the situation, did not wait one second to ask the questions that demanded to be asked of the minister, questions about cyberbullying. When he announced the introduction of his bill just last week, the minister said that everything related to cyberbullying and that there were no surprises in that regard.

Whether this is seen as a poison pill or not, the questions make it clear that this bill touches on some complicated concepts, especially from clause 8 on.

(1555) The Minister of Justice is right to say that the most serious irritants in Bill C-30 are not in the current bill. Yes, this will require warrants. However, we must still ask ourselves some serious questions about what kind of warrant will be needed and what evidence will be necessary to obtain it. Some are even saying that this lowers the threshold. Instead of talking about reasonable and probable grounds to believe something, the bill talks about suspicion. They are introducing different terms. I think that the minister wants as many members as possible to support his bill.

I therefore hope that he will be open to allowing us to study this aspect carefully. We will have some serious arguments to make in committee about these aspects of the bill. I hope that we will not be criticized or accused of supporting cyberbullies or anything like that, simply because we are doing our jobs. There are some serious questions and we do not have any definite answers to some of them today. For example, did the minister make sure that this bill is in line with the charter, since this is one of his duties?

I hope he will be referring to studies when he speaks about the bill before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I hope he will tell us that, indeed, he and the people in his department tested the constitutionality and compliance of his bill under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically in terms of privacy and the interception of personal information. I heard my colleague from Charlottetown ask a question about an issue that is worrying some experts, and that is the warrant for voluntary disclosure of information.

In his reply, the minister stressed that this was on condition that no legal prohibition existed against preserving or communicating this information. This type of provision is greatly disturbing. This is not as simple as making a request and getting a positive answer on the spot. There are some rules, but they may not be sufficient in terms of protecting privacy. Ultimately, we are all trying to create a safe environment for our children and youth.

However, in doing so, we must be careful not to create legislative monsters that allow some to slip through our fingers while ensnaring others who should have nothing to fear in a free and democratic society. On this side of the House, we have always been concerned about that. Obviously, my heart bleeds for the parents who have gone through such terrible situations. Is there anything worse than having a child commit suicide? I cannot imagine the hell that families must go through in those circumstances.

I will tell a story that I told my colleagues this morning, as I was discussing my recommendation on Bill C-13 . On the day Bill C-13 was introduced, I ran into one of my colleagues opposite in the elevator in Parliament. He was with some people who had came to see this historic tabling. This was important to them because it had to do with something they had gone through. When I was introduced as the justice critic for the NDP, Mrs. Todd looked at me and said she hoped we would support the bill. I am always happy to support good legislation.

However, sometimes my heart bleeds when I have to tell my colleagues that I cannot, in good conscience, support a bill. I often give it a chance, because I always have hope. This is the message I have for the Minister of Justice . We must be allowed to conduct a thorough study. I presume that the minister truly believes in what he is doing today and that he wants to help victims, parents, children, young people and adults, because adults can also be caught up in this situation.

(1600) I hope that he truly believes in what he is doing today and that the other provisions are well-founded. I hope that he has had the opportunity to study them extensively. However, the other members of the House have not had the opportunity to do so, because we were told by his predecessor that he would not bring back these kinds of provisions. Consequently, I hope he will not be surprised if we have some minor questions about this. We definitely will have some. A number of legal organizations are asking questions. In fact, we have to compare the provisions. We have to understand what they mean.

The wording used with respect to obtaining a warrant has changed. The bill says “suspect” instead of “reasonable and probable grounds to believe”. The legislator does not talk for nothing and, therefore, this must mean something. It is not unusual to want to carefully analyze these types of provisions. The bill is very important for Canadians of all ages and races who are interested in the serious problem of cyberbullying. It is definitely a priority for all parliamentarians in the House. We will definitely not reject it out of hand at the outset.

However, I would like to say something to the families, both the Todd family and Rehtaeh Parsons' family. I read Mrs. Todd's blog, and I was extremely moved. She asked the following question: [ English ] “Could the Cyberbullying Bill Have Saved Amanda?” She says yes. [ Translation ] The fact that a parent said that and is investing so much hope in a bill should strike a chord with all members. That being said, we cannot abdicate our duty as legislators to exercise due diligence.

Today, I am urging the Minister of Justice to tell his colleagues who belong to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to take as much time as they need to study this bill, which is about a very important, very human issue that affects too many people. We have to stop thinking that this is a race against time, because it is not. Obviously, we need solid, unassailable provisions that will eliminate this scourge, and we need them soon.

However, they have to come with other provisions that are equally solid from a legal standpoint, and they have to be in line with existing laws so that, in a year or two, they will not be swept aside. Families believe in the work we are doing. They have so much hope. We have to take the time we need to do a good job. We have to hear from experts on cybercrime and cyberbullying, on the Internet and on privacy law. We have to hear from all of those people so that we can evaluate this bill. There are much easier ways though.

I took note of what my colleague from Charlottetown said earlier when he asked the Minister of Justice a question. He asked him whether there might be a way to study the bill from two perspectives. First of all, it would have to be evaluated more quickly. I think that members of the House already support the cyberbullying and distribution of intimate images provisions in the bill. That is why there might be a way, if everyone in the House agrees, to split the bill in two without changing or amending any of the clauses. I am not even suggesting any amendments, simply because that work will be done in committee.

Of course we want to do this work in committee. However, we want to work both on cyberbullying and the distribution of intimate images, and on the other aspect, which is the powers to be granted to police officers.

(1605) I was reading the submission of an association of criminal experts, which indicates that some provisions are cause for concern. One has to wonder what the government means by “some provisions”. In light of this, I would like to remind the Conservatives that they have to take these concerns into account. It is important to remember what happened with Bill C-30. After an absolutely unbelievable campaign of a sort rarely seen in the House, the Conservative government backtracked, which is not something that happens very often.

The Conservatives have a tendency to always push forward, even if they are hitting a brick wall. They do not often make a strategic retreat to show that they heard what the public had to say. However, that is what happened in the case of Bill C-30. The Conservatives backtracked because Canadians felt that Bill C-30 violated their privacy and gave some people unrestricted tools. Those people may have good intentions, but once again, the devil is in the details. This made the minister backtrack, which is a good thing. We do not want to go through all that again with Bill C-13 .

I will not say that Bill C-30 caused mass hysteria, because that is not true. However, people were extremely concerned, and it made us wonder exactly what the government was trying to achieve. We are asking ourselves the same thing in this case, where people expect a bill on cyberbullying and the distribution of images. Yes, the ministers of justice and public safety from across the country examined these issues and talked about how this sort of evidence could be collected; however, they did not come up with a plan as detailed as the one set out in Bill C-13 .

On one hand, there are the parents of victims who want something positive to come out of all this, and rightly so. On the other hand, there are also privacy guardians. I do not think there is anyone in the House, including the Conservatives, who does not think this is important. They obviously talk about it less on their side, but I think that they also believe this is very important. I have never heard anyone on the Conservative side say that they do not believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the right to a personal life, to a private life, to their own image, to do what they want in their own home.

There is an extremely simple way to address all of these serious concerns about Bill C-13 . We would simply have to divide Bill C-13, and I would like to move that we do so. I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 2 to 7 and 27 related to cyberbullying, be removed from Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act , and do compose Bill C-15; that Bill C-15 be entitled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (non-consensual making or distributing of intimate images)"; that Bill C-15 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; that Bill C-13 retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this Order; that Bill C-13 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

This would make it possible to pass Bill C-15 quickly. Then, we could more carefully study Bill C-13 as amended.

(1610) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Does the hon. member for Gatineau have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Yes. Some hon. members: No. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. Minister of Justice . [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Gatineau for her very compelling speech, where she raised some very good points about the necessity to examine the bill in detail. I could not agree more. That will be the process, as she is very familiar.

We will have the opportunity to proceed not only through the debate in the House, but to go to committee. I think all Canadians are increasingly aware that this is the place where the real work gets done. Out of the glare of the cameras, the show and the partisanship, that is where the real work gets done. There is a bit of a contradiction in her argument in suggesting that in the last Parliament, before prorogation, we should have rushed to pass the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour 's bill through all stages of the House and have it unanimously adopted. That would have been an empty vessel.

It really undermines the argument she has just made, that, in fairness to the families and to all Canadians who are looking for a substantive response to a serious social issue, it requires the expert oversight and advice that we should receive in the committee. Yes, I should be held to scrutiny by all members of the House. The member for Charlottetown asked an important question. I will be going before committee, again, to answer questions. I say to the hon. member, let us work together. I am prepared to reach across the aisle to her and all members.

This should be one of Parliament's finest moments, where we are able to respond to the needs of Canadians on a serious social issue. It is an issue that goes to the very heart of protecting young people, protecting information in the information age and ensuring that we are giving police the proper powers, but balanced with privacy issues, to do the work that we ask of them every day. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Minister of Justice is reaching out. I see that one of his parliamentary secretaries is in the House. I am sure he heard the same words I did.

It is imperative that we take the time to really look at each and every one of these clauses. There was no contradiction there. We said that the difference between 7 clauses and 47 was that it would take far less time to study the first seven clauses. That way, we could address the parents' need to see this issue debated. Now the process will take longer. The government decided to incorporate elements that—while not necessarily the same as those that were in Bill C-30 —are quite worrisome to groups other than victims of cyberbullying or parents of those who have committed suicide after being bullied online.

If there is unlimited time for hearing from various experts, then it is possible to split this into two. I hope that this will not be forgotten. I will take his words to committee with me, that is for sure.

(1615) Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Gatineau for her speech. She works very hard on the committee. Of course she is very knowledgeable about all of the issues at stake here. [ English ] I also spent some time going through the bill, because of the concern over the ghost of Vic Toews in the e-snooping bill. Of the 47 clauses in the bill, 37 are out of the e-snooping bill. I certainly support the approach of the hon. member when she pleaded for adequate time to do a proper job at committee. I supported the app