Skip to main content Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content

41st PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 233

CONTENTS

Wednesday, June 17, 2015




House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 147 
l
NUMBER 233 
l
2nd SESSION 
l
41st PARLIAMENT 

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer

    The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers


[Statements by Members]

  (1405)  

[English]

     It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
    [Members sang the national anthem]

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

[Translation]

Member for Richmond—Arthabaska

    Mr. Speaker, summing up 11 years in one minute is impossible, but I have to take the time to thank the many people who enabled me to proudly represent the residents of Richmond—Arthabaska—which I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, is the most beautiful riding—these past 11 years.
    I could not have done it without my spouse, Annie, our families, my assistants, my other colleagues and the many volunteers who helped get me elected four times. I would also like to salute the members of the Bloc Québécois and the other parties with whom I worked, some of whom have become friends for life.
    The most challenging and satisfying part of this job is dealing with and making progress on issues that matter to the people we represent. I will never forget how we fought for supply management, student jobs and Jeffrey Mine retirees in Asbestos. However, what really stands out for me are the people, all of the people I helped, supported or even just met at various functions we were invited to. They are the ones who made me not only the politician but also the human being I am today.
    A big thanks to you, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

Quanto's Law

    Mr. Speaker, Quanto's law passed in the House on June 15 with a unanimous vote.
     Today, I rise to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House who voted to recognize and support the special role that law enforcement, service and military animals have in protecting our communities every day.
     Quanto's law will honour the memory of Edmonton Police Service dog Quanto, as well as the Toronto Police Service horse Brigadier, and many other law enforcement animals that have made the ultimate sacrifice. It will ensure that those who choose to harm these animals will face serious consequences.
     This legislation is very meaningful to me. It is also meaningful to my Richmond Hill constituents, who provided the inspiration for a similar private member's bill I introduced just two years ago. It is important to the hundreds of Canadians, York Regional Police Chief Eric Jolliffe, students from Sudbury Secondary School, the Edmonton Police Service, and many others, who wrote to me with their support for this legislation.
     On behalf of all of them, and myself, I thank everyone again.

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, just off the coast of my riding is a cluster of islands in the Salish Sea that encompasses the best marine and coastal environment in urban Canada. Home to migratory birds, rare plants, orca whales and sacred sites for the Songhees First Nation, today these are under-protected and under threat. Lack of coordination and enforcement have left them vulnerable, and we must act now to prevent further damage.
    The University of Victoria' s Environmental Law Centre has studied the legal designations available to protect this area and preserve the uses, rights and title of the Songhees First Nation. Many of these designations require the direct support of the federal government. Others require Ottawa to work with the Songhees First Nation, the province of British Columbia, and the municipality of Oak Bay.
    As our community considers the options in this new report, I hope we will find a true partner in Ottawa. We have a rare moment to save a precious environment, so let us work together.

Labour Organizations

    Mr. Speaker, my bill, Bill C-377, has been working its way through the legislative process for the past four years. Along the way it has been improved by amendments passed in the House. It is at third reading in the other place and could soon come to a final vote. Canadians are hoping it does.
     Polls tell us that well over 80% of Canadians, including union members, want public disclosure of labour organization finances. They have seen the corruption exposed at the Charbonneau commission and the Ontario Provincial Police Association, and they know that sunlight is the best disinfectant. They also know that some labour organizations spend the money of members against their wishes on elections. Whether it is for million dollar advertising campaigns or hiring campaign workers, they spend on partisan politics.
     The public and union members should have the right to know how their money is being spent. Bill C-377 would give them that right.

Bravery

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute three men from my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, whose bravery and quick action averted a tragedy on June 1.
    While driving along the Trans-Canada Highway west of Channel-Port aux Basques, Clifford Lillington of Margaree and Ernie Meade of Fox Roost came upon an accident where a pickup truck had plunged over an embankment into water.
     Of the two men in the truck, Clyde Chant and John Caines, John could not swim. Clifford searched for a rope while Ernie attempted to swim to the victims, only to have to turn back because of the extremely cold water. When the truck became completely submerged, John was left in a life or death situation. Ernie again braved the waters and managed to get John close enough to shore where Clifford, joined by Roland Sheaves of Port aux Basques, who witnessed the attempted rescue, helped to get most of the water from John's lungs.
     Deflecting any reference to heroism, Ernie said “We are thankful the men are OK and that is all that matters”.
     I ask all members to join me in recognizing the bravery of Clifford Lillington, Ernie Meade and Roland Sheaves.

Member for Northumberland—Quinte West

    Mr. Speaker, as the 41st Parliament ends and this great nation prepares for the 42nd general election, it is only right and fitting that this retiring member of Parliament congratulates his riding of Northumberland—Quinte West for all we have achieved together: a billion dollars for the clean-up of low level radioactive waste in Port Hope, a new community centre in Cobourg, countless miles of road improvements, two new bridges to be built, hundreds of millions of dollars in new improvements at CFB Trenton in Quinte West.
    These projects and those like them are creating jobs for the good citizens of Northumberland—Quinte West and Canada, proof that this Conservative government, working with our provincial and municipal counterparts, can achieve much together.
    While much has been accomplished, our work is not finished. More needs to be done, and the Prime Minister will keep his team working on behalf of my constituents and all of Canada long after October 19.

  (1410)  

[Translation]

Gabrielle Dufresne

    Mr. Speaker, the “Je suis Gabrielle” march was held last Sunday in honour of a 17-year-old student who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend, who could not accept the fact that their relationship was over.
    Gabrielle had just finished high school and was about to begin a CEGEP program to become a nurse, because she wanted to take care of seniors and people who are sick. She had always been a very compassionate girl. As a mother and as a woman, I was really shocked by her death. It is terrible how common violence against women is here in Canada. Just think of the young women at the École polytechnique or our missing aboriginal women and girls.
    However, there is hope. I was lucky enough to meet Gabrielle's mother, Marlène Dufresne. She wants to transform her suffering into hope. She wants to help our adolescents have healthier romantic relationships and help them realize that these relationships must be based on respect and caring, not violence and manipulation.
    Hon. colleagues, she is calling on us, as politicians, to support all programs to raise awareness about violence—
    Order. The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[English]

Members of Parliament and Pages

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today as the current session of Parliament winds down to recognize and thank many of the people with whom I have had the pleasure of working over the course of this session.
     I would like to begin by commending the excellent work that is carried out on a daily basis by the House of Commons pages. Pages are truly the unsung heroes of this place and their work often goes unnoticed or unrecognized. From delivering messages from our respective lobbies, serving water and the handling of important documents, pages have a great deal of responsibility in this place, and I thank each and every page for their hard work. It has indeed been a pleasure to get to know some of them on a first name basis.
     Finally, I want to thank all my colleagues, on both sides of the House, who will not be returning after the election in the fall. It has truly been a pleasure to work alongside all of them, and I wish them all of the best in their future endeavours.
    Some of them have become very good friends, and while I will most sincerely miss them, I wish them nothing but the best, and they should not be strangers.

Graduation Ceremonies

    Mr. Speaker, this month, thousands of young Canadians will walk across a stage to receive their diplomas, celebrating their graduation from high school.
    As my own twins, Sam and Alex, their friends and students just like them take part in graduation ceremonies, I reflect upon this milestone and the difficult decisions and endless sacrifices Canadian parents make to raise their children and make ends meet.
    However, parents know that at these challenging moments, they can count on our Conservative government to stand with them and help, whether it is through the expanded universal child care benefit, income splitting for hard-working families, the child fitness tax credit or the numerous other measures that our government has put in place. Canadian parents can count on our government to support them to make the best decisions about how to raise their families.
     On this occasion, I want to congratulate students and their parents in my riding of Vancouver South and across Canada for all of their accomplishments and success.
     Good luck and Godspeed from our Conservative government.

Pensions

    Mr. Speaker, I have some good news: Canadians are living Ionger. Is that not great?
     Unfortunately, though, companies and governments are not keeping their promises. They are slashing pension funds through mismanagement, such as what happened to the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry pension plan and the Nortel pension fund.
    Retirees in my community are negatively impacted by these cutbacks. We owe it to the workers who invested in these pension plans to provide them with a comfortable retirement. When will the government enhance the Canada pension plan to compensate for the carelessness of the private pension funds?

  (1415)  

Taxation

    Mr. Speaker, family has always been important to me and I am thankful for the many blessings bestowed upon me and my wife. My four wonderful children, their spouses, and 12 grandchildren make me look forward to October 20 and a new chapter in my life.
    Our Conservative government also values families and knows that they are the solid building block of our society. That is why we are supporting choice for parents who know best how to care for their children.
    Giving $160 for children under six and $60 for children up to 17 years of age makes Canada the envy of most nations, but we are also giving solid support to seniors who, together with those parents with children, can split their income for tax purposes and save up to $2,000 per year.
    If the Liberals or NDP were ever to be in charge, this would all disappear. I hope that all Canadians will realize what our Prime Minister and government have done and what is at risk in the next election.
    I welcome some of my family to Parliament Hill today. I was elected 22 years ago because I wanted my children and grandchildren to have a better Canada to live in.
    May God bless Canada.

[Translation]

Women in Non-tradional Professions

    Mr. Speaker, Abitibi—Témiscamingue is a region known for its vibrant mining sector. As we speak, the fifth Symposium on Mines and the Environment is being held in Rouyn-Noranda. This event is organized by numerous partners, including the Université du Québec in Abitibi-Témiscamingue.
    On Monday evening, Louise Grondin, the first female senior executive at Agnico Eagle, was honoured with the 2015 Frederick W. Firlotte lifetime achievement award in mining and the environment. This award recognizes the recipient's remarkable and exemplary contribution to mining and the environment in Quebec. Ms. Grondin is originally from Abitibi-Témiscamingue and is an inspiring female engineer in Canada's mining industry. This is a very clear example of how women can also excel in traditionally male-dominated professions.
    In Abitibi-Témiscamingue there are many women who stand out for their excellence in traditionally male-dominated fields and our region is the better for it.

[English]

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

    Mr. Speaker, being prime minister is not an entry level job. It is one that requires experience and the ability to lead a country like ours under sometimes turbulent global economic uncertainty. The leader of the Liberal Party has proven that he is not up to the task.
    This is the same Liberal leader who said that budgets balance themselves. He is the one who accepted 94 recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission without even reading them. He is the one who came up with a 32-point plan which clearly looks like it originated from the back of a napkin.
    Canadians want a prime minister that they can depend on to make the right decisions. That prime minister is the current Prime Minister.

Human Rights

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of four heroic political prisoners and their respective cases and causes.
    They are Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi; Venezuelan democratic leader Leopoldo Lopez; Iranian freedom of religion advocate Ayatollah Boroujerdi, as well as the persecuted leadership of the Baha’i community; and Mauritanian anti-slavery advocate Biram Dah Abeid.
    Each political prisoner is a case study of the criminalization of fundamental rights, the deprivation of liberty, and torture in detention. Each is a looking glass into their respective oppressive regimes and their standing violation of international obligations, including obligations to us here in Canada.
    We say to these courageous prisoners of conscience that they are not alone. We stand in solidarity with them. Their cause is our cause and we will not relent until their liberty is secured.

Shipbuilding Industry

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on how our Conservative government's national shipbuilding procurement strategy is creating literally thousands of high-paying jobs for Nova Scotians.
    This week hundreds of prospective employees lined up at an Irving shipyards job fair in Dartmouth, looking for someone to say yes when they applied for a job.
    This opportunity was provided to them by our Conservative government's investments at Irving. However, if the Liberals and the NDP have their way, these investments will stop and those thousands of jobs would disappear. High taxes lead to job cuts.
    Our Conservative government will never let that happen. We will continue to focus on jobs, long-term prosperity, and economic growth.
    Good luck to the people applying at Irving. Many more jobs are coming.

  (1420)  

[Translation]

42nd General Election

    Mr. Speaker, as this government's last day approaches, the Conservatives are shamelessly using taxpayers' money for partisan purposes. They are wasting money on advertising, partisan polls and photo ops for infrastructure projects too long in the making.
    Ten years ago, the Conservatives promised to clean house after the Liberal corruption scandals; today, the Conservatives are in the same boat. Ten years ago, the Conservatives promised to clean up the Senate; today, after having appointed 59 senators, the Conservatives are defending the status quo and Senate corruption. Ten years ago, the Conservatives came to change Ottawa; today, we see that Ottawa has changed them.
    Fortunately, there is a great deal of optimism in the air. The winds of change are blowing, and on October 19, Canadians will finally be able to vote for a party that will represent them and be representative of them, through good times and bad. That party is the NDP.

[English]

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

    Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party wants to be the next prime minister of Canada, but Canadians know this simple truth. He is not ready for the job.
    There are so many examples of this to point to. He attributed Putin's aggression to a hockey game. He said that the country he most admires in the world is China. He introduced a wide scattershot 32-point plan that was clearly written on the back of a napkin somewhere.
    Canada is the best country in the world. It is a country where we stand up for our beliefs, whether it be home or abroad. It is a country where we want every family to succeed and spend on their priorities by cutting taxes and creating jobs.
    The leader of the Liberal Party is simply not ready.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

[Translation]

National Defence

    Mr. Speaker, General Lawson said in an interview that sexual harassment within the Canadian Armed Forces was partly due to, and I quote, “biological wiring”. Obviously that statement is completely unacceptable.
    What does the Prime Minister intend to do to change this culture of sexual harassment within the Canadian Armed Forces?
     Mr. Speaker, I found the general's comments to be completely unacceptable, inappropriate and offensive. Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct are unacceptable in any institution. The general did immediately apologize for his comments.
    The Canadian Armed Forces and Lieutenant-General Whitecross are in the process of implementing all of the recommendations set out in the Deschamps report.
    Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister just said will not drastically change the culture that has permeated the Canadian Armed Forces. The question was what he personally intends to do about it.

[English]

    General Lawson's comments are, of course, as wrong as they are a representation of everything that is pervasive in the military.
    Will the Prime Minister himself commit to implementing Justice Deschamps recommendations in order to put an end to this toxic culture within our military with regard to sexual assault and sexual misconduct?
    That culture is wrong. It has to be changed from the top. Will the Prime Minister act?
    Mr. Speaker, as I said, I found the general's comments offensive, inappropriate and completely unacceptable. Sexual misconduct, sexual harassment are unacceptable in any institution. We are all very clear on that. There is no excuse for it. The general did immediately apologize for his comments.
     I would point out that the men and women in the military commissioned the report on this particular issue and gave a series of recommendations. The armed forces and General Whitecross are in the process of implementing those things immediately. We should not do anything that would slur all of the men and women in uniform.

  (1425)  

[Translation]

Public Safety

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that his government, and I quote, “encouraged the RCMP to destroy documents”, even though he knew that that violated the law. The Ontario Provincial Police are even investigating this matter.
    Has the Prime Minister communicated with the police to indicate his own involvement in this illegal activity?
    Mr. Speaker, this government made a commitment to Canadians, and especially Canadians in the regions, to abolish the long gun registry, and we passed legislation to do just that in this Parliament.
    The RCMP obviously complies with the law, as does the government.

[English]

Ethics

    Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister still believe that all senators meet the residency requirements to sit in the Senate? If so, would he be kind enough to tell us where Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen lives?
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, after a complete audit the leader of the NDP gets up and makes an accusation against someone who is accused of absolutely nothing.
    The fact of the matter is that the Senate has done an audit and the Senate is responding to its recommendations.
    What has not been responded to is NDP members taking public money and putting it into their own party organization. That is what was done in the sponsorship scandal. They have done that at a level of three times all of the accusations against senators combined.
    It is totally unacceptable. I look forward to Canadians passing judgment on them.
    Mr. Speaker, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, the senator for Ottawa-Moncton.

[Translation]

     Does the Prime Minister agree with his Conservative senator, Jean-Guy Dagenais, who thinks that his office is entitled to claim money from taxpayers for mileage on travel that he admits never took place?
    Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General issued his report and the Senate is acting on it. The NDP leader is obviously trying to make up accusations against some individuals. The truth is that this member took $400,000 from taxpayers, as in the sponsorship scandal, for his own political party. That is completely unacceptable, and the public will have a chance to have its say.

[English]

National Defence

    Mr. Speaker, it is 2015. Sexual harassment in our military is—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order. The hon. member for Papineau has the floor.
    Mr. Speaker, it is 2015, and sexual harassment in our military is unacceptable. Someone in a leadership role excusing it as biological wiring is unacceptable. An apology that says this was just an awkward characterization is unacceptable.
    The Prime Minister just said that he agrees, so why will the Prime Minister not immediately dismiss his Chief of the Defence Staff?

  (1430)  

    Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the leader of the Liberal Party has been briefed on the facts in terms of the year.
    In terms of the more serious issue, as I have said, obviously the comments made here are offensive. They are inappropriate, they are inexplicable, and the general did immediately apologize. As we have said repeatedly, sexual misconduct is unacceptable in any institution, government or non-governmental. The Canadian Armed Forces takes this issue very seriously. They commissioned a report, with a series of comprehensive recommendations, and they are acting on them.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment is unacceptable. Those in leadership positions need to set an example.
    The Canadian Armed Forces Chief of the Defence Staff made unacceptable comments on that subject. His apology is not good enough.
    Once again, seriously this time, can the Prime Minister tell us why he did not immediately demand that the Chief of the Defence Staff resign?
    Mr. Speaker, the general apologized immediately. As I said, his comments were inappropriate, offensive and unacceptable. The Canadian Armed Forces are acting on recommendations and taking a comprehensive approach to eliminating sexual harassment among military personnel. The Chief of the Defence Staff has already announced his retirement, his successor has been appointed, and the transition will take place soon.

Supreme Court

    Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Prime Minister has repeatedly attacked the Supreme Court. He changed the judicial appointment process, making it partisan and closed.
    The Liberal Party has a plan for real change, to make the Supreme Court appointment process inclusive, representative and transparent again, a process that will ensure that judges are bilingual.
    Why does the Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge the importance of having judges who understand our two official languages?
    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Liberal Party leader's 32 number one recommendations.

[English]

    He has 32 number one recommendations, number one policies, none of which, of course, correspond to anything here his party has ever done in the past on this or any other issue.
    Our institutions are bilingual. The Parliament of Canada is bilingual. The Supreme Court of Canada is bilingual. Other institutions are. We do not require every single member of them to be bilingual.

Ethics

    Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright told the RCMP that he briefed the Prime Minister on the media lines for the Duffy deal. Wright said in an email that he had the “good to go from the PM”.
    Why did the Prime Minister claim that he had never given Wright any instructions regarding the Duffy scandal? “Good to go” seems like a pretty clear instruction.
    Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the NDP knows very well, he is quoting from an RCMP report that thoroughly examined this matter. It was given access to all documents and was very clear that I knew nothing of this particular matter, unlike him, who signed all of the papers, that took the money, inappropriately and fraudulently, out of the House of Commons, for which he will have to answer.
    Mr. Speaker, the question—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
    Mr. Speaker, the question is just that: Is the Prime Minister good to go?
    Is he good to go to swear to these statements under oath on a witness stand? If the Prime Minister is called to testify in the Mike Duffy trial, will he appear, or will he hide?
    Mr. Speaker, once again, as those who have investigated this have said that I am neither a participant nor a witness to any of these events, there is absolutely no reason why I would be before the court.
    However, I would invite him to have the RCMP look at his files on the $400,000 he personally took and the $3 million his party took out of the House of Commons.

  (1435)  

    Mr. Speaker, now that we have heard the Prime Minister talk about the Liberal-Conservative kangaroo court, why do we not look at what real courts have had to say about the Conservative record.
    In 2006, convicted in court of cheating in the in-and-out scandal; 2008, convicted of cheating in the Dean Del Mastro affair; 2011, convicted in court for cheating in the robocalls scandal.
    The Prime Minister's team has been convicted of cheating in every single election he has won. What safeguards has he put in place to try to ensure that his team does not cheat this time around?
    Mr. Speaker, here is a party that itself has been found guilty of inappropriate robocalls and has been forced to return union funds that it illegally raised, and knowingly did so, and of course, still, $2.7 million was taken out of the House of Commons by the NDP, not for any parliamentary purpose, for the use of its own party offices across the country.
    This is exactly the kind of thing that happened in the sponsorship scandal, and the NDP will be held accountable.

Public Safety

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is using Bill C-51 to attack our rights and freedoms while offering no proof that this law will actually protect Canadians.
    If the Prime Minister is so confident of the legality of Bill C-51, why does he not simply refer it to the Supreme Court prior to royal assent?
    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 gives our law enforcement and security agencies all of the powers they typically have across major western governments to deal with very real security threats, things like sharing information between departments and having the ability to use peace bonds in case of imminent threat. I could go through those.
    Of course, the NDP is always against these things, always against this kind of thing, votes against every single piece of security legislation ever put forward because of its extreme and ideological positions. What would we expect from leader who thinks Osama bin Laden is still alive and there is no such thing as a terrorist attack in Canada?

Employment

    Mr. Speaker, 400,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost while this Prime Minister did absolutely nothing. Sixty percent of the jobs created over the past six years are precarious, part-time, or contract work. In Ontario, that number is a whopping 83%.
    Is that the Prime Minister's plan: for middle-class families to support themselves with part-time jobs?
    Mr. Speaker, I say it again. It is very clear in Statistics Canada's report: 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession, overwhelmingly full-time, high-paying, in the private sector. It is the best record in the G7 by a considerable stretch. But we should not expect the leader of the NDP to know his facts, because yesterday he was out there saying businesses need to pay higher taxes. When asked, “What is the tax rate exactly?”, he did not know and stated that it was three points lower than it actually is. That is typical of the NDP. It does not know what the taxes are; it just knows everybody's taxes have to be higher.
    Mr. Speaker, heading into a previous election, the Prime Minister handed over a $5-million cheque at Electro-Motive Diesel in London, Ontario. The only problem is the plant shut down just a while later, and the jobs were shipped to the U.S.
    Heading into this election, the Prime Minister included footage of the Chevy Camaro assembly line in Oshawa. The only problem is that it was shut down, and the jobs have been shipped to the U.S.
    Will the Prime Minister admit that his plan is not working, or at the very least, will he please stop visiting assembly lines?

  (1440)  

    Mr. Speaker, at least the leader of the Liberal Party knows when to stop getting up.
    The government's job creation record in a period of global economic uncertainty is not parallelled in major industrial countries. We have done that with a balanced budget and with lower taxes for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers and Canadian families. Every sector—the automotive sector, the exporters and manufacturers—is strongly supportive of the government's economic action plan, and nothing is going to convince those businesses or Canadian workers to buy the snake oil that somehow high taxes and big deficits are going to bring about greater prosperity. People can see what NDP policies have done in other countries. They are not going to have them here.

Government Policies

    Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of arrogance that could mean that this is the Prime Minister's last question period, so I hope he does not mind that we have a couple more.
    The Prime Minister's plan is not working. The Prime Minister has failed. That is why Canadians want change.
    As families struggle to make ends meet, the Prime Minister is telling seniors they will have to wait an extra two years to retire, raising the retirement age to 67. The Prime Minister forgot to mention that in the last election campaign.
    Can he please tell Canadians today what he is hiding up his sleeve for the next time around?
    Mr. Speaker, I remind the leader of the NDP that it will be Canadians, not him, who decide the results of the next election. Canadians understand that we are living in a global economy that is very troubled. They also understand, as they look around the world, that there is absolutely no better place to be than this country, Canada. We have a balanced budget. We have lower taxes for Canadian families, businesses, and workers. We have more money that is going into the pockets of our senior citizens and families. I do not believe anyone is going to blow that by buying the high-tax snake oil of the NDP.

Aboriginal Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians have already decided, and they want change.
    Did the Prime Minister ask Pope Francis to apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church for its involvement in the horrors of residential schools?

[Translation]

    I am not interested in what document was submitted. He met with the Pope. Did he ask for an apology or not?

[English]

    Did he ask for an apology, yes or no?
    Mr. Speaker, this government has apologized for that. We have brought to the attention of the Pope and the Catholic Church the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It will be up to the Catholic Church to decide how to respond to the recommendations that are pertinent to it.
    The kind of change Canadians are seeking is change that means more prosperity, lower taxes and greater trade. That is the kind of change they are looking for. They are not looking for the high tax, protectionist, anti-prosperity agenda of the NDP.

Veterans Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, instead of asking Canadians to give up their freedoms, the Prime Minister ought to be showing a little respect for the people who fought for our freedoms: our veterans. The Prime Minister has closed veterans service centres, ignored a rash of military suicides and let his minister literally berate those who served our country.
    Will the Prime Minister make a show of good faith and commit to reopening those nine veterans offices?

  (1445)  

    Mr. Speaker, Canadian veterans services under this government are the best in the world. We have augmented those services across all fronts and have provided more points of service to Canadian veterans than ever before.
    The men and women who serve in uniform and have served in uniform can witness the kind of slur made earlier on them by the leader of the NDP. They know who is on their side and it is this party.

Public Safety

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday it was on his encouragement that the RCMP was instructed to violate the law and destroy government documents. If anyone needed any more proof that Ottawa is broken, they need look no further than a Prime Minister who puts direct pressure on the national police force to break the law.
    Has the Prime Minister become so out of touch that he thinks he can ask the RCMP to break the law and then write himself a nice little bill to absolve himself of responsibility? Does the Prime Minister really believe he is above the law?

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm to my hon. colleague that our government promised to get rid of the costly and ineffective firearms registry. That is what we did.
    One thing is clear: the Liberals would reinstate the registry and treat hunters and fishers in this country like second-class citizens. We will continue to stand up for stronger public safety laws without hindering those who hunt for sport.

[English]

Manufacturing Industry

    Mr. Speaker, after 10 years, the Conservatives' complete neglect of the manufacturing sector has had a devastating toll. In Toronto, one-quarter of its manufacturing jobs have simply vanished. Kitchener, Waterloo, Quebec City, Sherbrooke each have lost one-third of their jobs and in Windsor it is nearly 40%. The Conservatives' only response is to spend millions on partisan ads while posting record trade deficits.
    Instead of trying to deceive Canadians with their own money, when are the Conservatives going to produce a real manufacturing strategy?
    Mr. Speaker, we have. As my colleague may well know, the Stats Canada numbers on jobs in the month of May show that not only 60,000 new jobs were created that month, but that 22,000 new jobs were created in the manufacturing sector about which the member asks.
    She asks equally for a plan and for some action by our government on manufacturing. We have done so and have put forward effective measures in our government's budget, from the capital cost allowance to the automotive supplier fund, the automotive innovation fund, the tech demo program. We are supporting manufacturers, which is why the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters endorsed our budget and attacked the Liberal leader for his saying that Canada needs to move away from manufacturing. We support our manufacturers. We deliver for them, and we will never do what the Liberal leader does.

Infrastructure

    Mr. Speaker, the more the government announces, the less it seems to happen. The MP for Calgary Centre found this out the hard way, because she just found out what the rest of the country has known for a couple of years now: there is no infrastructure money flowing to major cities in this country. We have now lost two full construction seasons. There are lots of promises, lots of billboards, lots of ads, but the funds, as the Conservative MP said herself, are sitting there unused. She tried to blame the mayor of Calgary for this and he told her to go hire a fact checker.
    Since the Conservative government is more interested in slamming the mayor of Calgary than helping that city, let me ask the question: Is the government going to fund the green line? Is the government going to deliver transit and jobs to Calgary or is it going to tell—
    The hon. Minister of Infrastructure.
    Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government's investments in provincial and municipal infrastructure are unprecedented. Since 2006, we have invested six times more on average than was invested during the Liberal years of darkness and inaction in infrastructure.
    Talking about Ontario, we have invested in the Scarborough subway, Sheppard light rail transit, the Union Station revitalization, the Kitchener—Waterloo rapid transit, and the list is very long. Twice a year we are transferring the money for the gas tax fund to the provinces and municipalities. That is being done.

Aboriginal Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, four decades after the waterways around Grassy Narrows were contaminated, a new report has revealed that the mercury levels in parts of the English-Wabigoon river system are increasing. The mercury is an obvious risk to the health of the Grassy Narrows First Nation, but despite this, there has not been any adequate study of the impact of these levels on people's health.
    A new report calls for a comprehensive study to be concluded. Will the government support this study, yes or no?

  (1450)  

    Mr. Speaker, the health and well-being of first nations is a priority for our government, and we continue to work with the Mercury Disability Board and the Province of Ontario to support their work in addressing the issue of mercury contamination. We have been working in partnership with the first nation and the Province of Ontario for a number of years, and that good co-operation and work will continue.
    Mr. Speaker, there is yet no answer to this question for the people of Grassy Narrows First Nation.
     Let us move on to the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women.
    This Friday, the RCMP is expected to publish a report talking about this ongoing tragedy. Indigenous people have called for the full analysis and details of what numbers are out there so that all systemic factors can be addressed and analyzed. This evidence should come before an inquiry as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has also recommended.
    When will the government take seriously the issue of the national epidemic that is missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada?
    Mr. Speaker, these are terrible crimes against innocent people, and the RCMP said in its own study that the vast majority of these cases are addressed and solved through police investigations.
    We do not need another study. We have already had over 40 studies that have been done. We need to move forward with the action plan that is going to improve the lives of women and children living on reserves.

Democratic Reform

    Mr. Speaker, in the dying days of the 2011 election, Elections Canada warned Canadians about a Conservative voter suppression scheme. However, Elections Canada officials are sounding the alarm bells months before the next election. They are telling people they need to act urgently to get the new voter ID requirement.
    Why is it so much harder to vote? Is it because the Conservative Party does not believe it can win a fair fight? The fact is many Canadians, seniors, youth, first nations, will go to vote and will be told “Sorry, you are not allowed to vote this time”. Why is the corrupt government relying on voter suppression tactics in order to try to cling to power?
    Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of the loony-left in the NDP, which does not even believe people should bring ID when they vote. The good news is 87% of Canadians agree that they should bring ID when they vote.
    That is why we passed the Fair Elections Act. Canadians overwhelmingly agree with the Fair Elections Act, and we expect that they will agree with our overall common-sense agenda in the coming election.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, breaking election laws has become basically an automatic reflex for the Conservatives. The in and out scandal, the misleading robocalls, Dean Del Mastro and Peter Penashue, come to mind, just to name a few. They had to add another layer to their electoral “deform”, which will make it even harder to vote. Now, with voting day four months away, Elections Canada is sounding the alarm. Voting is going to be a lot harder for some Canadians.
    How can the Conservatives justify their attack on this fundamental right? Why do they want to prevent people from voting? What guarantee do we have that they will not try to cheat again?
    Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the far left, the New Democrats, believing that people should not even have to bring a piece of ID to vote. Some 87% of Canadians agree that people should have to show ID in order to vote. That is why we included that in our fair elections act. Canadians generally agree with this approach, which is why they support us.

[English]

Taxation

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NDP leader reaffirmed his support for higher CPP payroll taxes. The Liberal leader has also committed to imposing the Ontario Liberals' dramatic payroll tax increases.
    Could the Minister of State for Finance please give the House an update on the government's position on these?
    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hard-working member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for that question.
    Our Conservative government understands that Canadians want low taxes and the freedom to make their own financial decisions. We are proud to be providing historic tax relief that is putting $6,600 back into the pockets of a typical two-earner family of four.
    We reject the Liberal leader's $1,000 tax hike on middle-class workers. Canadians know now is not the time for risky schemes and untested leadership.

  (1455)  

[Translation]

Canada Post

    Mr. Speaker, people in Laval are outraged by Canada Post's decision to put an end to home delivery. Despite record profits, Canada Post insists on doing away with an essential service for our seniors and SMEs.
    Today, we learned that some neighbourhoods will be exempt while others will not. Canada Post is making things up as it goes along. This is another example of the Conservatives' mismanagement.
    Will the minister finally do the only reasonable thing and restore home delivery service?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, let us get to the facts of the matter. Canada Post is losing a significant amount of money. As a result, it is converting to community mailboxes, which are $178 per address cheaper. This is the way it is going to be self-sufficient in the future.
    Let us contrast that with what the opposition wants to do, which is to reinstate some, all, part—I do not know—of door-to-door service, which will cost upwards of half a billion dollars.
    This is not the way to manage finances. Canadians know exactly who can manage the finances in this place, and it is this government.
    Mr. Speaker, Canada Post made almost $200 million in profits last year. However, it is still going ahead with the plan to end door-to-door service for over five million Canadians; that is unless one lives in a certain neighbourhood. Today we found out that Canada Post is allowing some neighbourhoods special concessions.
    Why will the minister not admit that the Canada Post plan is flawed in all areas and tell it to go back to the drawing board to restore home delivery?
    Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition should admit that it is flawed in anything to do with economics because what it does not realize is this. There is no profit at Canada Post. It had a $1.4 billion pension payment that had to be made in 2014. That was forgiven, because we are trying to get Canada Post back on its right footing.
    The members of the opposition should stop talking to the members of CUPW and they should start speaking on behalf of Canadians who want to make sure their tax dollars are well looked after.

Royal Canadian Mint

    Mr. Speaker, CBC has uncovered yet another Conservative appointee wasting tax dollars. This time it is at the Canadian Mint. He okayed post-conference vacations for employees and their spouses.
    Do members remember back when the Conservatives attacked the Liberals for David Dingwall being “entitled to his entitlements” when he was at the Mint? Now the Conservatives' appointees are jetting off on taxpayer-funded vacations, putting even Mr. Dingwall to shame. What happened to them? When exactly did they become just like the corrupt Liberals they replaced?
    Mr. Speaker, abuse of taxpayers' dollars is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by our government. As soon as I was made aware of the expenses, I instructed the Mint to adhere to appropriate management and oversight of travel and hospitality expenses by staff and board members, consistent with Treasury Board guidelines.
    While the Mint manages its own expenses like other crown corporations, it has a responsibility to ensure public funds are managed properly and in the best interests of taxpayers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, senior executives from the Royal Canadian Mint, those who manufacture our money, have been using taxpayers' money to pay for wonderful personal vacations for themselves and their spouses: five star hotels in Mexico and trips to Thailand, Australia and Vienna. Nothing is too good for the royals at the Royal Canadian Mint. They spent over $160,000 in public funds to relax with their toes in the warm sand.
    Can the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the Royal Canadian Mint, explain how all this is possible?
     Mr. Speaker, as I said, any abuse of taxpayers' dollars will not be tolerated by our government.
    As soon as I was made aware of the questionable expenses, I instructed the Royal Canadian Mint to adhere to appropriate management and oversight of expenses. Like all other crown corporations, the Royal Canadian Mint has a responsibility to ensure public funds are always managed in the best interests of taxpayers.

  (1500)  

[English]

Public Safety

    Mr. Speaker, Michael Chan has been a good friend of mine for 15 years, and I know he is a loyal, patriotic Canadian.
    Four years ago, CSIS told him he was no longer under investigation, and the Premier of Ontario has said the charges against him are baseless.
    Do Conservatives believe it is wrong to maintain strong ties with one's country of origin?
    Yesterday's comments by the Attorney General on operational matters were beneath the dignity of his office. Will he stand and apologize in this House?

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. This is a Government of Ontario matter. I have no further comment.

[English]

Telecommunications

    Mr. Speaker, the regulations governing the installation of cell towers require companies to consult local municipalities beforehand, but there is a glaring loophole. If the antenna is to be installed on an existing structure, such as a hydro pole or telephone pole, there is no obligation to consult. Why not?
     Whether it is on a new or existing structure, residents like those on Taywood Drive in my riding have the same concerns about an antenna's proximity to their home, especially if children are involved.
    Will the minister close this loophole as soon as possible?
    Mr. Speaker, the regulations, when applied, actually do not allow for that loophole. I am happy to talk to the member and find out exactly what is happening in his district as he describes it.
    The regulations that we put in place were proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Of course, the vastness of this country, the geographic dynamics, and the demand by all Canadians to have access to high-speed cellular connectivity is critically important for our government. However, we want to do this in a way that coincides with the demand for communities to build their communities with an aesthetic that makes sense.
     I am happy to look into the matter with the member.

[Translation]

Health

    Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, an NDP motion to regulate trans fats was adopted by Parliament.
    Since then, not only have the Conservatives not followed Health Canada's recommendations, which would result in health care savings of $9 billion, but even worse they decided to abandon the regulations, which were expected in 2010. The United States announced that they would abolish the use of trans fats.
    Why is the minister refusing to regulate the use of trans fats, which are so harmful to health?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, we have been very focused on making sure Canadians have the information they need to make healthy choices. We were the first country in the world to require mandatory labelling to decrease trans fat levels in food. This is working, and we are working with industry. The approach has actually decreased intake by 60% in the last two decades.
     However, we are always willing to examine further action if it is going to benefit families.
    Mr. Speaker, it is not okay to put poison in our food just because it is properly labelled. Banning trans fat will save lives, full stop, period, yet 11 years after Parliament directed government to ban trans fat, we are still clogging our children's arteries with this toxic goop.
    The United States has taken direct action and banned trans fat in all its forms. Will Canadians have to wait until the NDP forms the next government before we can protect consumers from this public health hazard?
    Mr. Speaker, we have taken important and significant action on this particular issue.
    I would like to note that there has been a 60% decrease in the intake of trans fat. Also, I did note that we will work to see if further action will benefit families.

Justice

    Mr. Speaker, we are tough on donuts, but let us talk about saving lives.
    Impaired driving is a very serious crime that kills and injures thousands of Canadians every year. Can the hard-working Minister of Justice please update this House on what our Conservative government is doing to crack down on impaired driving?
    Mr. Speaker, the member has been an outspoken advocate on this issue for many years.
    Impaired drivers pose a significant risk to Canadians. It is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada.
    To make offenders more accountable for their crimes, we have introduced legislation to increase mandatory minimum penalties for many transportation offences, including impaired driving involving bodily harm or death. This would also increase efficiency for police officers to investigate impaired driving and for the prosecution to go forward with these serious cases.
    I encourage all members of this House to support this important bill, which targets the scourge of impaired driving that is causing carnage on Canadian highways.

  (1505)  

[Translation]

Citizenship and Immigration

    Mr. Speaker, the crisis and violence in Burundi are worsening with the approach of the July 15 presidential election. In my opinion, the Canadian government should expedite family reunification applications. Furthermore, at the end of May we deported a young woman who had to immediately flee Burundi because the police wanted to put her in jail. She probably would have been tortured or raped in prison.
    Will the government temporarily stop the 650 or so scheduled deportations of Burundian citizens?
    Mr. Speaker, we are closely following the situation in Burundi. Decisions about that country, or any country in conflict, are always carefully considered by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We intend to continue reuniting families and welcoming Burundians to Canada, to the extent possible.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, a man with advanced cancer in my riding was nearly denied life-saving surgery all because of a mistake at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
    He could not renew his health card without verification of his immigration status, but immigration lost his application and then sent it to Alberta, mixed in with someone else's paperwork.
    Thankfully, after two months, he finally got the life-saving surgery that he needed, but this is unacceptable. Will the minister investigate this horrendous bureaucratic blunder so that it never happens again?
    Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, we cannot speak about individual cases in this place. The Privacy Act forbids it. Decisions are made by highly trained and highly professional public services.
     However, the member would do well in this near-final question period of this Parliament not to politicize the cases of individuals, not to politicize the suffering of families, and to answer to the House why the NDP was unable to support a bill yesterday at third reading that would protect women and girls from early and forced marriage, from polygamy, and from honour-based violence.
     Why has the NDP done nothing to protect Canadians from abuse in our immigration system?

Taxation

    Mr. Speaker, our government believes in low taxes for employers and employees. In fact, we have been lowering taxes on job creators since we took office.
    Can the Minister of Finance please update the House on our government's policy on taxes for job creators?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hard-working member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for the important question. Today we saw the NDP leader's ideological position on taxes. When asked what the business tax rate is, first he made a mistake and then he admitted that he did not know but still believed they should be higher.
    This is the NDP position on taxes. Even when it is clueless about fiscal policy, it is convinced that taxes need to be higher.
    I want to assure the House that our position on taxes is just as clear but starkly different. We understand that taxes need to remain low to create jobs and growth.

[Translation]

Fisheries and Oceans

    Mr. Speaker, after several years before the courts, there is still no resolution in the case of Cyrenus Dugas, a fisherman from New Brunswick, and his snow crab licence. Fisheries and Oceans Canada would not allow him to transfer his fishing licence. However, it appears that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has authorized the licence to be transferred on the basis of incorrect information and despite the fact that the transfer is still before the Court of Appeal.
    Why does the minister not respect the legal process? Why was it so urgent to transfer this fishing licence?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, this issue has been before the courts for quite some time. The court has ruled and DFO acted upon that ruling.

[Translation]

Port Infrastructure

    Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 20, I will attend a rally in Carleton-sur-Mer, in the Gaspé, to show my support for the community's recreational and tourism plan for its wharf.
    The goal is to make the wharf conducive to commercial fishing, mariculture, and leisure and tourism activities—a comprehensive plan that will have significant benefits for Carleton-sur-Mer.
    To move forward, the community now needs the approval of Transport Canada, which owns the wharf.
    Will the Minister of Transport ensure that the development plan for the Carleton-sur-Mer wharf, an important and unifying project for the Gaspé, will be processed quickly?

  (1510)  

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, we have in place a ports asset transfer program which just entered the sales phase on Monday of this week.

[Translation]

    I can assure the hon. member that the divestiture program exists for this reason. The discussions with the municipalities will continue.

[English]

    However, the province has a role as well, and I expect that the municipality and the province will work with Transport Canada officials to make sure that we can transfer this into the hands of the local municipalities.

Private Members' Business

[Private Members' Business]

[English]

Alzheimer's Disease and Other Forms of Dementia

    The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion.
    Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 575 under private members' business.
    Call in the members.

  (1520)  

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 457)

YEAS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Welland)
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Angus
Armstrong
Ashfield
Ashton
Aspin
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Barlow
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Benoit
Benskin
Bergen
Bernier
Bevington
Bezan
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Blaney
Block
Boivin
Boughen
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brosseau
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Butt
Byrne
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Caron
Carrie
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Chisu
Chong
Choquette
Christopherson
Clarke
Cleary
Clement
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crockatt
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dechert
Devolin
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dreeshen
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Dykstra
Easter
Eglinski
Eyking
Falk
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Fletcher
Foote
Fortin
Freeland
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Gill
Glover
Godin
Goguen
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gravelle
Grewal
Groguhé
Harper
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
Hsu
Hyer
James
Jones
Julian
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kellway
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
Lauzon
Laverdière
Lebel
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leslie
Leung
Liu
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Michaud
Miller
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholson
Norlock
Nunez-Melo
Obhrai
O'Connor
Oliver
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Pacetti
Papillon
Paradis
Payne
Péclet
Perkins
Pilon
Poilievre
Preston
Quach
Rafferty
Raitt
Rajotte
Rankin
Rathgeber
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Rousseau
Sandhu
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Scott
Seeback
Sellah
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toone
Tremblay
Trost
Trottier
Trudeau
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vaughan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Yurdiga
Zimmer

Total: -- 277

NAYS

Nil

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare the motion carried.

Small and Medium-Sized Businesses

    The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion.
    Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, June 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 574 under private member's business.

  (1525)  

    (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 458)

YEAS

Members

Adams
Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeland
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hyer
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Valeriote
Vaughan

Total: -- 127

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Barlow
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Eglinski
Falk
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Perkins
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trost
Trottier
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Yurdiga
Zimmer

Total: -- 149

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare the motion defeated.

  (1530)  

Free Votes

    The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion.
    Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 590 under private member's business.

  (1535)  

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 459)

YEAS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Welland)
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Angus
Armstrong
Ashfield
Ashton
Aspin
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Barlow
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Benoit
Benskin
Bergen
Bernier
Bevington
Bezan
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Blaney
Block
Boivin
Boughen
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brosseau
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Butt
Byrne
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Caron
Carrie
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Chisu
Chong
Choquette
Christopherson
Clarke
Cleary
Clement
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crockatt
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dechert
Devolin
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dreeshen
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Dykstra
Easter
Eglinski
Eyking
Falk
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Fletcher
Foote
Fortin
Freeland
Galipeau
Gallant
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Gill
Glover
Godin
Goguen
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gravelle
Grewal
Groguhé
Harper
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
Hsu
Hyer
James
Jones
Julian
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kellway
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
Lauzon
Lebel
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leslie
Leung
Liu
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Michaud
Miller
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholson
Norlock
Nunez-Melo
Obhrai
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Pacetti
Papillon
Paradis
Payne
Péclet
Perkins
Pilon
Poilievre
Preston
Quach
Rafferty
Raitt
Rajotte
Rankin
Rathgeber
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Rousseau
Sandhu
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Scott
Seeback
Sellah
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toone
Tremblay
Trost
Trottier
Trudeau
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vaughan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Yurdiga
Zimmer

Total: -- 273

NAYS

Members

O'Connor

Total: -- 1

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare the motion carried.

Missing Aboriginal Women

    The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion.
    The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 411 under private member's business.

  (1545)  

    (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 460)

YEAS

Members

Adams
Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeland
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hyer
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Rathgeber
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Valeriote
Vaughan

Total: -- 129

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Barlow
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Eglinski
Falk
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Perkins
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trost
Trottier
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Yurdiga
Zimmer

Total: -- 147

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare the motion defeated.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Government Orders]

[Translation]

Ways and Means

Motion No. 25 

    Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, June 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 25 under ways and means.

  (1550)  

[English]

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 461)

YEAS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Barlow
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Casey
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cotler
Crockatt
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dion
Dreeshen
Dubourg
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dykstra
Easter
Eglinski
Eyking
Falk
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Fletcher
Foote
Fortin
Freeland
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
Hsu
James
Jones
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lamoureux
Lauzon
Lebel
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Murray
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Pacetti
Paradis
Payne
Perkins
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
St-Denis
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trost
Trottier
Trudeau
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vaughan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Yurdiga
Zimmer

Total: -- 185

NAYS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brosseau
Caron
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hyer
Julian
Kellway
Lapointe
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Rousseau
Sandhu
Scott
Sellah
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay

Total: -- 91

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare the motion carried

  (1555)  

Motion No. 26  

    The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 26 under Ways and Means.

  (1600)  

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 462)

YEAS

Members

Ablonczy
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Barlow
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Eglinski
Falk
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Pacetti
Paradis
Payne
Perkins
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trost
Trottier
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Yurdiga
Zimmer

Total: -- 149

NAYS

Members

Adams
Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeland
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hyer
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Valeriote
Vaughan

Total: -- 126

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare the motion carried.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Private Members' Business]

[English]

Unemployment Rate

    The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion.
    The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 585 under private members' business.

  (1610)  

    (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 463)

YEAS

Members

Adams
Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Dubourg
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeland
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hsu
Hyer
Jones
Julian
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Péclet
Pilon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Rathgeber
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Valeriote
Vaughan

Total: -- 127

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Barlow
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Eglinski
Falk
Fantino
Fast
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goodyear
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
James
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
O'Connor
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Paradis
Payne
Perkins
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Trost
Trottier
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Yurdiga
Zimmer

Total: -- 145

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare the motion defeated.

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

[English]

Committees of the House

Procedure and House Affairs  

    The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion.
    The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
    Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

  (1620)  

    Perhaps the hon. Minister of National Defence could clarify which way he meant to vote.
    Mr. Speaker, as they say, “Vote early and vote often”. I intend to vote in favour of the motion.
    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 464)

YEAS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Anders
Andrews
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Barlow
Bennett
Benoit
Bergen
Bezan
Blanchette
Blaney
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Butt
Byrne
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Casey
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Côté
Cotler
Crockatt
Cuzner
Daniel
Dechert
Devolin
Dion
Dubourg
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dusseault
Dykstra
Easter
Eglinski
Eyking
Falk
Fantino
Fletcher
Foote
Fortin
Freeland
Gallant
Garneau
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Glover
Goguen
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Holder
Hsu
Jones
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Latendresse
Lauzon
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maguire
May
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Miller
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Murray
Nicholson
Norlock
Nunez-Melo
O'Connor
O'Neill Gordon
Opitz
O'Toole
Pacetti
Payne
Perkins
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Regan
Reid
Rickford
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
St-Denis
Stewart
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toone
Tremblay
Trottier
Trudeau
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Vaughan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warkentin
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Yurdiga
Zimmer

Total: -- 169

NAYS

Members

Albas
Allen (Welland)
Anderson
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bellavance
Benskin
Bernier
Bevington
Blanchette-Lamothe
Block
Boivin
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Calandra
Calkins
Caron
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Clement
Comartin
Crowder
Cullen
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dreeshen
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Fast
Galipeau
Garrison
Genest
Gill
Godin
Groguhé
Harris (St. John's East)
Hyer
James
Julian
Kellway
Lake
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
Michaud
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Obhrai
Papillon
Paradis
Péclet
Pilon
Quach
Rafferty
Rankin
Raynault
Rempel
Richards
Ritz
Sandhu
Scott
Seeback
Sellah
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Stoffer
Sullivan
Trost
Van Loan
Warawa
Watson
Wilks
Williamson

Total: -- 97

PAIRED

Nil

    I declare the motion carried.

Global Centre for Pluralism

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Global Centre for Pluralism's Corporate Plan 2015.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege related to the government's responses to two questions on the order paper, which became accessible only online yesterday. Thus, I am raising this matter at the earliest opportunity.
    I know that you and your predecessors—
    Order. I would like to take this opportunity to inform the hon. member for Mount Royal that as of this moment, I have not received written notice.
    Standing Order 48 states that members must give the Speaker an hour's written notice before raising a question of privilege. He can do that, and 60 minutes after he does so he can raise the question of privilege in the House. I cannot hear him now because of that requirement, but no doubt he will remedy that situation.

Government Response to Petitions

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 13 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group.
    The first concerns the 38th annual conference of New England governors and eastern Canadian premiers, which was held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the United States of America, July 13 to 15, 2014.
    The second concerns the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance conference that was held here in Ottawa, Ontario, on May 3 to 5, 2015.

Committees of the House

Public Accounts  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 20th report, on chapter 2, Required Reporting by Federal Organizations, of the spring 2015 report of the Auditor General of Canada; the 21st report, on chapter 3, Tax-Based Expenditures, of the spring 2015 report of the Auditor General of Canada; and the 22nd report, on chapter 5, Information Technology Investments, Canada Border Services Agency, of the spring 2015 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to these three reports.

  (1625)  

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “Updating Infrastructure in Canada: An examination of needs and investments”.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present the NDP's dissenting opinion, in both official languages. I would like to thank and congratulate the MP for Beaches—East York, the NDP's infrastructure and urban affairs critic, who worked really hard on this matter.

[Translation]

    We issued a dissenting opinion because the committee, with its Conservative majority, left some important testimony out of the final report. Unfortunately, studies on first nations infrastructure and communities were left out. The NDP's dissenting report includes recommendations about infrastructure, such as our bridges and roads, and public transit. We need to make sure that future generations do not have to bear the financial burden for that infrastructure.

[English]

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Exploring the Potential of Social Finance in Canada”.
    Mr. Speaker, included in the report is our dissenting report. We feel that this is an area where there is a great deal that is not known and much further study needs to be done. We are also very concerned about the impact on social programs in our communities.

Health  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians”.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
    I would also like to mention that this is the second unanimous report this year from the health committee. There has been good work by all members.

International Trade  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, entitled “Connecting Canadian Companies to International Markets: Global Markets Action Plan and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises”.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
    I also wish the chair of the standing committee, the member for Prince Albert, a speedy recovery from his surgery in hospital.
    Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of accomplishment that I present today, in both official languages, the official opposition's supplementary report to the trade committee's report entitled “Connecting Canadian Companies to International Markets: Global Markets Action Plan and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises”.
    We believe in the great potential of Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises to drive Canada's economic prosperity and contribute to the well-being of our communities. Seeing new opportunities to promote SME success on the international stage, the NDP introduced the motion at the trade committee that launched this study. Our hope was to spur a thoughtful and meaningful conversation between SME owners, experts, and parliamentarians that would generate new and innovative ideas. I am proud to say that this study was conducted in an atmosphere of collegiality and bipartisan co-operation.
    We are pleased with the findings of this report. Nevertheless, the official opposition has included this supplementary opinion to provide further insight into witness testimony and add important recommendations that were missed in the main report.

Environment and Sustainable Development  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “Licensed Hunting and Trapping in Canada”.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

  (1630)  

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the New Democratic Party's dissenting report on the report from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on hunting and trapping in Canada.
    New Democrats support and encourage Canadians to spend time enjoying Canada's outdoors. We see it as a privilege. New Democrats recognize and salute the fact that hunters and trappers have played an important role in the conservation of wildlife habitat, which complements the vital and important role carried out by government agencies through regulation, enforcement, research, and environmental protection and monitoring.
    We make the following recommendations.
    First, in order to ensure healthy wildlife populations and a sustainable environment that protects habitat, it is recommended that the Government of Canada initiate and provide funding for wildlife research and monitoring, particularly in the area of the impact of climate change on habitat.
    Second, as federal legislation has played an important role in maintaining healthy wildlife populations and a sustainable environment, it is recommended that the Government of Canada support and enhance laws to protect Canada's environment and wildlife.
    Third, because of the special role that hunting and trapping play in the culture of Canada's aboriginal peoples, it is recommended that the Government of Canada take active steps to ensure that the hunting and trapping rights of Canadian aboriginal people, which were established in nation-to-nation treaties, are well protected.

Canada Shipping Act, 2001

     He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of pride on behalf of B.C.'s coastal communities that I introduce a long-awaited private member's bill to counter the increasing problem of vessels abandoned on B.C.'s coastal waters. As of last year, Transport Canada had identified 245 boats that might be deemed abandoned off B.C., in addition to vessels abandoned on the east coast.
    The bill is called a prohibition against abandonment of vessels, and it would provide jail time and fines for people who intentionally abandon a vessel. I hope that all members in this chamber will work with me to get this bill passed.

     (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Rouge National Urban Park Act

     She said: Mr. Speaker, over the last year, the government has pushed through critically flawed legislation for Rouge National Urban Park, ignoring the advice of several thousand Canadians, 106 members of Parliament, the Ontario government, and several of Canada's top environmental organizations. Even the former chief scientist for Parks Canada, Stephen Woodley, publicly stated that the Rouge National Urban Park Act “falls considerably short” of the accepted environmental standards for protected areas, whether urban or wilderness.
     The new park that is being created would be less than two square kilometres and would not include the currently existing Rouge Park. The bill that I have put forward would actually fix many of the serious flaws in the existing Rouge National Urban Park Act by prioritizing and protecting the restoration of ecological integrity and watershed health; by respecting water quality agreement objectives and policies for the provincial Greenbelt, Rouge Park, the Rouge watershed, the Oak Ridges Moraine, and the Great Lakes; by requiring good public consultation and scientifically sound park management; by supporting healthy and sustainable farming in the park; and by respecting the history and heritage of the first peoples of the land.
    I hope that we will be able to move forward with the bill and see a Rouge national park that is 100 square kilometres, a people's park and will continue to be the gem in everybody's backyard in the city of Toronto and the greater Toronto area.

     (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

  (1635)  

Recall of a Member of Parliament Act

     He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to table a private member's bill, an act to establish a process to recall members of Parliament. This legislation, also to be known as the “recall of a member of Parliament act”, would allow the electors of an electoral district to apply to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issuance of a petition for the recall of their member of Parliament.
    Recall legislation would allow electors disappointed with their representative to recall or fire that member. If the petition was signed by at least 25% of the electors who were eligible to vote for that member and still resided in that electoral district, the seat would be declared vacant and a recall election would be held on the same basis as a by-election.
    The recalled member could contest the by-election to determine if he still maintained the confidence of his or her constituents. A recall petition could not be issued within 12 months from the member's election or within the 12 months preceding a fixed election date.
    For a representative democracy to function, government must be responsible to Parliament and parliamentarians must be accountable to their constituents. Accordingly, I encourage all members to support the recall of a member of Parliament act.

     (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Navigation Protection Act

     He said: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a private member's bill to restore federal environmental protection for the Tod Creek watershed. This protection was removed from all rivers, lakes, and streams on Vancouver Island by the Conservative government in 2012.
    The Tod Creek watershed covers 23 square kilometres on the Saanich Peninsula. Its headwaters are found at Maltby Lake, but it also includes Prospect Lake, Durrance Lake, three other smaller lakes, 29 wetlands, and many small creeks as it winds it way to the Saanich Inlet.
    Over the years, a wide variety of volunteer groups have undertaken efforts to preserve and enhance this watershed. In the last 15 years, there has been significant progress in restoring salmon runs by improving fish habitat and creating a fishway around the waterfalls 450 metres upstream. Today significant efforts are also under way to protect the watershed's headwaters at Maltby Lake, a jewel of a lake with near-pristine water, surrounded by 172 acres of undisturbed forest and wetland and the home of a rare freshwater jellyfish.
    Restoring federal environmental protection to the Tod Creek watershed would put the federal government squarely on the side of local efforts by Friends of Maltby Lake, Friends of Tod Creek, the Peninsula Streams Society, and others to restore and protect this precious urban watershed.

     (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

National Seal Products Day Act

     He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce this piece of legislation recognizing that humans have depended on ocean resources, including seals and other marine animals, for nourishment for thousands of years and that Canada's aboriginal peoples and coastal communities have developed traditional knowledge of how to use these resources. Of course, the traditional, cultural, and heritage practices of Canada's aboriginal people and coastal communities respect these ocean resources, and they should be preserved and recognized. Therefore, this legislation seeks to establish that the 20th day of May every year be known as national seal products day.

     (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area Act

    (On the Order: Government Orders)

    C-61--June 2, 2015--The Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act.
     Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion.
    I move:
    That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.
    Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to present the motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Members have heard the terms of the motion. Does the hon. member have the unanimous support of the House for the motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

     (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, deemed considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, read the third time and passed)

  (1640)  

[Translation]

Petitions

Agriculture  

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition on respect for the rights of small family farmers to preserve, exchange and use seeds.
    This petition was signed by dozens, perhaps hundreds of people because this is obviously a major component of humanity's heritage, and it is under threat, as described in this petition.
    The people who signed this petition care about preserving this traditional practice.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present the attached petition.

[Translation]

    This is a petition presented in the House of Commons calling for respect for the rights of small family farmers to preserve, exchange and use seeds.

[English]

Violence Against Women  

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition, on behalf of my constituents, calling for an inquiry into violence against women and girls in this country. They are asking that the government pay heed to what is going on and feel that justice is needed for many of those women and girls who have gone missing or have been murdered. They feel that a national inquiry is necessary to get to the root cause of this and are calling on the Government of Canada to do that. I support them in this petition.

Employment  

    Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to present today.
    The first petition pertains to the plummeting job quality index for Canadian workers. So many workers today are working part time, on contract, or freelance or are self-employed. Many are working for free as unpaid interns. This petition, signed by people throughout my riding and across the GTA, calls for the support of a national urban workers strategy to deal with and take seriously the issue of precarious work across Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration  

    Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition. We have many immigrants in Toronto who work hard and who are having a very difficult time with our current immigration system. They are calling on the federal government to make changes to make it simpler for them to bring their families here and to make it simpler for workers who are working hard here to have the right to stay and build a life in Canada.

Impaired Driving  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting six petitions today on the same subject matter. The petitioners are asking us to implement tougher laws and new mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Multiple Sclerosis  

    Mr. Speaker, today I present 10 petitions on chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency.
    It has been five years since people began travelling overseas for this treatment for CCSVI. Canadians with multiple sclerosis are wondering when there might be an update on the government's clinical trials and MS registry. The petitioners are asking the government to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.

[Translation]

Canada Post  

    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by more than 700 people from my community on Montreal's south shore. They denounce Canada Post's decision to eliminate home delivery.
    In four years I have not seen an issue that has drawn such a response. People back home are very angry. They think that the Conservatives are refusing to listen to them and are dismissing them.

[English]

Agriculture  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of people from St. Thomas and throughout the Elgin riding in respect of the rights of small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange, and use seeds.

Rail Transportation  

    Mr. Speaker, I present a petition that reflects the hard work of the Safe Rail Communities organization and the results of town hall meetings held by the members for Toronto Centre, Trinity—Spadina, and St. Paul's.
    The petitioners call on the government to follow through on tank car standards, to reverse the budget cuts in rail transport safety, to require the industry to invest in ways to decrease the volatility of bakken crude, and to require both railways and shippers to carry sufficient insurance to cover the true costs of an accident, spill, or derailment.

  (1645)  

    I would like to remind all hon. members that many members seem to have petitions, so if members could keep their explanations brief, we will make sure we get to everyone.

The Environment  

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions. The first one is on fighting climate change. Petitioners say that climate change is an urgent national and international issue, and they call on the government to immediately pass Bill C-224, the climate change accountability act.

Canada Post  

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition has 4,000 signatures from residents in my riding. I would like to present them all today to counteract the position the Minister of Transport took earlier that it is only Canada Post workers who want home mail delivery saved.
    I have 4,000 signatures from residents to add to the 2,000 I have already submitted. That is 6,000 people from my riding who want to save home mail delivery.

Agriculture  

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today with a petition from hundreds of people from my community demanding respect for the right of small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange, and use seeds.

Maternity Benefits  

    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from my constituents regarding women who work in dangerous jobs who become pregnant and whose employers cannot accommodate them. Presently the EI benefits and maternity benefits do not cover the full term.

[Translation]

    In Quebec, the programme for a risk-free pregnancy provides for what is known as a preventive withdrawal.

[English]

    Petitioners are asking that a federal early maternity leave program be created to reflect the change in our workforce and that the government update our policies in the area of maternal and infant care.

[Translation]

International Development  

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from my constituents, who are calling on the government to demonstrate international responsibility by recommitting Canada to contributing 0.7% of GDP to overseas development assistance.

[English]

Tobacco Products  

    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents in my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills who are calling on Parliament to pass legislation that would remove all flavours from all tobacco products.

The Environment  

    Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from people in my riding.
    One petition deals with the requirement to have a climate strategy. The petitioners refer back to the targets and timelines that were included in the bill that was passed in this place, Bill C-31, sponsored by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

Waste Reduction  

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for the Government of Canada to collaborate with the provinces to put in place a national strategy for extended producer responsibility.

Health Care  

    Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud to present dozens of petitions from northerners asking the Government of Canada to work collaboratively with the provinces to defend and strengthen public health care for northerners, including investing in better home care, long-term care, and palliative care in northern Ontario, and to implement a strategy for mental health and suicide prevention.

Service Canada  

    Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions about the same issue. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to improve the wait times at Service Canada. They are asking that the processing time to deal with many Service Canada programs be reduced. The petitioners are saying that things like guaranteed income supplements and other applications are backlogged, and sometimes the wait time can be up to six months. They are asking for that to be changed.

Public Safety  

    Mr. Speaker, I want to present petitions on behalf of my constituents on three different topics.
    The first one is against Bill C-51, the dangerous, vague, and likely ineffective proposed law by the Conservatives. The petitioners want to stop this attack on our civil liberties.

  (1650)  

Housing  

    Mr. Speaker, there is a housing crisis for so many people in my city of Toronto. Petitioners are calling on this House to develop a national housing strategy to ensure safe, accessible, and affordable housing for all Canadians.

Cycling Infrastructure  

    Mr. Speaker, too many Canadian cyclists are injured and killed. Petitioners are calling on this House to work with communities across Canada to promote and create cycling infrastructure.

[Translation]

Canada Post  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by my constituents in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who are calling on the government to stop making cuts to our postal services. My constituents are calling on the Government of Canada to not proceed with these devastating cuts to our postal services.

Housing  

    Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present a petition signed by a number of co-operative members in my riding, who are simply calling on the government to maintain federal funding for low-income households, to maintain the $1.7 billion set out in the operating agreements and to reinvest in new or recent housing co-operatives.

Canada Post  

    Mr. Speaker, we collected thousands of signatures. The petitioners are opposed to the elimination of home delivery and the increase in fees. In particular, seniors, people with reduced mobility and small businesses are calling for this service to be restored as an essential public service.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant to present a petition signed by dozens of my constituents who oppose the cuts to postal services.
     This is not the first time I have presented a petition like this, since this issue is very important to my constituents. The petitioners want the government to maintain home delivery and put an end to the cuts to our postal services.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table hundreds of signatures, adding to the many thousands already tabled, protesting the end of door-to-door delivery by Canada Post. The signatories wish to point out that the elimination of door-to-door delivery will have a particularly hard impact on seniors and the disabled, and they call upon the government to reject Canada Post's plan to cut mail services and increase prices and to instead explore other options for modernizing our postal delivery system.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.
    The first is another petition opposing the cuts to Canada Post. People want home delivery service to be restored because it affects seniors and people with disabilities.

[English]

Veterans Affairs  

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition, which has quite a few signatories, is to ensure the dignity of Canada's veterans.
    The petitioners feel that the families of veterans and veterans themselves do not have proper access to the services they were promised.

Health  

    Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by hundreds of individuals across the country. They are calling for better support for public health. The petitioners feel that the government is failing in that regard.

Agriculture  

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three separate petitions.
    The first petition is from petitioners who say that multinational seed companies are gradually replacing the immense diversity of farmers' seeds by industrial varieties. They are obtaining an increased number of patents on different seeds and are threatening the ability of small family farms to produce the food that is required to feed their families and their communities.
    The petitioners are asking the government to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty, and that these policies be developed in consultation with small family farms.

  (1655)  

Tobacco Products  

    The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by youth and adults alike across the country and talks about the flavouring of tobacco products that are marketed to youth by the tobacco industry. The petitioners are requesting that all flavours be removed from all tobacco products.

Taxation  

    Finally, Mr. Speaker, the third petition contains thousands of signatures of petitioners who are calling for the removal of the gender-specific discriminatory tax on feminine hygiene products.
    I am happy to report while I table this petition that the NDP motion to do the same thing has now been adopted by this House, and as of July 1 this year, this gender-specific discriminatory tax on women and feminine hygiene products will no longer be in effect.

Questions on the Order Paper

    Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 1273.

[Text]

Question No. 1273--
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan:
     With regard to the government’s role in promoting consensual, healthy sexual relationships, as well as sound reproductive health: (a) what steps is the government undertaking in this regard; (b) what budget allocations has the government made in this regard; (c) what steps is the government taking to ensure that quality sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion services, are accessible and available for all; (d) will the government impose penalties on provinces failing to ensure the availability of individuals’ right to access safe abortion services without discrimination; (e) what steps is the government taking to ensure that all individuals are able to access sexual and reproductive health services and information, free from all barriers, including timely and systematic referral in the event of conscientious objection on moral or religious grounds; (f) what steps is the government taking to ensure that conscientious objection exemptions are well-defined in scope and well-regulated in use; and (g) how is the government working with provinces to improve the accessibility and availability of abortion services in Canadian hospitals and in rural or remote areas?
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
    Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) and (b), the Public Health Agency of Canada supports a wide range of actions related to the prevention and control of sexually transmitted infections, which can be considered to be one element of healthy sexual relationships. Further information is available at: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/healthy-living-vie-saine/sexual-sexuelle/index-eng.php.
    The agency works collaboratively with provinces and territories to monitor data through its national surveillance network and update guidance and recommendations on prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management of sexually transmitted diseases. More details can be found at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/std-mts/index-eng.php. In addition, the Government of Canada's family violence initiative and the children's programs administered through funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada contribute to resilience, positive parenting and healthy relationships.
    The level of precision to answer (b) is not available from agency financial systems.
     Parts (c) to (h), the primary responsibility to organize and ensure the delivery of health services to Canadians, including sexual and reproductive health services, belongs to the provinces and territories. The provinces and territories are also responsible to ensure that these services are reasonably accessible to their residents.

[English]

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

    Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1259, 1260, 1262 to 1264, 1267 to 1272, 1274, 1275, 1277, 1278, 1280 to 1282, 1285, 1287, 1289, 1293, 1295, 1299, 1301, 1302, 1305, 1307, 1309, 1310, 1313, 1314, 1316, and 1320 to 1323 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
    Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Text]

Question No. 1259--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
     With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada: (a) how many veterans have been hired at Veterans Affairs Canada since 2009; (b) how many of these were medically released members of the Canadian Forces hired in priority through the Public Service Commission; (c) what percentage of all hires at Veterans Affairs Canada since 2009 have been veterans (including medically released veterans); and (d) what specific efforts are being made by the department to increase the number, and percentage, of veterans working within Veterans Affairs Canada?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1260--
Mr. John Weston:
     With regard to government funding in the riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline of the press release?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1262--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
     With regard to International Experience Canada, for the year 2014: (a) with which countries did Canada have an agreement; (b) what were the reciprocal quotas; (c) how many Canadians travelled to each country under the auspices of the agreement; (d) how many youths from each country travelled to Canada under the auspices of the agreement, broken down by (i) working holiday, (ii) young professionals, (iii) international cooperative work placements; (e) how many Canadian employers employed foreign youth in the young professionals stream; (f) how many Canadian employers employed foreign youth in the international cooperative work placements stream; (g) when will the government be finished its detailed labour market assessment of the program and will the assessment be made public; (h) how many Canadian employers have been subject to investigations for compliance; (i) how many Canadian employers have been found to be in non-compliance as a result of an investigation, broken down by type of issue; (j) how many Canadian employers have had to take remedial actions in order to be considered compliant as a result of an investigation; (k) how many Canadian employers have been subject to penalties as a result of an investigation; (l) how does Citizenship and Immigration Canada define reciprocal with respect to its goal to make the program more reciprocal; and (m) what is the Department’s target for reciprocity?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1263--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
     With regard to the International Mobility Program: (a) how many applications were received for work permits in 2014 and in 2015 year-to-date, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month; (b) how many applications for work permits were approved in 2014 and 2015 year-to-date, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month; (c) how many employers using the International Mobility Program have been subject to an investigation for compliance from in 2014 and 2015 inclusively, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (d) how many investigations have revealed non-compliance by employers, broken down by (i) month, (ii) issues identified, (iii) industry of the employer; (e) how many employers have had to take steps to be considered compliant following an investigation, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of action required, (iii) industry of the employer; (f) how many employers have received penalties for non-compliance as a result of an investigation, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of penalty, (iii) industry of the employer; (g) how many investigations have involved an on-site visit, broken down by month; and (h) how many Citizenship and Immigration staff are currently assigned to conduct investigations for compliance?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1264--
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:
     With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada and the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits (CPPD), (iii) Old Age Security (OAS); (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (f) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) are currently assigned to the ISS; (k) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (l) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (m) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (o) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) CPP retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) CPPD benefits, (iii) OAS; (p) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (u) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS in 2015, in total and broken down by month; (v) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed in 2015; (w)how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed in 2015; (x) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed in 2015; (y) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (dd) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD in 2015; (ee) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2015; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2015; (gg) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2015; (hh) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2015, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (nn) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (oo) how many legacy EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness in 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship in 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (rr) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ss) how many casefiles have been reviewed by the special unit created within the department to review backlogged social security appeals; (tt) how many settlements have been offered; (uu) how many settlements have been accepted; (vv) for 2014 and 2015, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month; and (ww) for 2014 and 2015, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on a reconsideration of an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1267--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
    With regard to materials prepared for past or current ministers or their staff from January 28, 2015, to present: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1268--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
     With regard to materials prepared for Deputy Heads or their staff from January 30, 2015, to the present: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or the subject matter of the document, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1269--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
     With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario since January 28, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1270--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
     With regard to government procurement: what are the details of all contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to Ministers since December 4, 2014, (a) providing for each such contract (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work; and (b) providing, in the case of a contract for speechwriting, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1271--
Mr. François Choquette:
     With regard to government spending in the constituency of Drummond, in the past four fiscal years, what was government spending, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1272--
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan:
     With regard to the government’s commitment to address child, early and forced marriages, and sexual violence: (a) what programming approaches is the government supporting; (b) what percentage of funding will be or has been directed towards (i) reproductive health care, (ii) family planning; (c) how much funding has the government committed to provide in order to address sexual violence; (d) which organizations and other partners will the government take on when establishing this programming; and (e) will any of the partners identified in (d) be former co-sponsors of the 2014 Human Rights Council resolution on violence against women, if not, why not?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1274--
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan:
     With regard to government funding for the constituency of Scarborough—Rouge River for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body or group, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) the date on which funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline of the press release?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1275--
Ms. Christine Moore:
     With regard to government funding for the constituency of Abitibi—Témiscamingue for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body or group, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) the date on which funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline of the press release?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1277--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
     With regard to materials prepared for past or current ministers or their staff from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2011: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1278--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
     With regard to materials prepared for past or current ministers or their staff from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2009: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1280--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
     With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada since February 2, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1281--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
     With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Aboriginal Affairs: what are the file numbers, dates, and titles of all briefing notes, dockets, dossiers, reports, or other documents of any kind which were used to compile or inform the statistics concerning missing and murdered indignous women which were referred to, referenced, or cited by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs during his meeting with First Nation leaders in Calgary, Alberta, on or about Friday, March 20, 2015?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1282--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
     With regard to materials prepared for past or current parliamentary secretaries or their staff from January 28, 2015, to present: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1285--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
     With regard to materials prepared for past or current assistant deputy ministers or their staff from January 30, 2015, to the present: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or the subject matter, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1287--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
     With regard to materials prepared for past or current ministers or their staff from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2011: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1289--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
     With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Industry Canada since January 28, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1293--
Mr. Don Davies:
     With regard to the federal executive vehicle fleet, broken down by year since 2012: (a) what was the total number of vehicles in the fleet; (b) what was the (i) total cost of procuring vehicles for the fleet, (ii) total cost of the fleet as a whole; (c) what was the total cost of salaries for drivers, including ministerial exempt staff and federal public servants whose primary responsibility consists of driving vehicles in the fleet; (d) what are the models, years and manufacturers of each vehicle in the fleet; and (e) what are the names and positions of each authorized user of a vehicle in the fleet?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1295--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
     With regard to federal financial investments since 2011, how much was provided by (a) Canada Economic Development and, in particular, by (i) the Building Canada Fund, (ii) the gas tax fund, (iii) the Small Communities Fund; (b) Employment and Social Development; (c) Canadian Heritage; and (d) Industry Canada?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1299--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
     With regard to government funding for the constituency of St John's South—Mount Pearl for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body or group, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) the date on which funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline of the press release?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1301--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
     With regard to federal support for provincial-territorial-municipal infrastructure, for each of fiscal year 2014-2015 and the current fiscal year to date: for each of the Community Improvement Fund, the New Building Canada Fund’s (NBCF) National Infrastructure Component, the NBCF’s Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component, the P3 Canada Fund, the Building Canada Fund (BCF) Major Infrastructure Component, and the BCF Communities Component, (a) how much has been spent; (b) how many projects were under construction in each province and territory; (c) how many projects received funding in each province and territory; and (d) how much of each province and territory’s allocation remained unspent?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1302--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
     With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Agroforestry Development Centre in Indian Head, Saskatchewan: (a) since 2012, what steps have been taken by the government to dispose of the facility; (b) what is the current status of the facility; (c) is there any on-going relationship between the government and Help International or Rodney Sidloski; (d) what is the status of negotiations for transfer of the facility; (e) are there any negotiations underway with any First Nations for the transfer of the facility, including with Carry-the-Kettle First Nation, (f) will any research be undertaken at the facility this year; (g) will any trees from the facility be distributed this year; and (h) and are the seedlings growing in its fields being maintained, and if so, by whom?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1305--
Ms. Élaine Michaud:
    With regard to government funding in the riding of Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier since 2011-2012 inclusively, what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1307--
Ms. Nycole Turmel:
     With regard to government grants and contributions in the federal riding of Hull-Aylmer from fiscal year 2011-2012 to the current fiscal year: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any eligible organization, body or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) date on which the funding was received (iii) amount received (iv) federal department or agency providing the funding (v) program under which the funding was provided (vi) detailed rationale for the funding; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1309--
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre:
     With regard to Government of Canada expenditures in the riding of Alfred-Pellan: (a) what were the expenditures over the last ten years with respect to (i) the environment, (ii) transit, (iii) public safety, (iii) seniors, (iii) youth, (iv) citizenship and immigration, (v) status of women, (vi) health, (vii) culture, (viii) public works, (ix) social development, (x) housing, (xi) national defence, (xii) assistance for workers such as employment insurance, (xiii) pensions; and (b) which businesses in the riding of Alfred–Pellan were awarded procurement contracts from the federal government, (ii) what was the value of these contracts, (iii) what was the length of these contracts, (iv) which department or agency issued these contracts?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1310--
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre:
     With respect to government grants and contributions allocated within the riding of Alfred-Pellan from fiscal year 2011-2012 to the present: what is the total amount allocated, broken down by (i) amount, (ii) individual recipient?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1313--
Mr. Rick Norlock:
     With regard to government funding in the riding of Northumberland—Quinte West, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline of the press release?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1314--
Ms. Nycole Turmel:
     With regard to the employees of the government and all federal public agencies: (a) in the National Capital Region, (i) what was the total number of jobs from fiscal year 2011–2012 to the current fiscal year, broken down by year, (ii) what was the number of temporary jobs from fiscal year 2011–2012 to the current fiscal year, broken down by year, (iii) what was the number of jobs filled by employment agencies from fiscal year 2011–2012 to the current fiscal year, broken down by year; and (b) at the national level, (i) what was the total number of jobs from fiscal year 2011–2012 to the current fiscal year, broken down by year, (ii) what was the number of temporary jobs from fiscal year 2011–2012 to the current fiscal year, broken down by year, (iii) what was the number of jobs filled by employment agencies from fiscal year 2011–2012 to the current fiscal year, broken down by year?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1316--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
     With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since February 5, 2015: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1320--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
     With regard to materials prepared for past or current parliamentary secretaries or their staff from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2011: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is the (i) date, (ii) title or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1321--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
     With regard to government funding for the constituency of Churchill for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to any organization, body or group, broken down by (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) the date on which funding was received, (iv) the amount received, (v) the department or agency providing the funding, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline of the press release?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1322--
Hon. John McKay:
     With regard to the government's Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS): (a) by what percentage of 2005 levels are federal departments and agencies currently committed to reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020; (b) as of the most recent year on record, by what percentage have federal departments and agencies reduced their emissions compared to 2005 levels; (c) what were the total, government-wide greenhouse gas emissions for the federal government in the most recent year on record; (d) how much of the government's overall GHG emissions are actually subject to the targets set under the FSDS' Green Government Operations Initiative; (e) why has the federal government not released a FSDS progress report since 2013; and (f) when will the government release its next FSDS progress report?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1323--
Hon. John McKay:
     With regard to lapsed spending by Environment Canada, Parks Canada and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency: (a) how much has each department and agency lapsed in each of fiscal years 2006-2007 to 2014-2015 inclusive, broken down on a program-by-program basis; and (b) what are the answers to (a), provided in digital .csv format?
    (Return tabled)

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
    Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand
    Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Surrey North, Public Safety; the hon. member for Québec, Consumer Protection.
    I also wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 69 minutes today.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Government Orders]

[English]

Digital Privacy Act

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to speak to Bill S-4, the digital privacy act.
    Last year our government launched digital Canada 150, an ambitious plan for Canadians to take advantage of the opportunities of this digital age. It is a broad-based ambitious plan to take full advantage of the digital economy as we celebrate our 150th anniversary in 2017. It is the next step to build our nation and to connect Canadians to each other. As the digital economy grows, individual Canadians must have confidence that their personal information will be protected. That is why under digital Canada 150, one of the five pillars is known as “protecting Canadians”.
    The digital privacy act would provide important and long awaited updates to our private sector privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, commonly known as PIPEDA. PIPEDA provides a legal framework for how personal information must be handled in the context of commercial activities while also setting guidelines for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.
    These rules are based on a set of principles developed jointly by government, industry groups and consumer representatives. The digital privacy act would strengthen marketplace rules set out by PIPEDA in important ways. In addition to protecting and empowering consumers, the amendments would clarify rules for businesses and reduce red tape.
    These guidelines would ensure that vital information is available to Canadian businesses so that they have the necessary tools to thrive in a global economy. Balancing individual expectations for privacy and the need for businesses to access and use personal information in their day-to-day operations is important. Bill S-4 gets this right. It assures individuals that no matter the transaction, their personal information will continue to be protected under Canadian law.
    The need to update the rules for online privacy continues to grow. Breaches of personal information held by retail giants like Target and Home Depot, where the credit card information of millions of Canadians was stolen, underscore the need to strengthen PIPEDA with mandatory breach requirements. The bill before us does exactly this by establishing new requirements for organizations to inform Canadians when their personal information has been lost or stolen and there is a risk of harm. The Privacy Commissioner will also be notified.
    An organization that deliberately covers up a data breach or intentionally fails to notify individuals and report to the commissioner could face significant fines as a result.
    Let me now take a minute to point out some of the ways in which the bill before us creates an effective streamlined regime for reporting data breaches. The digital privacy act establishes a clear and straightforward test that businesses must apply to determine whether or not they are required to report a breach.
    If a business determines that the data breach creates a significant risk of harm to a customer or client, then it must report this information both to the individual affected and the Privacy Commissioner.
    If the organization determines that the data breach does not pose a risk of significant harm, that is, its data security safeguards were compromised but it avoided a situation where the customers are exposed to a threat, like identity theft, fraud or humiliation, then that organization must keep a record of that breach.
    The requirement to maintain these records, even if the breach is determined not to be serious at the time, serves two purposes. First and most important, it requires companies to keep track of when their data security safeguards failed, so that they can determine whether or not they have a systemic problem that needs to be corrected.
     An initial breach may not be serious because the information lost is not particularly sensitive. The next time, however, the company and the individual affected may not be so lucky. Keeping track of these breaches will help companies identify potential problems before individual privacy is seriously harmed.
    Second, these records provide a mechanism for the Privacy Commissioner to hold organizations accountable for their obligations to report serious data breaches. At any time, the Privacy Commissioner may request companies to provide these records which will allow the commissioner to make sure that organizations are following the rules.

  (1700)  

    If companies choose to deliberately ignore these rules, the consequences as set out under the digital privacy act are serious. Bill S-4 would make it an offence to deliberately cover up a data breach or intentionally fail to notify individuals and report it to the commissioner.
     In these cases, organizations could face a fine of up to $100,000 for every individual they fail to notify. These penalties represent one way that the digital privacy act would safeguard the personal information of Canadians.
    The Privacy Commissioner of Canada strongly supports the proposed data breach rules in Bill S-4. He told the standing committee:
     I am greatly encouraged by the government's show of commitment to update the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and I generally welcome the amendments proposed in this bill. Proposals such as the breach notification, voluntary compliance agreements and enhanced consent would go a long way to strengthening the framework that protects the privacy of Canadians....
    Similarly, the Canadian Bankers Association voiced its support for these amendments, telling the committee:
     The banking industry supports the requirements in the digital privacy act for organizations to notify individuals about a breach of their personal information where there is a risk of significant harm. We also support the commissioner's new oversight powers to ensure that organizations comply with these new provisions.
    I have been discussing the data breach rules which are a very important element of the bill before us. I would like now to turn my attention to four ways that Bill S-4 would strengthen Canada's privacy rules.
    First, the bill establishes strong consent requirements to protect vulnerable individuals online, particularly children. These enhanced consent provisions were introduced as a result of recommendations made by Parliament during the first statutory review of PIPEDA.
    Under PIPEDA, organizations need to obtain an individual's consent to collect, use, or disclose their personal information. Under the bill before us, an individual's consent would not be considered valid unless the way the information will be used is clearly communicated in language appropriate to the target audience.
    For example, some businesses operate online playgrounds or educational websites that target children and collect personal information of children that is used for marketing and other purposes. Bill S-4 requires that the language used to obtain consent must be such that a child could reasonably be expected to understand the nature, purpose and consequence of sharing his or her personal information. If the consent request is too complicated for the child to understand, the consent would not be valid.
    Again, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada supports this amendment. He told the committee:
     I think it would be useful to further clarify that consent is to be evaluated from the perspective of the person whose consent is invoked. Organizations would be asked to put themselves in the shoes of various clientele from whom they are collecting information so that consent is as meaningful as possible.
    Second, Bill S-4 seeks to harmonize federal laws with provincial privacy protection laws when it comes to a sharing of personal information without consent in narrow, limited circumstances.
    PIPEDA already provides for a number of circumstances where personal information can be shared without consent when it is clearly in the public interest to do so. The amendments in Bill S-4 would add to this by allowing information to be shared in order to protect seniors and other vulnerable individuals from financial abuse or neglect, communicate with the family of an injured or deceased individual, or identify a victim of an accident or a natural disaster.
    In his testimony before the standing committee, Mr. Marc-André Pigeon, director of financial sector policy at Credit Union Central of Canada expressed his strong support for Bill S-4 and the financial abuse amendment. He said:
     In general, we think Bill S-4 does a lot of things right. We are especially pleased with the provisions that would make it easier for credit unions to share personal information with the next of kin or authorized representatives when the credit union has reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual may be a victim of financial abuse.

  (1705)  

    The third way that Bill S-4 would strengthen PIPEDA would be through changes that would support day-to-day business operations. The digital privacy act would remove unnecessary red tape for businesses by allowing for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information without consent in the context of specific legitimate business activities. For example, Bill S-4 would allow information to be more readily available in order to conduct due diligence in the context of mergers and acquisitions.
    Similarly, the digital privacy act would allow businesses to share any type of business contact information in order to carry out normal business activities. It is simply ridiculous that PIPEDA allows an employee to share an office phone or fax number, but not an email address. Bill S-4 would fix this problem, a solution supported by the Retail Council of Canada. It told the committee:
—we support the clarification on the exclusion of business contact information...This section 4 clarification will better equip businesses to conduct their ongoing operations.
    Finally, the digital privacy act would make existing compliance tools stronger and more effective. PIPEDA is enforced by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada who can turn to the Federal Court when an organization is found to break the rules. Bill S-4 would also give Canadians the option of taking an organization to Federal Court to order an organization to change its practices or to seek damages.
    While the digital privacy act would keep those options open, it would also provide an alternative to court action such as voluntary compliance agreements. Under a compliance agreement, organizations would voluntarily commit to take action to comply with the law to avoid costly legal action. The agreements would be legally binding and would allow the commissioner to hold organizations accountable to follow through on their commitments to private privacy protection.
    Again, the Privacy Commissioner expressed his strong support for this tool when he appeared before the standing committee. He said that the compliance agreement amendment was “very necessary” and “helpful for us to implement and apply”.
    Canadian organizations care about their reputation and they know that sound privacy practices will have a lasting impact on the legitimacy of their brand. They also know that the reverse is true, that if their customers find out about shoddy privacy practices, their businesses will suffer. This is why the digital privacy act would give the Privacy Commissioner broader powers to name and shame a non-compliant organization to encourage it to take corrective action.
    If either of these measures fail to provide the right incentives for businesses to fix their privacy problems, Bill S-4 would give the Privacy Commissioner more time to take them to court. Under the current law, the commissioner only has 45 days after he finishes the investigation to take the organization to court.
    The Privacy Commissioner told the standing committee that it was simply not enough time, given the high complexity of issues with which his office dealt. Quite often, the Privacy Commissioner will work with organizations for several months, if not a year, to ensure they follow through on their commitments to fix any problems he has identified. The problem, of course, is that organizations can simply delay taking action for a couple of weeks, knowing that after 45 days, the commissioner will no longer have the option to take them to court. Bill S-4 would fix this problem and would provide the commissioner with a year to take an organization to court for non-compliance.
    I have just outlined the five major provisions in Bill S-4, which include: new data breach rules; clear requirements when obtaining consent from individuals, including from minors; changes to support other public interest objectives, like fighting financial abuse; reducing the red tape for day-to-day operations; and new compliance tools for the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
    It is clear that Bill S-4 would deliver a balanced approach to protect the personal information of Canadians, while still allowing the information to be available to the growing, innovative digital economy.
    Karl Littler, vice-president of Public Affairs at the Retail Council of Canada, summed it up best when he told the standing committee:
    Generally speaking, Bill S-4 strikes the right balance between action to protect digital privacy on digital fraud and financial abuse, while recognizing the strengths of PIPEDA and its forward-thinking technologically neutral approach.
    We have it right with this digital privacy act. Both businesses and consumers have been empowered in this digital age, but if Canada is to remain a leading digital nation, Canadians need to have confidence that their online transactions are safe and their privacy is secure.

  (1710)  

    Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, would strengthen the rules protecting personal information, and that is essential to conduct business in virtually all sectors of the economy. The digital privacy act would go a long way to improving the protection of privacy for Canadians. I urge hon. members to join me in supporting this bill.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague mention amendments. However, the Conservatives rejected one of our critical amendments that was supported by many witnesses. That is rather problematic. We wanted to work with the Conservatives, but as usual, they turned a deaf ear in committee and refused to work as a team.
    Why did they once again refuse to accept our amendments, which would have corrected and improved the bill so that we could better protect Canadians? As it now stands, Bill S-4 is still quite flawed. For example, it leaves it up to the companies to enforce the regulations, which is unacceptable.
    I would therefore like my colleague to explain why the Conservatives rejected our amendments.

[English]

    Clearly, Mr. Speaker, when the committee looked at the amendments, they were not considered suitable or applicable at that stage. There is a lot of confidence in the companies that we are working with and that are working on these. The recommendations in this bill came from the companies, as well as all the industries, et cetera. Therefore, I do not think there was any need for those changes to be admitted in.

  (1715)  

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the question of my hon. colleague on the opposition benches. I want to ensure that the government member really believes this is the best possible bill we could pass in the House of Commons, since we are at third reading debate.
    Forty-two opposition amendments were passed over, I understand, with very little discussion, explanation or even defence of the rejection of those amendments. It is really a simple question, and perhaps my hon. colleague has already answered it. However, I would like him to say clearly whether he believes this is the best possible bill we could pass.
    Mr. Speaker, on any bill that comes through the House, the question can be asked whether it is the best bill. We believe this is the best bill we have for this time, for this place, for now, in protecting the privacy of Canadians who are working in this digital economy. We believe these things will strengthen PIPEDA and close the gaps. That is why we have submitted it.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his description of the balanced approach we have taken, in contradiction to the NDP's heavy-handed approach. I would like him to comment on how Bill S-4 would amend PIPEDA to reduce red tape for normal business activities.
    Mr. Speaker, our government understands the need for businesses to conduct normal, everyday activities, and not be inundated with red tape, while at the same time maintaining the privacy of Canadians.
     The digital privacy act proposes common sense changes that recognize that companies need access to and the use of personal information to conduct legitimate business activities, for example, taking a merger and acquisition process, an insurance claim, or sharing an employee's email address and fax number with another company in those circumstances. These important fixes were introduced in response to unanimous recommendations made during the first parliamentary review.
    The digital privacy act would reduce the unnecessary red tape for businesses, while also maintaining and protecting privacy rights for Canadians.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure for me to ask my colleague opposite a question on behalf of my constituents from Alfred-Pellan in Laval.
    In the bills that the Conservatives introduce, the devil is often in the details. When examining the proposals set out in Bill S-4, I had some concerns that I would like to raise.
    One of those concerns in particular reminds me of the nightmare of Bill C-51 and its lack of a proper oversight mechanism. Bill S-4 presents the same type of problem. It would allow greater access to personal information without a warrant and without provisions for an oversight mechanism.
    In fact, I am wondering why the Conservative government is working so hard to allow snooping without a warrant and why it is creating bigger holes with bills such as Bill S-4.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, while we look at what the question is about, we already have this information in the system. This is information that people have put online with businesses they are working with to ensure that information is used for legitimate businesses. There is no need for a warrant for those sorts of information unless some criminal activity is going on, in which case there would be a warrant. I do not think there is any relevance to that question, to be quite frank.
    Mr. Speaker, when we look at the process of Bill S-4, is it any wonder that Canadians look at Ottawa and come to the determination that Parliament is broken? There is a need for real change, and the Liberal Party of Canada will be advocating for that.
    Let us look at this bill. We have legislation before us that has some serious flaws. We had the opportunity in committee stage to make some changes with amendments. The majority government, over the years, has made the determination that it does not matter what kind of amendment it is if it comes from the opposition benches. It is an automatic default that amendments are bad unless they are Conservative amendments.
    Will the member not recognize that this bill is faulty in the sense that the many amendments that were brought forward, whether from the Liberal Party or other opposition members, did have some merit to them? Would he not acknowledge that fact?

  (1720)  

    Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting question.
     Of course there is some merit in all of these things. This bill was specifically designed to fix some of the issues in PIPEDA. It would provide that oversight with the Privacy Commissioner. It would do everything that we need to do to fix the issues for now. Some of the changes that were proposed were not accepted for those various reasons. They were looked at and therefore rejected.
    Mr. Speaker, I listen to the remarks of my hon. colleague from Don Valley East. He talked a bit about fighting financial abuse. He went on to say something related to making it easier to contact a family member or next of kin when financial abuse was suspected.
    Could the member tell us who might fall victim to this type of financial abuse and why the legislation is so important in order to protect these people?
    Mr. Speaker, there are several categories of people who are vulnerable: children who are now doing a lot more work online than many adults, and seniors who are also online and are likely to be subject to financial fraud, et cetera. The bill would allow for somebody to identify that there was a potential fraud taking place and would allow communication with somebody responsible for those people to analyze and see if these could be fixed. The bill ensures we make that provision for those people.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way another question about Bill S-4.
    According to some experts, many parts of Bill S-4 are unconstitutional. Why, then, will the government not simply take out the parts that are unconstitutional, especially in light of the Spencer ruling?
    I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, as we reviewed the bill in committee, issues of unconstitutionality were never raised. Therefore, there does not seem to be a problem with it from that perspective. Bills go through the usual process of legal assessment before they are put forward, to understand whether that is the case. I do not think there is anything in there that is unconstitutional.
    Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill S-4, which would amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, called PIPEDA. The bill has the rather misleading title of the digital privacy act.
    I will be speaking against this bill for a number of reasons that have been articulated very well in past debates by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville, our digital issues critic. She has brought in a bill of her own. The government took parts of it and did not go as far as it needed to, to actually protect the digital privacy of Canadians.
     I would like to, first, talk about why this is such an important bill. Second, I will talk about the history of getting it here. Last, I will talk about some of the critical problems with this bill and propose an amendment at the end of my remarks.
    E-commerce is the backbone of the modern Canadian economy and it is only going to be more important going forward. Think of our children and their use of digital material.
     My colleague, the member for Toronto—Danforth, made some comments about e-commerce and why this bill, which underscores legal protections for privacy and e-commerce, is so important. He said that the world's largest taxi company has no cars. It is the largest taxi company because it has personal information. It is called Uber.
    The world's largest accommodations company, Airbnb, owns no property, but it is the richest and largest company because it owns personal information. The world's largest retailer has absolutely no inventory. He was referring to Alibaba in China.
    As we move to what my colleague called the Internet of Things, by 2020, we will have 26 billion devices connected to the Internet. I hope that people appreciate that we are moving into an economy where we need to know the rules of the game and we need to know that our personal privacy in the private sector is protected. Business wants that certainty and consumers demand that what is left of their privacy be treated fairly by those private sector organizations that hold their information.
    Canada is really in a unique position on the planet. We are halfway between the European Union, which has a very aggressive data protection regime, and the United States, which has sectoral legislation but not a comprehensive private sector law like PIPEDA, the bill that is before us in its amended form.
    I say that we are halfway between those two regimes because, under PIPEDA, Canada has managed to create what is called a substantially similar regime to the European Union. That means that e-commerce companies in England, Ireland, France, and the 28 other countries that make up the EU can confidently share their personal information with Canadians because they know that they will have substantially similar protection. Canada achieved that. The United States does not have anything like that, so companies like Google and Facebook will often use Canada as a launching pad.
     If we can make privacy protection sufficient in Canada, it will likely be sufficient for Europeans, who have had the most stringent requirements of privacy on the planet. It is important that we get this right.
    It is amazing and very timely that we are having this debate at this time because on Monday of this week a clear signal was given by the Council of Ministers in the European Union that it is going to go for a regulation soon, not the directive that has been enforced for some time. After two years, all 28 countries will have to come up with an even more stringent regime.
    That is why this bill is so problematic. It would not help small business, as I will describe, and it certainly would not give consumers the protection that the courts say that they are entitled to. I refer to the case of Spencer in 2014, where warrantless searches were said to be not on for Canadians, yet they seem to be just fine in this bill, which is odd. We need it get it right from a commercial point of view, as well.
    I am indebted to Professor Michael Geist, who testified before the industry committee and the Senate, and who is so prolific and thoughtful in his analysis of private sector privacy legislation and other privacy regimes. He talks about how it is has taken us eight to nine years to get to this state.
    I wanted to talk about this because the government's ineptitude in helping the e-commerce industry that I talked about and protecting the privacy of Canadians is on full display in the history of this bill.

  (1725)  

    The Conservatives tell us that it is urgent, that we must get on with it. Well, that is because they have dropped the ball, as I will describe in many ways. It has taken eight or nine years to get to this situation.
    The Conservatives left an earlier version of a privacy bill sitting for two years in the House of Commons with no movement whatsoever and then it died at prorogation. How did that happen? In November 2006, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertook its hearings on this reform. That was one year later than the five-year review process required by the act.
    Just to back up, PIPEDA, the bill before us that is being amended, requires parliamentarians to review it after five years. They could not even get that deadline together.
    In 2007, there was a report recommending certain things be done. Nothing seemed to happen. First reading was in 2010 for Bill C-29, the first PIPEDA reform. Second reading of the bill was in October. In September 2011 there was the first reading of Bill C-12, the second attempt to reform PIPEDA. That never got past second reading. It died when the government prorogued. Then another bill, this Bill S-4 was introduced in April 2014. This was the third try. Three strikes are lucky, I guess.
    Here we are before Parliament with a bill that when it was in committee, the government said solemnly that it was urgent that we get on with it because it did not want to take a chance on any further delays and amendments. It is laughable the way the government treats the backbone of e-commerce, this privacy legislation. It has taken eight or nine years to get to where we are tonight. In the dying days of Parliament we are debating the legislation. It shows how important this must be to the government of the day.
    In my riding, where we have a thriving e-commerce industry, with start-ups trying to develop apps and so forth, the bill is important and the government treats it with a history of neglect, which is the best way I can put the ineptitude I have described.
    It is critical for small businesses, as I will describe, because they just do not have the wherewithal of large business to comply with some of the provisions of the legislation. I will come to that in a moment.
    What does the bill do? Some of the things it does right is that it has finally agreed with endless Privacy Commissioner recommendations that there ought to be mandatory breach disclosure. If there has been a breach of data by a company, where it is sent to the wrong place and suddenly my personal information is found in the back of a taxi cab on a data stick, someone has to be told about it. That is pretty simple and obviously long overdue. That is a good thing to have in the bill.
    Second, there are increased enforcement powers for the Privacy Commissioner, including the notion of compliance agreements that companies would enter into. This is a long-standing consumer protection approach that has now found its way into the bill.
    According to experts, such as Mr. Lawford, testifying on behalf of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, it would likely result in fewer reported breaches because it leaves the determination of whether a breach causes a real risk of significant harm entirely in the hands of the private sector companies.
    Do the words “conflict of interest” seem to come up? They do and that obvious conflict of interest is fatal to the purpose of the bill. Why is a company going to want to blow the whistle on itself? It seems a bit odd and others have suggested, as has my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, in her Bill C-475, that it ought to be for the Privacy Commissioner, an independent officer of Parliament, to pass on that, not the industries themselves. That was the subject of much criticism in the industry committee, which studied Bill S-4.
    That gives me a chance to talk about the attempt by the opposition to actually get meaningful debate in the industry committee. Since I got here, probably the most disappointing thing I have found is the government's utter indifference to any amendments unless they come from its side of the aisle.

  (1730)  

    There is an effort to have a real dialogue and to improve this and come up with a kind of unanimous support for something which is technical in nature, but the government said no to every single amendment, which, of course, in my experience is the way it does it every single time. I have been on two committees and I have not seen one amendment passed that anybody but the government proposes.
    Trying to co-operate with the government to do something which is at the backbone of the new economy and it will not even talk to us. Apparently, that is how the government wants to do business. Fortunately, like so many Canadians, I hope that these are the dying days of a government with such arrogance and indifference to what Canadians want.
    The efforts to try to fix this bill fell on deaf ears. My colleague, the digital critic from Terrebonne—Blainville, proposed that the Privacy Commissioner be the one who determined whether a data breach was significant enough to report, which makes sense, as opposed to the fox in the henhouse, where a company has to decided whether it is big or little.
     That is not for banks to decide, whether they weigh their reputational risk that they might have versus consumers' rights. I know who could do that, an officer of Parliament. That would be the right person to do that. That is what my colleague suggested. The Conservatives propose putting the burden on companies.
    Here is the problem with that, and not only the obvious conflict of interest but there are large companies, think banks, telecoms, companies of that size, that have departments that are responsible for privacy protection. More and more companies have what is called chief privacy officers to regulate this very technical area of the law.
    They do a good job sometimes, but they often have this penchant that they obviously feel when they are trying to protect privacy, which is their job description, and not make a career-limiting move when information that is disclosed could cause harm, and the company would be angry with them and shoot the messenger. I have talked to CPOs in companies that tell me that the conflict is alive and well and I can understand that.
    Small companies do not have these chief privacy officers, for example, to determine whether there is a significant breach or a significant risk of harm. They have no idea what to do. They want to co-operate, but they do not have the personnel or expertise to do it.
    My colleague reasonably suggested that we give them a little help by letting them have access to the Privacy Commissioner's expertise and resources. Is that not a common sense provision? Is that not one that would help those small start-ups in the e-commerce industry that would really like the opportunity to do the right thing but do not have the budget to do it?
    The economy in my community, the largest sector now, is not tourism or hospitality, it is high tech. The people who are producing the largest contribution to the Victoria economy are people who are just in this situation, wanting to understand the rules of the game in the new e-commerce, looking to the government to give them clarity, make it easy for them to do the right thing, so they can compete internationally, as they are doing so effectively, and to be onside with the European Union's incredibly stringent rules.
    Guess what? They do not have a CPO, paid $150,000 a year or whatever, like the large banks would. The government has done nothing to assist them and they are angry about it. They do not understand why this so-called business-friendly government simply does not get it.
    Some 18 amendments were proposed by the NDP and 18 amendments declined by the government of the day. We tried to work it out, but the government just wanted to jam it through. To add insult to injury, for the 97th time it used time allocation on a bill of a technical nature like this. I think the government is over 100 times now.
     In the history of Parliament, has there ever been a government that has done this more often? I certainly do not know. I want to study it. I have a student looking at this because the arrogance and the anti-democratic behaviour of the government has to be exposed. The 97th time was for a bill on digital privacy. It is shocking and shameful that we are in this world today with this government.
    The Supreme Court has told us that warrantless searches are wrong. They are unconstitutional. My colleague from Toronto—Danforth said we should send it to the court for a constitutional reference. We cannot have yet another loss in the Supreme Court. How many would that be? I have lost count. It is six or seven. How about having a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada?
    The leader of the opposition asked for that today with respect to Bill C-51. The government, of course, would never do that. It just wants to go lose again in the Supreme Court.

  (1735)  

    The Spencer case in 2014 established that warrantless searches are a bad thing. How can the government then put these searches into Bill S-4, the bill before us, and pretend it is going to be constitutional? It is great work for lawyers. I have many friends who welcome the government's position because it is a make-work project for constitutional lawyers, but is it helping the Canadian taxpayers? Is it helping the e-commerce businesses, those little businesses from coast to coast that are struggling in this international economy? Do they have the clarity they need to go forward? Why do we have to waste our time with yet another Supreme Court loss by the government? It makes no sense.
    Could the government have co-operated a little with people of good faith who wanted to make it better and solve this problem, as New Democrats tried to do in committee? One would think the government would welcome that, but it simply said no.
    My next point is kind of a technical thing, but I want to raise it. We talked about breach notification, and I want to give an idea of how complicated this is for the little mom-and-pop or individual family businesses that are now arising in the economy. Clause 10, which would add section 10.1 to PIPEDA, talks about the kind of notification that is required when there is a breach. I want to give an idea of how complicated this can be and how lack of clarity means something.
    Proposed subsection 10.1(5) says, “The notification shall be conspicuous and shall be given directly to the individual in the prescribed form and manner, except in prescribed circumstances, in which case it shall be given indirectly in the prescribed form and manner.”
     Three times the word “prescribed” is mentioned, which means it will be prescribed by regulation to follow later. There would be regulations that would define the kinds of things that would have to be done to give notification of a breach. However, as an example, let us take a small business that is trying to do the right thing. When there is a breach, it wants to notify people immediately. What is it going to do? Until there are regulations, it is utterly meaningless.
    I know the government will bring in regulations eventually. That is a good thing, and I am sure companies are looking forward to seeing them, but as they plan ahead in this incredibly dynamic sector, they do not have a clue, and neither do we. None of us can say what those prescribed requirements are, because “prescribed” means to follow later in regulations, regulations nowhere to be found. People will have to try to figure that out. People sitting in a little start-up in Victoria or St. John's or Toronto or Montreal will have to try understand how to work their way through this difficult bill.
    It is a history of neglect. It is a history of failure to listen to the opposition, which wanted to work together to create this regime. It has a history of eight or nine years in coming to the dying days of Parliament, but we should not worry, because it is urgent now, according to the Minister of Industry.
    New Democrats do not believe it.
    Therefore, I move:
    That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“this House decline to give third reading to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, because it:
a) threatens the privacy protections of Canadians by allowing for the voluntary disclosure of their personal information among organizations without the knowledge or consent of the individuals affected;
b) fails to eliminate loopholes in privacy law that allow the backdoor sharing of personal information between Internet service providers and government agencies;
c) fails to put in place a supervision mechanism to ensure that voluntary disclosures are made only in extreme circumstances;
d) does not give the Privacy Commissioner of Canada adequate order-making powers to enforce compliance with privacy law; and
e) proposes a mandatory data-breach reporting mechanism that will likely result in under-reporting of breaches.”

  (1740)  

    The amendment is in order.
    Questions and comments, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague really put his finger on the problem, which is rather widespread and applies to other bills besides the one before us today.
    For instance, following public pressure, the government unfortunately had to withdraw Bill C-30 from the order paper. However, there was also Bill C-51 and Bill C-13 on cybercrime. Now we are talking about Bill S-4, which completely destroys Canada's privacy protection regime. It waters down the criteria for obtaining warrants and, in some cases, even allows authorities to access the personal information of Canadians without a warrant.
    I wonder whether the member could tell us just how troubled he is that this government says here in the House and elsewhere that it wants to protect Canadians, and yet it introduces a number of bills, like Bill C-51, Bill C-13 and Bill S-4, that put Canadians' privacy at risk.

  (1745)  

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for her observation and her very pointed question. It helps put in context what we are talking about today.
    The member referenced Bill C-30. That was the infamous bill where the former minister of public safety and emergency preparedness told us that we either stood with the government or we stood with child pornographers. Members will remember that. I know that I will never forget it. I was standing up for the privacy rights of Canadians. To be told we were in that box may have been the low point of this House, but there may have been others. It was shocking.
    Bill C-51 is another example. There have been articles written as recently as today. I saw one entitled “Stumbling toward Total Information Awareness: The Security of Canada Information Sharing Act”. It is an article about the bill that is part of Bill C-51. Total information awareness: anyone who has studied the United States legislation in this regard will know what the reference is to.
    The shameful protection of our civil liberties, of which privacy is just one, is emblematic of the current Conservative government. We can hardly wait for Canadians to be given the choice on October 19 to change all of that.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from British Columbia for his excellent speech. I would like to give him a chance to expound a bit on his point, which I think is correct, that given the history behind the bill, there is no urgent need to pass it today.
    We would gain much by passing the best possible bill, given all the amendments raised in committee by opposition members of Parliament, based on expert testimony. We do not need to pass the bill today. We could pass a better bill later this year or early next year.
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands and recognize his efforts in this regard. I wish him well as he leaves this place. His contribution has been very important, and on this particular point, I could not agree with him more.
    There were 28 amendments offered. We worked on the rules of the committee in order to get them in under the McGrath procedure, but all of them were rejected by the government in what can only be described, frankly, as a mean-spirited way.
    I would rather have no bill than the bill before us. I think that is the burden of the hon. member's remarks, and I think that is absolutely right. After all, it is nine years out of date anyway. It has so many problems it will be found unconstitutional anyway. Why do we not do it right? I think that is what the member is saying.
    Bill C-475, from the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, would have gone some distance. It would not have allowed warrantless searches, for one thing. It would not have allowed companies to decide what a significant risk of harm is if there is a breach. It would have done so many things that would have been so much more consistent with how Canadians used to do business and how we used to protect our rights and freedoms.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and neighbour from Victoria for an excellent speech.
    I also want to pay particular tribute to another member of his caucus, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, who had put forward, as he mentioned in his speech, an excellent private member's bill, which would have gone much further in dealing with the current issues that this bill fails to grapple with effectively. We missed opportunities here, and I agree that after so many years of inaction it is a shame to pass a bill that could be so efficaciously improved.
    I also had amendments before committee in clause-by-clause study that were similar to those put forward by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville, and they were all rejected, so I lament that.
     Perhaps my research has not been as exhaustive as the research the hon. member's student is now doing, but I did examine the records of this place for time allocations when they first began to be used routinely. I found seven examples of time allocation between 1920 and 1954. As we all know, in the last four years we have experienced 100 time allocations. I am 99% certain that the Conservative administration in this Parliament has broken all records for shutting down debate by an order of magnitude.

  (1750)  

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and neighbour from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her thoughtful intervention. I would appreciate sharing research with her on the issue of parliamentary decline, which her comment addressed.
    There may be a some Commonwealth country in Africa that has done this more often. There may be some parliamentary democracy that I am unaware of that has done this, and that is the research I want to do. I believe that it may be a parliamentary record in the entire Commonwealth from Westminster to Zimbabwe, but I do not know, because I have not looked at Zimbabwe's record. However, it would not surprise me if we have achieved a record in this place in moving time allocation 100 times to curtail democratic debate.
    Canadians should be aghast, they should be ashamed, and they should try to figure out how we can create a new government that would no longer put up with this if we are to be a democracy any longer.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
    What I found really interesting about his speech was the way he put the bill into context. All of a sudden, at the last minute, the government decided that the Senate bill is urgent.
    I would like to remind everyone that in 2010 the President of the Treasury Board, who was then the minister of industry, started a discussion about a digital economy strategy, a public consultation that never saw the light of day and that never produced any results. I think that when a bill like this comes from the Senate, that is pretty simplistic.
    Given the growing importance of the digital economy and our digital lives, broadly speaking, does my colleague not think that we should simply drop this bill and rethink government regulations relating to the digital world?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very thoughtful question. I think it might make better sense to simply drop this bill and come up with a better bill along the lines of the one put forward by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, but even that is getting out of date. This economy is moving very quickly, and given the kinds of protections that are needed, we obviously should be thinking five years down the road, not nine years behind us.
    It is true that the bill does come from the Senate. Then it went to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in February of 2015. At that point the Minister of Industry said he was open to changes, but the government warned that any amendments would mean the bill would go back to the Senate for approval and likely die with the fall election. The minister emphasized that “there is some urgency” with this bill.
    Why create law that we know to be bad? Why create law that is going to be found unconstitutional once again? Why do that when the industry wants more certainty, not less certainty? In my remarks, I gave an example of one clause that deals with the prescribed form and manner of notification, and in it there are three references to regulations that are not out there.
     We have no idea what this is all going to mean. It is a complete joke.
    Industry deserves better. Canadians protecting their privacy deserve better. Small business deserves better. We can do better.