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.
41st PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 082
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
House of Commons Debates
|
l |
|
l |
|
l |
|
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer
[Statements by Members]
[English]
It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, led by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
[Members sang the national anthem]
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Trinity Western University
Mr. Speaker, Trinity Western University, near my community, is opening up a law school. The Law Society of British Columbia will allow Trinity law grads to practise in B.C. when they pass their bar exams. However, the Law Societies of Ontario and Nova Scotia have decided they will not let Trinity law grads practise. Surprisingly, the reason is not because of academic standards. The decisions were entirely political.
The Ontario and Nova Scotia law societies simply do not like Trinity's Christian code of conduct for its students. In an age that highly values tolerance, this discrimination is the height of intolerance. It is a clear violation of these would-be lawyers' charter right to freedom of religion. The rule of law requires that law societies treat all applicants equally. Trinity is now going to court to defend the rights of its students.
I call on the Ontario and Nova Scotia law societies to reverse themselves and for the Manitoba and New Brunswick societies, which are considering the issue, to do the right thing.
[Translation]
Canadian Network for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health
Mr. Speaker, in honour of Mother's Day, we would like to applaud the Canadian Network for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, a network that is composed of 70 NGOs, educational institutions, and professional associations that are working to improve the lives of women and children in developing countries.
There is an urgent need to speed up progress and place a high priority on reaching the most vulnerable women, newborns, and children.
[English]
Last month the executive director of the United Nations Population Fund reminded us of the importance of universal access to quality reproductive and sexual health and rights for all. Canada should ensure that our maternal, newborn and child health policy respects these rights.
I thank the Canadian Network for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health for its excellent work.
[Translation]
Happy Mother's Day!
[English]
City of Sarnia
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to congratulate the city of Sarnia on its centennial.
One hundred years ago today, the Duke of Connaught, then Governor General of Canada, arrived with his daughter Princess Patricia to lend royal prestige to Sarnia's inauguration.
Grain elevators, lake-going ships, and trains defined life in the early 20th century in the city. The timber, oil, and agricultural sectors were major parts of its early culture. Sarnia's port was one of the busiest in Canada.
The Great Western Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway played important roles in Sarnia's growth and eventually led to the expansion of Imperial Oil. The Polymer Corporation was created in 1942 to manufacture synthetic rubber during the war, which established Sarnia as a major petrochemical centre.
Today, Sarnia still stands as a bastion of innovation. The biofuels sector leads a renaissance of the petrochemical industry, and new eco-friendly projects are commonplace. Also, our mayor, Mike Bradley, is one of the longest-serving mayors in all of Canada.
Today, on behalf of all members of the House, I commend Sarnia on its centennial.
[Translation]
University of Ottawa
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the University of Ottawa's Alumni Day, which my alma mater will be celebrating on Friday, May 9.
On the occasion of the University of Ottawa's Alumni Week 2014, I would like to recognize the some 89,000 graduates of this institution who live and work in the national capital region.
The University of Ottawa, a world-class research and educational institution, is the world's largest bilingual university and makes a significant contribution to our regional economy. Its graduates are at the very heart of our vibrant communities.
[English]
On this special day, it is with great pride that I, as one of its graduates, call upon all citizens to celebrate the success of this post-secondary educational institution. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, along with several other of our colleagues from all parties who are also University of Ottawa alumni, to proudly wear our school colours, the garnet and grey, and to attend some of the events planned on campus for the rest of this week.
Patriotism in Stromont--Dundas--South Glengarry
Mr. Speaker, in less than two months Canada will be celebrating her 147th birthday.
For 147 years, Canadians from all walks of life have contributed to create a country that is the envy of the world.
This country was built on the backs of giants, the proud men and women who went before us.
The constituents of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry are also very proud of this magnificent country, and we show it. For the past seven years, thousands and thousands of residents of SDSG have proudly displayed a Canadian flag at their homes each and every July 1. As a matter of fact, the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry has claimed the title of “Most Patriotic Riding in Canada” six out of the last seven years.
Every resident in my wonderful riding is truly proud to be a Canadian, and that is why I encourage each and every constituent of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry to again proudly display our glorious maple leaf this July 1.
Multiple Sclerosis
Mr. Speaker, this is the third year that I rise to speak about multiple sclerosis. I do so in the hope of a cure, as my family is among the thousands in Canada directly affected by MS. My brother Chris has suffered from this disease for years, and it is getting worse.
There is research ongoing to find a cure, funded in part by the Ministry of Health and the MS Society. My brother, who is 60, is not confident that a cure will be found in his lifetime. He and others are upset with how the investigation into CCSVI, a possible therapy, is going. There are issues of co-operation with other researchers in the United States. One can understand their frustration as this disease progresses.
What are the things we can do to help MS victims and their families while a cure is being found? We can make it easier for people with MS and other episodic disabilities to keep working. We can improve income support, such as employment insurance, for people with MS who are unable to work or who can only work intermittently.
I hope all members of this House would support these initiatives for which families with MS are asking.
Asian Heritage Month
Mr. Speaker, in May 2002, the Government of Canada signed an official declaration to designate the month of May as Asian Heritage Month.
Based on the 2011 census, there are over five million Asian Canadians from all over the world, representing approximately 12% of the Canadian population, all contributing to the unique and cultural society that Canadians value.
This month we will celebrate the heritage and history of Asian Canadians who have made notable contributions to this great country, a country that is one of the most culturally diverse in the world.
It is this diversity that strengthens Canada socially, politically and economically in monumental ways. Asian Heritage Month is a celebration where cities and communities across Canada will embrace and celebrate the values and customs of Asian Canadians. Let us embrace and celebrate the wide range of Asian cultures, ethnicities and traditions present in Canada.
These celebrations will be held across Canada, including in my riding of Willowdale. I invite all Canadians to take part in the festivities and celebrations that honour the contributions of Asian Canadians.
Multiple Sclerosis
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the highest rate of multiple sclerosis in the world. Not only do 100,000 Canadians live with MS, but their families, friends, and communities live with MS as well.
Today, I am wearing a carnation to support 1 Day in May, a campaign to raise awareness of MS and the impacts on those who are affected.
Canadians living with MS and their caregivers cope with the challenges of a demanding illness that comes and goes and worsens over time. This affects their employment and financial security.
People in this situation need options that support their continued employment, while respecting the daily challenges that they face. I urge each of us, at least one day in May, to effect positive change in the life of someone with MS.
Let us also commit to ending MS in our lifetime.
[Translation]
Mothers Without Status
Mr. Speaker, with Mother's Day coming up on Sunday, I would like to take about Ivonne Hernandez Segura, whose asylum claim was rejected and who is facing deportation.
Ms. Hernandez was the victim of serious domestic violence in her country of origin; that is a recognized fact. In 2012, Ms. Hernandez became pregnant. She was the subject of a deportation order. Therefore, she could not access the health care she needed for a reasonable cost. Nevertheless, she gave birth to her first child on Canadian soil. Her relationship with the father deteriorated, she once again became a victim of domestic violence, and she was forced to flee.
Shortly before she was to be deported, amid strong public support, the court postponed proceedings, citing the irreparable damage that would be caused if she were to be deported and separated from her son, who was 14 months old at the time.
As a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada has a duty to act in the best interests of the child. I seriously doubt that separating the child from his mother and deporting her is in his best interests.
I rise in the House today on behalf of Ivonne Hernandez and all mothers without status who are in a similar situation to say that we can do better. We must do better.
[English]
Mom-Mentum Mother's Day Tea
Mr. Speaker, today I attended the Mom-mentum Mother's Day Tea, hosted by the Canadian Network for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. This important event highlights the significant work being done worldwide by Canadian partners and the Canadian government to save more mothers and children.
Canada has taken a leadership role in addressing the health challenges faced by women, newborns and children. Our G8 Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn and child health will save the lives of millions of moms and babies.
Later this month Canada will host a summit where civil society, private sector, global and Canadian leaders in health will come together to build a consensus on where to focus efforts to maximize results for those in need.
As the Prime Minister stated, “But when the need is great and the cause is just, Canadians are always there. And we always will be. Because that is what Canadians do”.
Canadians can be proud of our record of saving moms and babies.
National Day of Honour
Mr. Speaker, this Friday, the nation will pause to honour the brave Canadian women and men who served in Afghanistan and who too often made the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our most cherished values.
[Translation]
The Canadian mission in Afghanistan lasted over 12 years and cost the lives of more than 160 Canadians, including a diplomat, a journalist and two civilian contractors.
On behalf of New Democrats from sea to sea, I would like to thank the brave men and women who served in Afghanistan, as well as their families.
We will never forget your sacrifice.
[English]
As we mark the end of the mission, let us recommit to ensuring a peaceful future for Afghanistan and let us recommit to ensuring that all our vets get the support they need and deserve.
[Translation]
Our soldiers carried out their mission. Now it is our turn to carry out ours.
[English]
Violence Against Women
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the world was outraged to learn of the kidnapping of almost 300 Nigerian schoolgirls from their schools by a terrorist organization, Boko Haram, in Nigeria. Yesterday, we learned that this group has kidnapped another eight young girls.
Violence against children must be met with swift action and justice. Girls, regardless of the country they live in, should be able to pursue an education and a future free from the fear of slavery, violence, and sexual abuse. For we all know that a country's successful development is a result of the empowerment of its women and girls.
The Government of Canada has strongly condemned these kidnappings in Nigeria, and the Minister of International Development has offered Canada's assistance to the Nigerian government as it works to secure the release of these young girls. Canada will continue to fight injustice and gender violence and promote the human rights and safety of women and girls worldwide.
Komagata Maru
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the centennial anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident, a dark moment in Canada's history.
It was on May 23, 1914, when a ship called the Komagata Maru anchored in the Burrard Inlet just outside of Vancouver. However, due to Canada's exclusion laws during that time, the migrants were not allowed to get off the small boat, which was a former coal ship. On board were British subjects of Indian heritage, including 12 Hindus, 24 Muslims, and 340 Sikhs, all of whom had come to start a new life here in Canada. The small ship was forced to return to India 60 days after its arrival, with 326 men, women, and children who were never allowed to get off the former coal cargo boat.
In 2008, the Liberal Party motion called on the government to apologize. The motion passed unanimously. As we mark what will be the 100th anniversary of this tragic event, I would ask that the Prime Minister provide a formal apology here on the floor of the House of Commons this month.
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, recently I saw a letter from the son of a 92-year-old World War II veteran with limited mobility, who inquired about the Meals on Wheels program for his father. Within five minutes of phoning Veterans Affairs, that veteran's request was approved. His son was very grateful for that and for the other great service the family has received.
Thankfully, veterans in Canada do have a wide range of means to access the benefits and services they need, and I am glad this veteran's son took advantage of it. I have heard from many veterans who rely on the great service they receive from Veterans Affairs Canada, but we can always do better.
To that end, I am very pleased to say that all 10 members of the veterans affairs committee are working hard together to make meaningful recommendations so that our courageous and deserving veterans can have fast and easy access to the benefits they need and deserve.
[Translation]
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing with the Conservatives' incompetence for three years now. They are incapable of replacing our troops' fighter jets, incapable of ensuring home mail delivery, incapable of protecting Canadians' personal information, and incapable of ensuring rail safety.
Yesterday, the Auditor General added another layer: prison population management does not take into account the adoption of the Conservatives' own policies, which is counterproductive and dangerous for employees.
Also, Statistics Canada data are no longer reliable because of the Conservatives' attack on the long form census.
This long list of abuses is not surprising because it is always the same thing with them: no planning, governing by headlines, and using victims of crime and soldiers for self-promotion. Meanwhile, investing money for resources, for example, is out of the question because the government has to balance the budget before the next election.
Canadians deserve better. They deserve a competent government that does more than just pretend to represent their interests. For that, they can obviously count on the NDP.
[English]
Venezuela
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned by the protests that began in early February in cities across Venezuela. We are saddened by the more than 40 deaths and thousands of arrests.
Our government has reiterated on numerous occasions its support for the right of peaceful protest and freedom of expression for all citizens of Venezuela. Canada recognizes the need for Venezuela to observe due process of law with regard to those who are detained during the protests, as well as for political leaders such as Ms. Machado, a democratically elected member of the national assembly who is facing removal from elected office for her efforts to draw attention to the situation in her country.
We also call on authorities to release those who have been arbitrarily detained. Our government continues to urge both sides to engage in meaningful and respectful dialogue and address the political divisions within the country.
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, today Nigeria is asking for assistance in locating 270 school girls kidnapped by the terrorist group, Boko Haram.
Can the Prime Minister please tell Canadians what assistance Canada is willing to provide to deal with this horrific crime?
Mr. Speaker, once again, let me repeat what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said yesterday.
We condemn what has gone on with Boko Haram in the strongest possible terms. This is truly a crime against innocent individuals and we are very concerned by the growth of what is a very extreme terrorist organization.
Obviously, there have been discussions between our government authorities in Nigeria. We are willing to provide a range of assistance and that offer, of course, remains open.
[Translation]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 11 former presidents of the Canadian Bar Association condemned the Prime Minister for the unfounded and gratuitous accusations he made against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Today, the Council of Canadian Law Deans called the Prime Minister's remarks an “unprecedented attack on one of the most important institutions of Canada's constitutional democracy”.
Will the Prime Minister finally apologize to the chief justice for this shameful attack?
Mr. Speaker, last week it was alleged that I was not aware of an issue regarding the eligibility of judges for appointment to the Supreme Court.
I was fully aware of the issue and, at the same time, I expressed my concerns about the possibility that this issue could be brought before the courts. For that reason, I consulted independent experts. We accepted the advice of those experts and that was the appropriate course of action.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Federal Court is keeping open the lawsuit challenging the Prime Minister's appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court in case the Prime Minister should try to reappoint him. Apparently, the Federal Court does not think the Prime Minister has been very clear on that question.
Will the Prime Minister state, once and for all, that he will not try in any way, shape or form to reappoint Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, once again, we have been very clear on that question. The government will follow the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada. I repeat again, of course, that we agree with the majority decision.
I would point out the difficulty that this is going to create going forward. This means that Quebec judges will have less opportunity in our court system. This means that judges from Quebec on the Federal Court will be second-class judges without the same eligibility requirements as their colleagues from other parts of the country. It also means that we will have increasing difficulty recruiting Quebec judges for the Federal Court and maintaining it as an important national institution. However, that is the decision and we will abide by it.
[Translation]
Veterans
Mr. Speaker, according to Acadie Nouvelle, the Conservatives apparently asked a 91-year-old veteran to pay for his airfare out of his own pocket in order to attend the ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Normandy. This is not the first time that we have heard about Canadian soldiers and their families being asked to pay their own way to attend memorial ceremonies.
All we are asking the Prime Minister is whether or not this report is true. If it is, what will he do about it?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I know nothing about this case. However, I can assure the House of Commons that it is the government's policy to pay the travel expenses of our veterans.
Despite the age of these veterans, we have a large delegation, and I will be proud to be with them in Normandy.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Conservatives had to be publicly shamed into paying for the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan to attend the memorial in Ottawa this Friday. Now, there are reports that Conservatives are asking World War II veterans to pay to attend the 70th-anniversary memorial in Normandy.
All we are asking, therefore, is for the Prime Minister to guarantee, which is a very simple thing to say, that no Canadian World War II veteran will be asked to pay their own way for those D-Day memorials. Yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I have to correct what the leader of the NDP said in his preamble. The government has made clear from the outset its intention to pay for all the families of the fallen and to make sure that their costs are covered for the Afghan ceremony on May 9. We are very proud to do that.
Also, we are taking a very large delegation of veterans with us to the D-Day ceremonies, and of course, as has always been our policy, we will make sure that veterans do not pay their own costs for that.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's attack on the Supreme Court was beneath the office that he holds. Canadians across the country have noticed that the Prime Minister has still not withdrawn his remarks about the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Will he do so now?
Mr. Speaker, once again, as I have said before, it was alleged last week by another source that the government, myself particularly, were not properly informed of issues of eligibility on the Supreme Court appointment. As I said, that is clearly not the case. In fact, because I was fully aware of this matter and also aware of the fact that it could be brought before the courts, and eventually was brought before the courts, we decided to seek advice from outside the courts from independent experts, and we followed that advice. Those actions on my part, and on the part of the government, were entirely appropriate.
Employment
Mr. Speaker, we hear more examples every day from the broken temporary foreign worker program: a crane operator in Vernon, with 37 years' experience, who lost his job because of the program; a high school fast food worker, whose hours were cut by two-thirds as guest workers were brought in; or Canadian pilots who, according to the labour minister, are seeing their wages driven down by temporary foreign pilots.
Tonight will the Prime Minister vote for our plan to fix his mess?
Mr. Speaker, once again, the government has for some time been recognizing some of the problems. That is why in the past three years we have brought in a series of reforms and continue to bring in reforms, reforms that have in fact lowered the application intake by 30%. We have done that in spite of the fact that the Liberal Party has voted against those reforms and the Liberal Party members have constantly been lobbying the government and lobbying the minister to bring in more foreign workers, something the member himself has done. Obviously, we are going in a very different direction than the Liberal Party.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the number of temporary foreign works across the country has doubled since this government came to power. Although the Minister of Employment and Social Development insists on claiming that there is no problem, we know that the program is being abused and mismanaged.
Will the Prime Minister vote in favour of overhauling this broken program this evening?
Mr. Speaker, in the past three years the government has made improvements to the program and has implemented rules to strengthen it. These measures helped lower the application intake by 30%, despite the fact that the Liberal Party voted against all of these reforms and that Liberal Party members are still lobbying us to bring more temporary foreign workers into their ridings.
Our approach is obviously quite different from that of the Liberal Party, which wants to expand the program.
[English]
Pensions
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General noted that he found a pattern across the Conservative government. It was a pattern of simply reacting to events, not planning and thinking of the longer term. In particular, he looked at the public sector pensions.
The President of the Treasury Board has already actually nodded in agreement and said that he agrees with the Auditor General's report, but can he tell us how he got into a situation where there is no long-term analysis of these three pension plans to ensure that they are actually sustainable for the longer term for those beneficiaries and for Canadian taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in response to the Auditor General's report, we are in broad agreement that governance issues respecting those plans should always be reviewed and that there should be greater collaboration and greater expression to the taxpayers on how these plans are actually governed. That is the direction the government was going in, in any event.
On the question of sustainability, though, I can say that we have taken action as a government to make sure that taxpayers pay only 50% of the cost of the public sector pension benefits. We have raised the maximum pension age to 65. These are things that make sure that this pension plan will be sustainable for the future and for the taxpayers.
Northern Economic Development
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General also outlined how Conservatives have bungled the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency from the start.
The government has failed to create a real headquarters in the north and has no plans to do so. Thirty-five per cent of CanNor's staff are in Ottawa, compared to less than a third in Iqaluit. One senior position was even filled by a person who lives in Iqaluit but was moved to Ottawa.
Why is the minister moving northerners to Ottawa instead of creating a northern headquarters, as she promised?
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency accepts the Auditor General's recommendations, and the minister has already given the agency clear instructions to immediately improve its administrative procedures.
We will continue to make record investments in the north to help foster a strong northern economy that creates jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for the benefit of northerners and all Canadians. We will do it without a $20 billion NDP carbon tax.
[Translation]
Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, SNC-Lavalin managed to get a $6 billion contract over 10 years to manage federal buildings.
This led to expenses that included $2,000 for two plants, $5,000 to change six light bulbs, $1,000 for a doorbell and $36,000 to clean the Minister of International Development's office. It was essentially an open bar.
However, we learned in the Auditor General's report that was released yesterday that the next contract for federal buildings will be worth double the amount.
What does the minister plan to do to prevent this kind of abuse?
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance, tax evasion and tax avoidance costs Canadians billions every year, but when the Auditor General asked the Department of Finance how it planned to crack down on these tax cheats, his department stonewalled and actually hid documents from the Auditor General.
When will the minister give up on his “hear no evil, see no evil” approach to tax cheats and hand over all the documents the Auditor General needs to do his important work?
Mr. Speaker, let me just reply to the comments regarding the availability of documents. Of course, for over 40 years, there has been a consistent government approach when it comes to cabinet confidences. We are applying that approach, “we” meaning the public officials, because of course, the politicians do not get to make those decisions.
However, there are other ways we can co-operate with the Auditor General, and we will find ways to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I guess he just figured out the pecking order in cabinet. It is déjà vu all over again for this minister. Either he is unwilling or is unable to answer basic questions about his files.
Maybe hiding information is common practice on Bay Street, but it is not acceptable when he is the Minister of Finance and it is the Auditor General who is demanding important documents from his department. The Auditor General said he was surprised the Conservatives refused to hand over these documents.
Why is the minister hiding information about billions in tax avoidance and lost revenues? When will he actually get tough on tax crime?
Mr. Speaker, I will say it again for the record. These are cabinet confidences. Public officials other than governmental officials, politicians, and cabinet ministers get to make those decisions.
This is in compliance with a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. I thought the hon. members on the other side supported the Supreme Court of Canada, but maybe not.
Employment
Mr. Speaker, We can all count on Conservatives for one thing: they are always happy to play fast and loose with the facts. However, the Auditor General is just the latest person to point out problems with the government's numbers.
This is the same information used to determine labour market opinions for companies applying for temporary foreign workers.
How does the minister expect Canadians to trust this program when the job data it is based on is so unreliable?
Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the member that she is mistaken. The data to which she refers has nothing to do with approvals under the temporary foreign worker program.
Moreover, I have been consistent in saying that we do not have general labour shortages. However, we do appear to have sectoral and regional skills gaps, which she, I believe, has herself recognized. We need to do a better job with respect to labour market information generally to inform the public discourse on the skills gap. The key thing is that we all work together to prepare Canadians for the jobs of the future. That is why we are pleased to have delivered the Canada job grant.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives knew for over two years and did nothing. No wonder that minister keeps trying to distract with his attacks on the NDP.
Even the Minister of Labour raised the alarm about hiring foreign airline crews due to concerns that wages would be driven down and Canadians would lose their jobs. For years now, the minister has ignored the warnings and failed workers in Canada.
Why is the minister still dragging his feet instead of fixing the mess he made of this program?
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister pointed out, last year we further tightened the program, which has resulted in a 20% to 30% reduction in the number of labour market opinion applications. Employers are now facing sanctions, including being added to the blacklist if they have not complied with the rules of the program.
We are well on our way to finalizing the second package of reforms to address abuses of the program and any aspects of it which may be resulting in distortions in the Canadian labour market.
I invite from her, or colleagues in any of the parties, constructive and specific ideas about how we can strike that appropriate balance between legitimate labour mobility and protecting the Canadian worker.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government was warned a number of times about problems with the temporary foreign worker program. Conservative MPs even sounded the alarm two years ago about Canadian airline pilots and flight attendants being replaced by foreign workers. However, nothing changed. The ministers at the time passed the buck.
Today, how can we believe the Minister of Employment and Social Development's claim that he wants to change the program when, two years ago, he did nothing, even when his own caucus alerted him to problems?
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member is mistaken in saying that nothing has changed. On the contrary, we changed and tightened the program rules a year ago. We extended the mandatory period for which employers seeking foreign workers must advertise positions. We added a number of questions to the applications for labour market opinions. We introduced application fees, which has caused the number of applications to drop by 20% to 30%. We will be making even more changes in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker program is the victim of the incompetence of successive Liberal and Conservative governments and a lack of reliable data.
The monthly data from Statistics Canada do not show where the job vacancies are in a given province. The tools used by the Conservatives do not distinguish between Fort McMurray and Medicine Hat. The Conservatives do not even know if there is a lack of architects or medical researchers.
Does the problem not come down to the fact that the minister is no more reliable than his data?
Mr. Speaker, as I have said a hundred times, Canada is not experiencing a general labour shortage. However, we do appear to have sectoral and regional skills gaps. Many NDP members have recognized and admitted that this is true.
I must point out that last Friday, the NDP participated in a press conference in Vancouver to say that the moratorium on the food service industry's access to the program must be lifted. The NDP's position is completely inconsistent.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report this week says StatsCan is not collecting good enough jobs data, and the Minister of Employment himself has just admitted we need better labour market data.
The government's evisceration of data collection makes for bad policy. It is like driving blindfolded. Southwestern Ontario has seen a huge influx of temporary foreign workers, but we have no way of knowing what sectors they are working in.
Will the Conservatives reverse their cuts to StatsCan so we can have better data and better policy for all Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, in fact, contrary to what the member just said, we do have a very good idea of what sectors those workers are working in. I have in front of me the report on labour market opinions issued for temporary foreign workers in the Windsor area, and the overwhelming majority of these LMOs were issued for industrial instrument technicians and mechanics for less than six months. These would typically be people who are installing equipment, equipment that is purchased from perhaps the United States. They come up here to either repair or install equipment.
If she would bother to speak to the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, they would tell her that without these repair people, the equipment in the factories would stop producing and all the jobs would be lost.
Mr. Speaker, there is clearly discord in the Conservative caucus on temporary foreign workers, but yesterday the minister made it crystal clear that he takes the advice of his colleagues so seriously that he leaps into action when they express their concerns. Let us test this theory.
The member for Souris—Moose Mountain has asked the government to lift the ban on the food services sector within weeks. Will the minister leap to comply with this request from a valued colleague?
Mr. Speaker, the member he cites said exactly the same thing I did, which is that we intend to lift the moratorium when we announce the second series of reforms to the temporary foreign worker program, which we hope to release in a few weeks.
However, the real problem here is the total incoherence of the Liberal Party. On one day a member will say to shut down the program. Then another one will scamper over here to ask for a whole bunch more temporary foreign workers in his or her constituency, and then yesterday some other members said the program is very important and should be defended.
I cannot figure out which of the many positions of the Liberal Party is the official one.
Mr. Speaker, every Liberal and MP believes this is a good program if it is administered properly, but because these people have made such a huge mess of it, there is no choice but for MPs to represent their constituents.
Here is example two. A year after the labour minister expressed her concerns about airlines favouring temporary foreign pilots over Canadian pilots, the minister's department told him it had gone ahead and the foreign pilots had been hired anyway.
Why does he brush off these serious concerns of his own labour minister, as he did for the MP I mentioned in the first question?
Perhaps the audio system is not working over there, Mr. Speaker. I said I agreed with the member's comment.
Second, it is not politicians who make the decisions in administrative law. It is highly trained officials acting independently. If he would like to stand in judgment of the LMO applications, we know that the restaurants in his riding for which he is advocating will be getting temporary foreign workers.
By the way, yesterday Liberal MPs said the program was just fine under Liberal administration and we should revert to their rules. I guess that means bringing back the Liberals' stripper program.
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, a recent American government report is sounding the alarm about the disastrous consequences of climate change.
The situation is troubling straight across the continent. Climate change is not some distant problem. It is a tangible reality that is getting harder and harder to afford. In fact, it is more costly to do nothing than to take action.
In light of this report, will the Conservatives finally take action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we are taking action. Our sector-by-sector approach is working. It is part of our government's commitment to protecting our environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong. Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals. This is equivalent to shutting down 37 coal-fired electricity-generating plants.
We are accomplishing this without the $20 billion Liberal-NDP job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.
Mr. Speaker, it seems “ecosystem” and “sustainability” mean nothing to the government, so I will try using some words that even a Conservative minister can understand.
Jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity will be severely hurt if we refuse to act on—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I think some members were a little premature in their applause. I will ask them to hold off until the member is finished putting the question.
The hon. member for Halifax has the floor.
They almost got there, Mr. Speaker.
Jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity will actually be hurt if we do not act on climate change. The new American report tells us that the situation is alarming, yet inaction seems to be the central policy of the minister.
When will the government do the right thing and, at the very least, regulate the emissions coming from the oil and gas sector?
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that we are working with the oil and gas sector and working with the provinces to make sure that we get these regulations right.
Let us compare. She talked about the NDP's position versus our position. Our sector-by-sector approach is working. What does the NDP offer? It offers a job-killing carbon tax.
That is our approach versus their approach. The NDP is all tax and no action; our actions are getting the job done.
Employment Insurance
Order. It is an easy fix. The hon. member has to refer to his colleagues by riding or title but not proper name, so if he can make that adjustment I think the House would appreciate it.
The hon. member can finish putting his question.
Mr. Speaker, more Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque, so when they go on parental leave or sick leave they cannot afford to be left hanging, yet 82% of Canadians who make a claim under EI are waiting more than 28 days before they even get a response. In my riding, I have heard from a number of constituents who are barely getting by while they wait for a claim to be processed.
How could the minister claim that cuts to Service Canada are not having an impact, and what is he going to do to correct this problem right now?
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that Service Canada is actually progressively reducing the wait times, and 68% of applications are being finalized within four weeks of the application being made, which is 28 days. We continue to move closer toward the targeted service standard.
I have just received a report from my parliamentary secretary, who is looking at further efficiencies that could be made so that we can ensure that people get their benefits in a timely fashion.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the inevitable. As reported in Le Devoir this morning, and as the NDP has been saying since the employment insurance reform was implemented, the most recent assessment report indicates that only 38% of the unemployed qualify for benefits. What a sorry record.
Before the Liberals and the Conservatives took an axe to the program, 85% of unemployed Canadians had access to employment insurance.
When will the government improve the employment insurance program so that workers who have lost their job can get assistance?
Mr. Speaker, the figures that the member mentioned are in no way reflective of reality because they include workers who voluntarily left their job. The figures also include people who worked only for a few weeks and are not eligible for employment insurance.
In fact, more than 85% of unemployed people who apply for employment insurance benefits are receiving them. The program is there for the unemployed, so that they can find good jobs.
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, our government remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine. We will not stand idly by while its sovereignty and its territorial integrity are being threatened.
We have shown strong support for the people of Ukraine and the NATO alliance with a commitment of six CF-18 fighter jets, the frigate HMCS Regina, and the participation of Canadian army soldiers in Exercise Orzel Alert in Poland.
Can the Minister of National Defence please update the House on Canada's commitment to NATO's reassurance measures and to the people of Ukraine?
Mr. Speaker, we have hosted General Philip Breedlove, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. We had a number of productive meetings. The general wanted to make a point by thanking Canada for our contribution to NATO's Ukrainian reassurance package, describing our efforts as timely and important.
Canada will do its part to support our NATO allies and stand up to the Putin regime.
I again want to thank our brave men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces for the amazing work they do on our behalf.
[Translation]
Champlain Bridge
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Infrastructure is digging in his heels and refusing to accept that without an integrated transportation plan, developed jointly with Quebec and Montreal area municipalities, his toll will create chaos on the roads.
Quebec has clearly shown that a toll on the Champlain Bridge will create major traffic jams on the other bridges. Quebec's economy is already losing $4 billion a year because of lost productivity caused by gridlock.
How many more billions is the minister willing to allow the city to lose?
Mr. Speaker, we are building this new bridge largely out of consideration for the economy in eastern Canada and the greater Montreal region. Things are moving forward. A new bridge will be built.
The request for qualifications for consortiums interested in building the new bridge closes today. While my friend keeps talking, we are getting things done.
Mr. Speaker, between the credible studies by the Government of Quebec and this minister's empty promises, which are baseless, the choice is easy.
The Conservatives claim to be pro-economy, but they are about to kill the economy of Montreal and Quebec. Clogging up the other routes into Montreal will have a devastating impact. Studies clearly show that the toll will be catastrophic.
If the minister has a study that proves the contrary, we would love to see it.
Mr. Speaker, construction is under way on a temporary causeway-bridge to bypass traffic from the existing Île des Soeurs Bridge precisely to keep traffic and the region's economy moving.
While they keep talking, we keep working. I thank all those who are working on the new bridge project. We will deliver it through a public-private partnership. There will be a bridge and there will be a toll.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, we already know that the Conservatives just cannot work with the provinces and the consequences of that.
Here is another example. The Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court may have to close its doors due to the lack of a clear commitment from the federal government to continue funding this program even though its effectiveness has been proven.
My question is simple: Will the minister promise to promptly co-operate with the Manitoba government and renew funding for this important rehabilitation program?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when it comes to addressing problems with respect to drug crime, when it comes to taking a comprehensive approach, we are the only party in the House that does so.
In fact, with regard to this pilot project that addresses concerns identified by the Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court that the hon. member mentioned, we have provided significant funding to this program over the years.
Part of the approach is to be tougher on sentencing for those criminal organizations that exploit the addictions of others for personal profit. It is a shame that the opposition continues to vote against those efforts to improve the safety of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, again Conservatives just refuse to base their decisions on facts, evidence, or science.
The 2012-13 reoffending rate dropped to just 16% because of the Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court. That is well below the percentage of the regular court system. That is a fact.
Conservatives love to hold press conferences to boast about being tough on crime, and here they cannot support efforts that have actually reduced crime.
Will the minister recognize the success of this court and commit, today, to renewing its funding, and stop blaming—
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have the hon. member, the justice critic for the NDP, finally admitting on record that she and her party are not tough on crime. It is nice to have that on the record.
It is also nice to note that she acknowledges that this program, funded by the Conservative government, has been very successful when it comes to drug treatment.
That is why this pilot project continues to be part of the national anti-drug strategy. It is why this project has been viewed nationally as a success. As with all programs, we will continue to examine the propriety of continuing funding.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are appalled by the more than 300 Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped from their village simply for attending school.
Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs called the situation repugnant and said the Minister of International Development was offering assistance to Nigerian authorities.
We support the government in offering assistance. Can the minister tell us how the government is working with our allies to ensure that our efforts are coordinated and targeted, and will help bring these girls home?
Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to do all we can to support Nigerian authorities in finding these young girls. There are a number of countries that have offered help, and the people at our mission in Abuja will do all they can to work with the relevant authorities.
I want to say, though, that these actions only strengthen our resolve to promote human rights and to stand up against terrorists who want to subjugate the rights of these young girls and women. The terrorists will not win.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the White House released a massive climate change report. The core point is that, “Climate change, once considered an issue for the distant future...” is a clear and present danger. Page after page incontrovertibly connects catastrophic weather events with climate change.
As the first government to kill Kyoto, does the current government still deny climate change?
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take the Liberals seriously when they talk about climate change. Let us take a look at their record and compare it to ours.
Yes, the Liberals signed the Kyoto accord and then they named a dog “Kyoto”. That was it. What this government is doing is taking action. With our sector-by-sector regulatory approach, we are seeing a decrease in greenhouse gases by 130 megatons versus what they would have been under the Liberal Party. We are working with our partners and we are accomplishing this without the Liberal and NDP $20-billion carbon tax.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it has been 23 days since 276 girls were kidnapped and disappeared in Nigeria. Recently, eight more were taken. Each day they are missing, these young women are at risk.
The Nigerian vice-president has pleaded with Canada for surveillance technology and other security equipment. My question is for the minister. Is the government providing the requested equipment? And what other specific and immediate measures is Canada helping Nigeria with to ensure these girls are returned to safety?
Mr. Speaker, obviously this causes us great concern. We have offered support to the Nigerian government. If Canada has surveillance equipment, and it is not in the region, that could provide assistance to help find these young girls, we would be pleased to provide it and the technical expertise to operate that equipment. The Nigerians have our full support. What we do have a concern with is that we will not hand over military equipment unless we can send the Canadians who can properly operate it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are absolutely appalled by the kidnapping of these young Nigerian girls and the unimaginable horror that they and their families must endure. They want Canada to take action and bring the girls home. Can the minister tell us what kind of assistance he will give the Nigerian authorities to ensure that these young girls are returned to their families and these kidnappings are stopped?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of International Development, has already offered Canada's support and that of all our agencies and departments for efforts to help these young girls. We are prepared to provide assistance and equipment that can best help to find these young girls.
[English]
Health
Mr. Speaker, prescription drugs are an important part of our health and well-being, but constituents of mine are concerned about a rising tide of misuse, either by intention or by accident, which can cause serious harm to individuals and to our communities. There have been town halls and round table discussions that have brought together educators, doctors, and pharmacists. Can the Minister of Health update us on what the government's recent steps are to combat prescription drug abuse?
Mr. Speaker, prescription drug abuse, especially among teenagers, is an issue of increasing concern. Unused prescriptions can accumulate in our medicine cabinets, raising the risk of a child taking them by mistake or teenagers using them to get high.
Today, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Chief of Police Mark Mander, and I have promoted the second annual prescription drug drop-off day. We are asking all parents and grandparents to go into their medicine cabinets and drop off any unused prescription drugs at their closest police station, Shoppers Drug Mart, or any pharmacy. It will literally save lives.
[Translation]
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, the Memramcook Institute, formerly the Collège Saint-Joseph, is a historic institution in Acadia and an important economic driver for the Memramcook region.
Residents have good reason to be concerned following the bankruptcy and hasty sale of this historic institution.
Considering the fact that the provincial Conservatives chose to abandon the institute, is the minister of ACOA ready to support of the people of Memramcook and try to save this historic institution, which is important to Acadia as a whole?
[English]
[Translation]
Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration gave no warning when he cut funding for the Multicultural Association of the Greater Moncton Area's program for teaching French to immigrants. Newcomers must now go to the community college, which is far from downtown and does not cover day care services.
We already knew that the Conservatives did not care about protecting French, but the minister has now shown us that he really could not care less.
Why does he keep trying to prevent our francophone communities from developing?
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our record in this area, as we have increased funding for these programs across the country.
Francophone immigration is obviously one of our priorities. We are aiming for 4% francophone immigration outside Quebec in the coming years, starting with New Brunswick, with Moncton and Acadia.
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, we all have a role to play to make sure that our children are safe. Whether it is from criminals, drug dealers, or even schoolyard bullies, our Conservative government is helping to make Canada safer for our young people.
As today is the national day to end bullying, could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness please update this House on what we are doing to address bullying?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South for her question on a very serious issue for Canadians, especially young Canadians. We want to commend the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada and CIBC for a great initiative that draws attention to the serious issue of bullying.
[Translation]
Our government is creating initiatives such as “Stop Hating Online”, known as “Non à la cyberintimidation” in French, to punish people for distributing intimate images without consent and to promote awareness among young people. Young people are reacting very well and are working to combat cyberbullying.
[English]
I strongly encourage all Canadians, especially young Canadians, to act and speak out against bullying.
Forestry Industry
Mr. Speaker, Resolute Forest Products is closing its paper mill in Fort Frances after a century of operation, which is a devastating blow for workers, families, and our local economy.
Canada has lost over 134,000 jobs in the forestry sector since the Conservatives came to power; almost 30,000 jobs in northern Ontario alone.
Why have Conservatives stubbornly rejected the NDP's call for a national forestry strategy, rejected a permanent adjustment fund for communities hit by these losses, and rejected greater pension and severance security for all Canadian workers? Why?
Mr. Speaker, our government understands how important forestry is for job creation and economic growth. I am proud that economic action plan 2014 builds on our government's success on this file by focusing on innovation and protecting it from the threat of forest pests. Our focus on diversifying markets for our forest products has increased softwood lumber exports to China tenfold.
These are successes that we should be applauding.
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Speaker, while Ottawa is raking in billions of dollars in surplus on the backs of unemployed workers, just 38.8% of those workers were able to get benefits in 2012 and 2013. That is the lowest rate ever recorded.
What is even more worrisome is that the period covered by the EI monitoring and assessment report still does not allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the Conservatives' most recent reform, which brutally attacks workers in every region. The Quebec National Assembly condemned this reform, which is an all-out attack on Quebec, on two separate occasions.
When will the government once again use the employment insurance program for its true purpose, which is—
Mr. Speaker, we are fulfilling our role. The member is mistaken because the figure he just quoted includes people who voluntarily left their employment and people who worked for only a few weeks, if that.
That is not the number of people who would have been eligible for employment insurance benefits. The program is there to help unemployed workers who worked for the required period of time and who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. We are there to support those workers.
[English]
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on an important point of order coming out of question period today. In a moment I will ask unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, a document related to this point of order.
Over the last couple of months, we have heard very mixed messages about labour shortages: yes, they are acute; no, they are not; yes, our data is accurate; no, it is not. This is why I ask for unanimous consent to table now, in both official languages, the following document: Labour Market Assessment 2014.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During an answer, the Minister of Employment and Social Development was reading from a document which he referred to as an LMO for Windsor. As the rules prescribe, I would ask that he table that document now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period regarding comments made in relation to the Right Hon. Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, and the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nadon reference.
I direct the attention of all members of this place to O'Brien and Bosc, at page 616:
| Attacks against and censure of judges and courts by Members in debate have always been considered unparliamentary and, consequently, treated as breaches of order....While it is permissible to speak in general terms about the judiciary or to criticize a law, it is inappropriate to criticize or impute motives directed to a specific judge or to criticize a decision made under the law by a judge. |
Today we heard a spirited critique from the Prime Minister of the Supreme Court's decision in the Nadon reference, but more important, I remind the House of what the Minister of Justice said on Monday:
| Mr. Speaker...my office was contacted by the office of the chief justice. After I spoke with her on that call, I was of the considered opinion that the Prime Minister did not need to take her call. |
| One thing I can assure the hon. member is that neither the Prime Minister nor I would ever consider calling a judge where that matter is or could be before the court of competent jurisdiction. |
As Acting Speaker McClelland noted on April 1, 1998, and found at pages 5653 of the Debates:
| This is a longstanding tradition in our Parliament that we be cautious when we attack individuals or groups, particularly in the judiciary, and those who are unable to come in here and have the same right of free expression as we enjoy with impunity here. |
A similar sentiment comes from Acting Speaker Thibeault, on June 9, 1998, wherein she said:
| All Speakers of the House have always considered references to magistrates and tribunals unparliamentary when they took the form of a personal attack or blame. |
| I will therefore ask the hon. member to choose his words carefully and to be careful about attacking the court. |
I realize the government may say that this is an issue of parsing words and that its comments are neither blame nor critique. If that is the case, I certainly invite those members to clarify the record lest the impression remain that there is any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of the Chief Justice. However, that still does not solve whether or not the comments were proper in this place.
As Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceeding and Usage of Parliament, 24th edition notes, at page 396:
| Certain matters cannot be debated except on a substantive motion which allows a distinct decision of the House. These include the conduct of...persons holding the position of a judge...Such matters cannot, therefore, be raised by way of an amendment, or an adjournment motion. For the same reason, no charge of a personal character in respect of these categories of person can be raised except on a direct and substantive motion. |
This is the key line regarding question period, “No statement of that kind can be...included in reply to a question”.
Previous Speakers have voiced their concern about this practice, finding “comments about the judiciary are out of order”. That is at page 13354 of the Debates, of May 16, 1986, and that “...I am certainly not satisfied with that approach on the appointment of a judge”, regarding a question a member put on September 19, 1991, found at page 2401 of the Debates.
I think my point has been sufficiently made though I must draw the attention of the Chair to a decision of then Speaker Rodolphe Lemieux, dating to February 18, 1926. He said, on page 1106 of the Debates:
| Under the rules of the House: |
| All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary. |
| I would also call the attention of the hon. member to paragraph 234 (i) under rule 19, which says that a member must not: |
| ...cast reflections upon the conduct of judges of superior courts unless such conduct is based upon a substantive motion. |
This idea also forms expression in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, fourth edition, wherein it is written:
| The proper course for persons who feel called upon to attack the conduct of a judge is to proceed by way of a petition in which all the allegations are specifically stated so that the person accused may have full opportunity to answer the charges presented against him. |
What we have seen from the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are attacks on the judiciary and a sitting judge, comments imputing motives and maligning the reputation of a person who is not only not able to defend herself in this place, but whose sterling reputation is not even a matter open for debate.
Rather than parse words and dance around this issue, I ask the ministers responsible to withdraw any references made regarding the chief justice that might even remotely cash aspersions upon her conduct.
While you, Mr. Speaker, would be right to find the minister's comments have been unparliamentary and should be withdrawn, I would suggest for the members in question that rather than seek to defend such comments as permissible exercises, they should seek to clarify any misconceptions that the public may have gleaned from the debate as, indeed, the words we use not only are important as regards the traditions and practices of this place, but echo and resonate across the country to an attentive public.
In short, the government should apologize to the House for its comments that are unparliamentary, likewise apologize to the chief justice, and, similarly, to Canadians for their audacious behaviour that unwarrantedly brings the judiciary into disrepute.
I would ask all members to join me in congratulating the chief justice on recently beginning the 25th year on the court and for serving all Canadians with great distinction, as we hope she will continue to do for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member, the justice critic for the Liberal Party, and I was waiting with great anticipation for the point in his presentation when he used actual words that could be attributed to me, and I invite the Speaker, as I know he will, to review Hansard, that would in any way fit the description, which he and others in this place have attributed to comments made by myself or the Prime Minister, that would be categorized as an unprecedented attack, impugning character, imparting motives. That is simply not true. His characterization, similarly, is untrue and unsupported by words that could be attributed to me or found anywhere in Hansard.
On the subject matter, it was not the government that raised this issue in question period. We were responding to questions and, in fact, I would describe them as allegations thrown at myself, the Prime Minister and the government. With respect to not re-arguing or reopening the case, the Leader of the Opposition in particular, in his ever haughty and helpful way, went on to lecture that somehow I and others should have known that the Supreme Court case itself was, to use his language and the language of others, a matter that was unquestionable, that was clear, that was, as some said, well known in legal circles, that an appointment of a Federal Court judge from Quebec was prohibited since the 1870s.
Someone should inform two former Supreme Court justices, Judges Binnie and Charron, a current Supreme Court judge, Mr. Moldaver, who dissented, a current Supreme Court judge, Mr. Rothstein, who came via the Federal Court and, in fact, recused himself, other judges who have come that route through the Federal Court, all current and past sitting Federal Court judges from the province of Quebec, who would have had the audacity to put their names forward for consideration. Perhaps most notably, those who should have known that this decision and this case was well decided and known in legal circles would be members of the parliamentary committee, including the hon. member who just spoke, the justice critic for the NDP party, who, it is now well known, would have seen the list and recommended the list that went forward that contained names of Federal Court judges from Quebec who wished to be considered for a Supreme Court appointment.
This is now, obviously, I would suggest for some, the inside of the inside of a making of a baseball for most Canadians, but the reality is that the government, the Prime Minister and myself sought legal advice, received said advice, and acted appropriately. I also note for the record that this entire subject began when a Supreme Court spokesperson released a statement to the press, to which we felt it was incumbent to respond and clarify.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will leave it up to you to look at the exchanges that took place and the comments made by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. It is up to you to determine if their remarks were parliamentary or if they broke any rules.
One thing is clear, and I know that once we are outside the House, we are no longer under your authority, but the minister seems to have forgotten one thing. This did not start with the Chief Justice's press release, but it began earlier with a newspaper article that attributed certain comments to unidentified members from the Conservative benches who seemed to be attacking the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Those comments were then repeated by the Prime Minister and the minister, without specifying a timeline. The chief justice felt it was important to make that correction.
I agree with those who say that this is an unfortunate incident in our Canadian democracy. I know that, every time the minister rises in the House, knowing full well that we are bound by confidentiality, he suggests things. He very nearly gives me the impression that he is relieving me of my duty of confidentiality concerning what might have happened. However, he was not part of the committee, so I do not expect him to know all of the facts about that.
That being said, regardless of what might have happened, perhaps the Chair should restore a sense of order following this incident. Our democracy is held up by a number of pillars, on of which is the Supreme Court of Canada. The separation of powers is extremely important. As lawyers—and I believe my colleague, the Minister of Justice, is a lawyer, just like me—we are required to ensure that we do not tarnish the administration of justice in Canada. Perhaps it is time for everyone to take a deep breath and respect the work we all do, particularly the unimpeachable work of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
[English]
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 50 petitions.
I move:
| That the House do now proceed to orders of the day. |
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
During the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: Order. I just want to say to hon. members that one or two bows are sufficient. We do not need a whole display while members are standing. Once they have stood and their names have been recorded, there is no need to continue standing.
|
(Division No. 112)
|
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I rise to further add to the point of order raised yesterday by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I will save the member the trouble, because I am ready to rule on that. As I know it is projected to be called imminently, I think he will find that my ruling will probably address anything he might have brought up.
The hon. opposition House leader is rising as well.
Mr. Speaker, you had notice of this point of order from the member for Toronto—Danforth, and you know the importance of making sure that the information is actually received by your office.
Also, we seem to have a lack of decorum from the other side again in the House. I hope that they will start to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order. I cannot hear the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, and I do not think he is finished making his point. I will ask him to resume the floor.
I see the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans, and I will go to him in just a moment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto—Danforth did provide notice. He did mention yesterday that he would be coming back on this matter. We understand your ruling is very important, but at the same time, it is important for the member for Toronto—Danforth to make the points that he wanted to make to help to guide the decision that you will making ultimately.
I understand the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. When he and the member for Toronto—Danforth indicated they would like to return to the House yesterday, I did indicate that they would have to do so forthwith, knowing that the bill was likely to be called very soon.
I can assure the member that I am very confident that this is a comprehensive ruling that will address any concerns that he and the member for Toronto—Danforth may have.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans is rising on a point of order as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order, probably a question of privilege that could be tomorrow. I am doing it while the opposition House leader is there.
I notice that the official opposition took their sweet time in voting today. As much as it is their right to behave as they did in the last vote, I want to serve fair warning that tonight—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order. When the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was trying to make his point, there was some concern about the lack of decorum. I will ask members now, when the member for Ottawa—Orléans is raising a point of order, to show the same respect they were asking for just a few moments before.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans
Mr. Speaker, we expect that tonight at six o'clock there will be six votes on private members' business. Each one of these votes will be called. None of them will be applied, and they will typically take seven or eight minutes.
The members of the House, including members of the opposition, know that I never miss a vote. They know that I come here from my hospital bed to vote, and sitting here in a crouched position is sometimes most painful.
Sitting here for seven votes that should take at the utmost 60 minutes I will endure. However, if those members do it at six o'clock the way they did it today, I will have to leave, and if I do, it is because they are infringing on my privilege to vote.
[Translation]
Points of Order
Report Stage Amendments—Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
Before addressing the selection and grouping of report stage motions for Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts, I would like to address the point of order raised on May 6, 2014, by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
[English]
I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising this matter as well as the Government Leader in the House, the House leader of the official opposition, and the members for Toronto—Danforth, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, and Winnipeg North for their comments.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raised concerns that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted a motion requiring all remaining questions necessary to dispose of its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to be put by a specified time, effectively creating a deadline for the debate to end. She argued that this motion contradicts an earlier committee order adopted on October 29, 2013, which gives members from non-recognized parties the ability to speak to their suggested amendments to bills before they are voted on by the committee. Because of the imposed deadline, the member's opportunity to speak to her amendments was interfered with, pursuant to the committee order of October 29, 2013. As such, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that substantive amendments, even if already voted on by the committee, should be selected for consideration at report stage. Several members rose in support of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' point of order.
The government House leader made two central points in response. First, he reminded the House that at report stage the Speaker's authority to select report stage amendments is limited to determining whether they were presented, or could have been presented at committee. Second, he pointed out that the deadline adopted by the committee affected all members the same way, so it is inaccurate to claim that members from unrecognized parties and independents were particularly penalized in this regard.
[Translation]
In examining the matter, it is useful to remind the House of the power of the Speaker to select amendments at report stage. To place the matter in its proper context, it is helpful to refer to the March 21, 2001, statement by Speaker Milliken, found at page 1991 of the Debates, which establishes the guidelines upon which I rely to discharge my responsibility to select amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:
| …all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done… |
[English]
These principles are also reflected in the interpretive notes attached to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5). House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, further expands on these principles, explaining at pages 783 and 784 that:
| …the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee. |
I would remind all members that the guidelines for selection specify whether amendments could have been presented in committee and whether they were defeated in committee. In the case of the committee's consideration of Bill C-23, all members of the committee, as well as any interested independent member, were given the opportunity to present their amendments at committee, and a certain number of these amendments were defeated. The hon. member is now asking the Chair, in exercising its powers of selection, to evaluate whether the consideration afforded such amendments in committee was sufficient.
It is evident that the committee chose to handle its consideration of Bill C-23 in a particular way. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated, and ultimately agreed to. Just as the opportunity to present and speak to amendments was decided by way of a committee motion, the deadline by which debate would end likewise was decided by a committee motion. Such decisions are the exclusive responsibility of the committee. I do not believe that it is for the Chair to second-guess how committees choose to manage their business.
The hon. member has asked that I select motions for consideration at report stage because she was not able to debate them in committee. In doing so, she referred to a ruling I gave on December 12, 2012, whereby I noted that I would continue to select motions from independent members at report stage until such time as a satisfactory method was found for them to participate in the clause-by-clause consideration at committee. I understand that the hon. member found unsatisfactory the opportunities afforded to her at the procedure and House affairs committee in relation to Bill C-23. Other members of the committee echoed they too were not satisfied that certain amendments were not debated once the committee's self-imposed deadline was reached. That said, it remains clear to me that the committee considered and voted on all amendments she is asking me to select.
[Translation]
In 2006, Speaker Milliken dealt with a somewhat analogous situation in relation to Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.
On November 6, 2006, the hon. member for Burnaby-New Westminster raised a point of order regarding the decision of the Standing Committee on International Trade to limit debate and set a strict deadline by which point debate would end.
Though the situation was different insofar as he was a member of the committee concerned, I believe Speaker Milliken's response, found on page 4756 of Debates, was instructive:
| I do think that committees are masters of their own procedure. They are entitled to make provisions in adopting orders in the committee that govern the way they are going to conduct their business...The committee is allowed to make amendments to the bill. The committee has imposed rules on how those amendments will be dealt with in the committee and how members will be able to address the issues raised by the amendments. It seems to me that [it] is entirely within the jurisdiction of the committee and indeed [it] is [a] quite normal exercise of its powers. |
[English]
When the bill was taken up at report stage, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster submitted a large number of the amendments that had been defeated in committee, and asked the Chair to select them on the basis that they had not been debated in committee.
In a ruling I gave as Acting Speaker on November 21, 2006, found on page 5125 of Debates, I declined to do so, reminding the House that:
| ...the Chair selects motions which further amend an amendment adopted by a committee, motions which make consequential changes based on an amendment adopted by a committee and motions which delete a clause. |
| Aside from this, the Chair is loath to select motions unless a member makes a compelling argument for selection based on the exceptional significance of the amendment. |
As far as the Chair is concerned, in keeping with past precedents, I cannot see how the imposition of a deadline for the end of the debate could constitute a justifiable argument for the selection of amendments at report stage that were already presented and defeated in committee.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
Fair Elections Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported with amendment from the committee.
[English]
There are 145 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of C-23.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 55, 58, 60, 63, 86, 87, 90, 92 to 95 and 100 will not be selected by the Chair because they were defeated in committee.
[English]
All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note in Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.
Motions Nos. 1 to 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 to 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 to 99, and 101 to 145 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 to 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 to 99 and 101 to 145 to the House.
[English]
Before I do so, 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 Vancouver Quadra, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Malpeque, National Defence.
| Motion No. 1 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 1. |
| Motion No. 2 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 2. |
| Motion No. 3 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 3. |
| Motion No. 4 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 5 with the following: |
| “(2) The mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer is renewable once only; however, a person who has served as Chief” |
| Motion No. 6 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 5. |
| Motion No. 7 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended |
| (a) by replacing line 6 on page 6 with the following: |
| “Chief Electoral Officer within 20 days after the” |
| (b) by replacing line 20 on page 6 with the following: |
| “subsection (5) within 65 days after the day on” |
| (c) by replacing line 22 on page 6 with the following: |
| “65-day period coincides or overlaps with the” |
| (d) by replacing line 25 on page 6 with the following: |
| “65 days after polling day for that election.” |
| Motion No. 8 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended |
| (a) by replacing line 11 on page 7 with the following: |
| “Chief Electoral Officer within 20 days after the” |
| (b) by replacing line 16 on page 7 with the following: |
| “(4) Within 65 days after the day on which the” |
| (c) by replacing line 21 on page 7 with the following: |
| “expiry of that period. However, if the 65-day” |
| (d) by replacing line 24 on page 7 with the following: |
| “notice shall be published no later than 65 days” |
| Motion No. 9 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 5.1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 8 with the following: |
| “under this Act, including information relating to the commission of an offence against a law of Canada or a province by an individual if, in the Chief Electoral Officer’s opinion, there is evidence of such an offence.” |
| Motion No. 10 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 6. |
| Motion No. 11 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 7. |
| Motion No. 12 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 9 the following: |
| “(2) The Advisory Committee of Political Parties, established pursuant to subsection 21.1(1), shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with its opinion on the impact of this section within two years after the first general election held after the coming into force of this section.” |
| Motion No. 13 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 9 with the following: |
| “levels or to any targeted groups.” |
| Motion No. 14 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 8. |
| Motion No. 15 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 10. |
| Motion No. 16 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 18. |
| Motion No. 17 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 19. |
| Motion No. 18 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 20. |
| Motion No. 19 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 21. |
| Motion No. 20 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 22. |
| Motion No. 21 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 25. |
[Translation]
| Motion No. 22 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 26. |
| Motion No. 23 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 30. |
[English]
[Translation]
| Motion No. 25 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 32. |
| Motion No. 26 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 37. |
[English]
[Translation]
| Motion No. 30 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 48. |
| Motion No. 31 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 49. |
| Motion No. 32 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 52. |
| Motion No. 33 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 53. |
| Motion No. 34 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 54. |
| Motion No. 35 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 56. |
| Motion No. 36 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 56, be amended by deleting line 9 on page 32. |
| Motion No. 37 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 57. |
[English]
[Translation]
| Motion No. 39 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 59. |
| Motion No. 40 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 62. |
| Motion No. 41 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 64. |
| Motion No. 42 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 67. |
| Motion No. 43 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 67.1. |
| Motion No. 44 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 69. |
[English]
[Translation]
| Motion No. 46 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 49 with the following: |
| “years after the end of the election period, and provide to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission,” |
| Motion No. 47 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 49 the following: |
| “348.161 For the purposes of determining the period of time during which each script is to be kept in accordance with section 348.16, the three-year period starts from the last time that the same or substantially similar script is used by the same caller.” |
| Motion No. 48 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 49 the following: |
| “348.161 For greater certainty, the requirement referred to in section 348.16 to keep the scripts and recordings described in that section for three years does not preclude the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission from establishing a system of voluntary commitments for calling service providers in which they pledge to keep scripts and recordings for periods longer than three years.” |
| Motion No. 49 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 51 the following: |
| “351.11 No third party that failed to register shall incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of $500 or more.” |
| Motion No. 50 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 80. |
| Motion No. 51 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 81. |
| Motion No. 52 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 82. |
| Motion No. 53 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 83. |
| Motion No. 54 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 84. |
| Motion No. 56 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 85. |
| Motion No. 57 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 86. |
| Motion No. 61 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 87. |
| Motion No. 62 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 88. |
| Motion No. 64 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 89. |
| Motion No. 65 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 90. |
| Motion No. 66 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 91. |
| Motion No. 67 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 92. |
| Motion No. 68 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 93. |
| Motion No. 69 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 94. |
| Motion No. 70 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 94.1. |
| Motion No. 71 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 95. |
| Motion No. 72 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 96. |
| Motion No. 73 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 97. |
| Motion No. 74 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 97, be amended |
| (a) by replacing line 30 on page 195 with the following: |
| “(a.1) section 351.1 (registered and non-registered foreign third party ex-” |
| (b) by replacing line 4 on page 196 with the following: |
| “(a.1) section 351.1 (registered and non-registered foreign third party ex-” |
| Motion No. 75 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 98. |
| Motion No. 76 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 99. |
| Motion No. 77 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 100. |
| Motion No. 78 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 101. |
| Motion No. 79 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 102. |
| Motion No. 80 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 103. |
| Motion No. 81 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 104. |
| Motion No. 82 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 105. |
| Motion No. 83 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 106. |
| Motion No. 84 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 107. |
| Motion No. 85 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 108. |
| Motion No. 88 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 109. |
| Motion No. 89 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 110. |
| Motion No. 91 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 111. |
| Motion No. 96 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 112. |
| Motion No. 97 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 113. |
| Motion No. 98 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 114. |
| Motion No. 99 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 115. |
| Motion No. 101 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 116. |
| Motion No. 102 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 117. |
| Motion No. 103 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 118. |
| Motion No. 104 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 119. |
| Motion No. 105 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 120. |
| Motion No. 106 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 121. |
| Motion No. 107 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 122. |
| Motion No. 108 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 123. |
| Motion No. 109 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 124. |
| Motion No. 110 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 125. |
| Motion No. 111 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 126. |
| Motion No. 112 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 127. |
| Motion No. 113 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 128. |
| Motion No. 114 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 129. |
| Motion No. 115 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 130. |
| Motion No. 116 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 131. |
| Motion No. 117 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 132. |
| Motion No. 118 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 133. |
| Motion No. 119 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 134. |
| Motion No. 120 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 135. |
| Motion No. 121 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 136. |
| Motion No. 122 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 137. |
| Motion No. 123 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 138. |
| Motion No. 124 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 139. |
| Motion No. 125 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 140. |
| Motion No. 126 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 141. |
| Motion No. 127 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 142. |
| Motion No. 128 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 143. |
| Motion No. 129 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 144. |
| Motion No. 130 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 145. |
| Motion No. 131 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 146. |
| Motion No. 132 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 147. |
| Motion No. 133 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 148. |
| Motion No. 134 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 149. |
| Motion No. 135 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 150. |
| Motion No. 136 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 151. |
| Motion No. 137 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 152. |
| Motion No. 138 |
| That Bill C-23, in Clause 152, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 242 the following: |
| “(1.2) The report shall also include any concerns regarding the powers granted to the Commissioner by the Canada Elections Act.” |
| Motion No. 139 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 153. |
| Motion No. 140 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 154. |
| Motion No. 141 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 155. |
| Motion No. 142 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 156. |
| Motion No. 143 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 157. |
| Motion No. 144 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 158. |
| Motion No. 145 |
| That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Schedule 1. |
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage on Bill C-23, and it has been a long odyssey to this point; one of considerable resistance to the bill on the part of the official opposition; many sectors of Canadian society, including organizations who have engaged in the fight, academics and so on; and also, we suspect, considerable pushback from some Conservatives who themselves felt the pressure from the opposition and civil society.
It is worth recapping how we came to be where we are at.
In March 2012, the NDP tabled a motion, which then received unanimous support from everybody in the House, to call on the government to table within six months—that is, by September 2012—a bill that would address the issue of prevention of prosecution of fraudulent election calls and also add to the powers of Elections Canada, including the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to require receipts and documentation for national parties' election expenses, which, believe it or not, currently the Chief Electoral Officer does not have access to.
Well, six months later, by September 2012, a bill with that sort of focus to clearly deal with this kind of fraud and the need to enhance the powers of Elections Canada to investigate had never appeared.
By October, it was clear the government was not dealing with the priority it had promised to deal with in voting for the motion in March 2012, and so I tabled a private member's bill with a proposed, and I would say very minimal, system of voter contact registry to deal with fraudulent election calls, as well as a couple of provisions that also went to beefing up the penalties for that kind of fraud.
I told the minister at the time, which is prior to the current minister, that this was effectively to just prod the government and also help it to begin thinking about this issue, because it was clearly having trouble meeting its deadline. I said that I was available to consult as needed and also that I expected that the government, with its resources, it would be able to come up with an even more effective system.
Well, by April 2013, we still had not seen a bill, despite any number of times I stood in this House and asked when we might.
Suddenly the former minister announced to all, in a highly organized press conference on a Tuesday in April, that he would be tabling the missing bill two days later, on a Thursday. The next day we heard rumours, which were confirmed on that Thursday, that this announced bill would not be tabled after all. We will never know exactly what revolt occurred in the Conservative caucus to lead to that result, but we do know that there was a revolt, and the then-minister was replaced with the current minister shortly thereafter.
We had to wait almost a full year after that event, to March of this year, for the bill to finally be tabled, two years after the March 2012 motion when the government had agreed that it would be tabling a bill within six months and 18 months after that deadline passed.
All that time was spent coming up with a bill that we have dubbed “the unfair elections act”, which explains why the first motion at this report stage is to delete the title of the bill, which the government has called “the fair elections act”. We can think of no more Orwellian a title. The government has come close to titles that were equally unrepresentative of the actual contents of bills in the past, but this one, frankly, takes the cake.
The fact of the matter is that the bill was tabled and within 18 hours, as the critic for democratic reform, I had to be on my feet, having read, analyzed, and formed first views on a 242-page bill to reply to the minister at the start of second reading.
Within very short order, the House leader was on his feet and gave notice of time allocation; time allocation came very quickly thereafter, and very little debate on second reading was permitted.
We then went into the committee stage, where there was an effort on the part of the official opposition, the NDP, to convince the procedure and House affairs committee to allow for hearings across the country in order to hear what Canadians thought. My colleague from Hamilton Centre put on a strong filibuster in order to convey to the government how serious we were about this, but ultimately, after 10 hours, he had to concede that the arguments had not penetrated the brick wall.
We went on in committee to have 71 witnesses, only one of whom was completely in support of the bill. It was one out of 71. Most of the others were critical of large swaths of the bill, and where they were focusing only on one or two things, they were extremely critical of what it would do. They included the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, the previous chief electoral officer and commissioner, the former auditor general, and indeed Preston Manning, and the list goes on.
Then we found ourselves in a clause-by-clause process that ended up having an artificial end date. We had 10 hours of clause by clause, and by the time the guillotine came down at five o'clock last Thursday, we had gotten through only one-fifth of the 242 pages in the bill, one-half of the bill in terms of the clauses, and only half of the opposition amendments. In terms of the amendments that had actually been debated and, after clause-by-clause study, voted on, not a single official opposition amendment was voted in favour of by the government. This was a total farce of a process.
We looked, in a constructive spirit, at the government amendments, voted for those that made sense, tried to amend as it made sense, came up with some proposals that we thought were absolutely impeccable from the government's perspective, and the Conservative members still decided not to vote with us.
For example, when it was clear that the government was not going to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize the use of voter information cards as a second piece of identification, when it was clear that we had lost that fight, we tabled an amendment simply saying that the Chief Electoral Officer had to ensure that the voter information cards were prominently marked with a message to say that this card cannot be used for purposes of identification on voting day, something that was designed to prevent chaos that might occur in 2015 because of the hundreds of thousands who were able to use VICs in 2011. It was the simplest of amendments and the most constructive of amendments.
The government had an entire night to reflect on it, because the amendment was moved at two minutes before closing hour the day before. The government members took overnight, came back, and said they were sorry, they could not vote for that. This was the atmosphere that we worked in.
It has to be said that the efforts of the official opposition and civil society resistance produced some major accomplishments in terms of the government standing down. The fundraising exception that was criticized across the country was removed. The central poll supervisor provision that would allow the first place party in the last election to appoint central poll supervisors was also removed.
Vouching for addresses was restored in the bill because of the pressure that we put on. Retention of documents—some documents, in any case—under the voter contact registry went from one year to three years. Public education by Elections Canada was now permitted for students in schools, even though for everybody else it remains prohibited, and we at least got on record, although the government refused to put this in text in the amendments, that the Chief Electoral Officer will be permitted to communicate freely on any subject that he wishes.
These are major accomplishments, and everyone in Canadian society who pushed back with this effort to resist this attack on our democracy, as Sheila Fraser called it, deserves credit for that.
Nonetheless, the remaining issues in the bill are huge. The bill is much worse than the current Canada Elections Act. For that reason, we will be voting against the bill and seeking, as much as possible, to move at report stage the few remaining amendments that are available to us as the official opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I know I will be afforded the opportunity to speak to the bill very shortly, but I wanted to get on the record as quickly as possible on the whole issue of process.
It is really important that we recognize that the bill is nothing more than a Conservative piece of legislation for which there is no evidence of any form of genuine consultation beyond members of the Conservative caucus, and from what I understand, not even all members of the Conservative caucus were involved. It is in essence being pushed out, from my best guess, from the Prime Minister's Office.
The Conservatives call it the fair elections act, but it is far from fair. Given the importance of the legislation and democracy here in Canada, would the hon. member not agree that when we change an election law it should be based on consensus and that professional advice should have been sought from organizations such as Elections Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to decline to answer a question on the fairness of democratic process from that member, considering the role the Liberal Party is currently playing in completely undermining all fair process in the Board of Internal Economy and the procedure and House affairs committee.
Mr. Speaker, as time ticks down, this may be my only chance to speak to the bill at report stage.
I want to thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth and the official opposition for standing so clearly with the rights of smaller parties and independents and our ability to speak at report stage and submit substantive amendments when those rights were not respected in the committee process, through no fault of our own.
My question for the member is this: as parliamentarians who love this place and love Westminster parliamentary democracy, what can we do as we watch it consistently reduced, stomped upon, abused, and held in contempt? At what point do we find our way to drive the point home that we are losing democracy in our country?
Mr. Speaker, I share and appreciate the passion of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on this point. Over the next year, it is incumbent on all of us not to allow the Canadian public to forget what the bill is all about and what the struggle to at least make it less terrible than it was when it started was all about.
Indeed, we cannot afford to have another government in power that acts the way this government does. Apart from reminding Canadians of what the vote will mean in 2015, Canadians also have to join with the NDP and the Green Party in making sure we change the electoral system to a system that embraces proportional representation so that this kind of government, elected with less than 40% of the vote but with more than 50% of the seats, can never again do what it is doing to this institution.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague who is working very hard on this file.
I had the opportunity to study the bill with him in committee. I would like him to provide a brief overview of everything that is still missing in this bill. For example, we did not have the time in committee to debate clauses and amendments concerning all the different things that will affect the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who investigates electoral fraud. There are a number of things missing with respect to the commissioner's powers.
Could he tell us about that and the different things that are still missing from this bill, which make it unacceptable at present for our Parliament?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whose work I deeply appreciate and with whom it is always a pleasure to work. I will answer in English in order to make this as specific as possible.
It is indeed the case that the Commissioner of Canada Elections is transferred over to the Attorney General's office under the Director of Public Prosecutions. We had no chance to debate that. We had no chance to debate the issue that the Commissioner of Canada Elections would now be dismissible, for cause, by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The fact that the voter information cards remain banned is something that we did not succeed on. The fact that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot have access to party receipts for campaigns and the situation with judicial orders to compel witnesses to co-operate in investigations were also not changed.
As well, public education broadly, beyond students and schools, remains banned, and audio recordings, audio scripts, and phone numbers not only do not have to be conveyed to the CRTC but do not even have to be kept.
These are just a few of the problems that remain in the bill.
Bill C-23--Notice of Time Allocation Motion
Mr. Speaker, after committee filibusters, points of order, today's spectacle of slow voting and, of course, 145 report stage amendments being presented, it is not surprising that I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to certain acts. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.
The House appreciates such notice.
I will let the hon. member for Winnipeg North know that we have approximately eight minutes remaining in the time for government orders this afternoon. Of course, he will have whatever he does not use of his remaining time when the House next resumes debate on the question.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting that the government House leader chooses this time to stand in his place, when we just get back for report stage a bill that would make fundamental changes to our election laws, to invoke closure, notice of time allocation, which is closure. It is shameful the way the government has used time allocation to get through its legislative agenda. It is time allocation that takes away the ability of members of Parliament to provide due diligence and provide opinions on important legislation.
It is not that it is offending individuals such as myself as much as it is Canadians as a whole. I have a responsibility to represent thousands of people in Winnipeg North, and collectively, we represent Canadians all across this land. We are charged with the responsibility to stand in our place and debate legislation. This government, more than any other government in the history of Canada, has used time allocation as a way to prevent members of Parliament from standing in their places to deal with important legislation.
Ironically, this afternoon we are talking about election laws. That is one of the fundamental pillars of our society. Democracy, freedom, rule of law, all of these are very important. In a couple of days we will be paying tribute to our veterans. Why do they go abroad, whether it is World War II, or World War I, or Korea or Afghanistan on peace missions and so forth, and why do we request our military personnel, both today and in the past, to do this? It is to defend our beliefs. Our fundamental freedoms and democracy are important to Canada, to all Canadians.
This is important legislation and the government continues to use its Conservative majority to abuse rights and thereby Canadians in the passage of this legislation. The legislation is fundamentally flawed and should not be passed. The government failed to recognize the need for change.
The government has ignored the advice of Elections Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, former CEOs. In committee we had presentations from individuals like Sheila Fraser. For the first time ever, we had letters that had been signed by 100-plus political scientists from coast to coast to coast in regard to the way in which the government was changing our election laws. It is wrong.
There is a need for the government, when it changes an election law, to build on a consensus, not the tyranny of a majority to force changes to election laws to fit its needs. That is what we see today a continuation of an abusive majority government that does not recognize the important role we have inside the House of Commons to ensure that the laws we pass are done in due course.
This law does nothing to give the strength, in which Elections Canada and the commissioner wanted, to address the issues that Canadians want addressed. I am referring specifically to the ability to compel witnesses. We have been arguing for this, but more important, Canadians, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner for Elections Canada want the ability to compel witnesses. It is not something completely unique in federal departments.
More important, from my perspective, there are some provincial entities in Canada of an equivalent nature. Elections Manitoba, for example, already has the ability to compel. Why is the ability to compel so critically important? Just take a look at 2011, whether it is the robocalling, the over-expenditures, thousands of inquiries were made from Canadians from all across this land about issues related to the last federal election.
We need to do what we can to restore public confidence in our election laws at a time when there is a great need to build public confidence based on the last election and the cheating and voter suppression that took place. The way in which to do that is to bring in a law that will have some teeth.
I was there when the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner made their presentations. Canada's election law is getting weaker as a result of the government's failure to address that need in itself.
We have challenged the government to allow for a free vote inside the House of Commons on this bill. We want a free vote on this because we believe that ultimately there might be some Conservatives who believe in democracy more so than the Conservative Party and the attitude in which the government has had toward our election laws. We wanted our committee to travel across Canada to different regions, and the government shut that down.
The government did not want to go through a genuine debate on amendments. That is why it put in a deadline of May 1, when we saw amendment after amendment being voted on without discussion or debate because the Conservative majority used its majority to prevent that debate from occurring. There was not one amendment that the government passed that was in opposition, unless we take into consideration that it had the same amendment and it was only because the opposition beat it in its submission of it, so it made it a higher priority. The government did not make the amendments that were necessary to make the bill in the best interest of Canada overall.
The government needs to recognize that we have to do more than just change laws based on time allocation and understand and appreciate that there is a process. The Conservative majority government has been abusing its authority in a number of ways. I would suggest that very few are as offensive as what we have before us today. We have a majority government that, without any consensus or genuine consultation, brought in legislation that would change the rules in the next federal election and has failed in building any sort of support.
Everyone who came before committee expressed concern and acknowledged the need for change. Because the government did a bit of tweaking here and there does not justify the disenfranchising that has taken place, the division and the taking out of Elections Canada the Office of the Commissioner, the inability to compel the witnesses, the silencing of Elections Canada—
[Translation]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion — Temporary Foreign Workers
The House resumed from May 6, 2014, consideration of the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 113)
|
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[Translation]
Public Safety and National Security
The House resumed from April 30 consideration of Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-479 under private members' business.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 114)
|
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 115)
|
[Translation]
Supreme Court Act
The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-208 under private members' business.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 116)
|
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
The House resumed from May 2 consideration of Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in Bill C-483 at report stage under private members' business.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 117)
|
[Translation]
Access to Information Act
The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-567, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act (transparency and duty to document), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-567 under private members' business.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Calgary Centre was counted on both votes. We need clarification.
The Chief Government Whip is a step ahead of me. I was just about to do that very thing.
Can the hon. member for Calgary Centre clarify for the House which way she intended to vote?
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 118)
|
Homelessness
The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 119)
|
I declare the motion carried.
I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, there will be no private members' business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.
I have received notice from the hon. member for Calgary West that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Thursday, May 8, 2014. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence.
Accordingly, I am directing that tomorrow the table officers drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled tomorrow and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I asked a question in the House about why the Conservative government was cutting infrastructure funding next year. The answer was that despite the Prime Minister's claims, the economy was not his top priority. The main thing the Prime Minister is focused on is being able to go into the next election and say that he has eliminated the very deficit that he created in 2008 in order to gain votes.
Because of this, important federal investments are being delayed until after the next election. This is in spite of the fact that action now would generate economic growth and help middle-class families. We saw this when the Prime Minister delayed, for two years, his recently announced funding to help first nations children's education. That is a tremendously important investment when fewer than four in ten young aboriginal students even graduate from high school if they live on reserve.
However, Mr. Harper felt that was not as important as his balanced budget target date. Therefore, the funding does not flow until after the next election.
The new Building Canada fund is no different. It is a 10-year plan, which Liberals were happy to see, but it is heavily back end loaded and extremely light on funding until after the next election. In fact, for the next two years, the fund will have only $210 million of new funding a year. If we compare this with the old Building Canada fund commitment for 2013-14, which was $1.7 billion, this has been an 87% cut and it will not be back to last year's level until 2019. That puts projects like the Broadway corridor expansion of SkyTrain at risk.
Mayor Gregor Robertson of Vancouver held a press conference this week to say that the Broadway corridor expansion of SkyTrain must go forward. However, the federal share of this investment may be delayed many years due to the delay in funding for infrastructure by the Conservative government.
Liberal Party members recently passed a resolution calling for major infrastructure investments of up to 1% of GDP. They understand how critically important infrastructure investment is.
UBC generates more than $10 billion in economic activity annually, but the bus-clogged Broadway corridor that goes right through my riding of Vancouver Quadra, is a major impediment to investment in the corridor, according to a KPMG report written recently. A new SkyTrain link from Broadway to Commercial would connect jobs and innovation centres in metro Vancouver, making this one of Canada's most important infrastructure and economic corridors.
As Mayor Gregor Robertson recently said:
| We will see companies from all over the world coming to Vancouver if there’s good connectivity....The cities we compete with globally in technology are well-connected and are invested in rapid transit, and we need to keep pace. So it will have a nationally significant economic impact. |
This expansion just makes good sense. In the short run, the Broadway corridor rapid transit project will create jobs, jobs in construction, transportation and manufacturing. In the long run, public transit in the Broadway corridor will improve the quality of life and of our air, reduce traffic gridlock and stress, shorten commute times and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. It will increase our productivity and make Canada a more attractive place to invest.
All we need to do is look at the economic benefits of our life sciences and innovation clusters along the Broadway corridor and the important post-secondary institutions, like UBC in Vancouver Quadra, to know that if we act now, we can realize more benefits for greater Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada. Starving the Building Canada fund is not the way to do this.
I just want to remind the member for Vancouver Quadra not to use proper names, but to refer to each other by our riding names or titles.
Mr. Speaker, our government is proud to make strategic investments in infrastructure that contribute to economic growth, job creation, a cleaner environment and strong, prosperous communities.
The investments by our government have been unprecedented, beginning first with the historic Building Canada plan in 2007, which invested $33 billion over seven years, followed by the economic action plan in 2009, which invested an additional $14 billion in infrastructure and housing to boost our economy at the time.
A significant portion of this funding has gone to support public transit in cities across the country. Since 2006, we have committed over $7 billion in direct funding to public transit infrastructure across the country. In addition to this, during the same period, Canadian municipalities have used over $2 billion of their federal gas tax fund allocations toward transit investments.
Five of Canada's largest cities, being Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton, have directed most of their federal gas tax fund allocations to the public transit category.
Following on these record investments, our government worked with provinces, territories and municipalities to develop a long-term plan to invest in public infrastructure. As a result of these efforts, this Conservative government delivered the new Building Canada plan, which provides $53 billion for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure over a 10 year period. This includes $47 billion in new funding through: the $32.2 billion community improvement fund that supports municipal infrastructure across the country, such as roads, transit, water and waste water systems, and recreational and cultural facilities; the $14 billion new Building Canada fund to support provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure projects of national, regional and local significance, including public transit; and the renewed P3 Canada fund, with $1.25 billion to support innovative ways to invest in infrastructure projects, providing better value for taxpayer money through public-private partnerships.
Our government launched the new Building Canada fund on schedule, in fact, ahead of schedule by a few days, on March 28. We are also concluding renewed agreements with provinces and territories for the gas tax fund, which we have extended, doubled, made permanent and now indexed at 2% per year, ensuring municipalities have the certainty they need to plan and invest in their infrastructure priorities.
Finally, $6 billion from existing infrastructure programs continues to support public infrastructure.
In conclusion, our government remains committed to working with the provinces, territories and municipalities as we continue to make record investments in public transit that support job creation, economic growth and a high quality of life for Canadians in every community across Canada.
With respect to the member's home province of British Columbia, I am pleased to inform the House that the province will receive almost $4 billion in dedicated federal funding over the next decade.
Mr. Speaker, nothing in the response tests my assertion, which is that this funding is dropping 87% this year and next year over last year. It is not until 2019 that the funding level will return to what it was last year, so this is years of delay in critical infrastructure.
I note the member is praising the benefits of the gas tax fund, and I would agree with that. This is a program initiated by a previous Liberal government and it was the right thing to do.
He also praises investment in rapid transit. Just to make a point of comparison, the $500 million that was spent for the Canada line to the airport, a very important federal investment, was actually approved and budgeted by a previous Liberal government. That is $500 million for one—
Mr. Speaker, the member's assertions are incorrect. This federal government will be investing in average of over $5 billion per year in infrastructure over the next decade. This is part of our $53 billion investment through the new building Canada plan.
This funding will support provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure across the country, including roads, public transit, water, recreation and cultural infrastructure. Over 70% of new funding under the plan is dedicated specifically to municipalities for municipal infrastructure priorities, and this record investment in public infrastructure will build upon the $7 billion our government has already provided for public transit in cities across the country and will support job creation, economic growth and help to enhance a high quality of life for Canadians in every community across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the question I asked in February remains as important today as it was when asked. The use of CSEC to intercept some passengers transiting our major airports for WiFi communications or any other communications constitutes a form of unwarranted surveillance.
I also referenced the 2012-13 annual report of the CSE commissioner, whose mandate is to provide oversight of CSE. In that report, at page 20, the commissioner stated the following with respect to the issue of whether CSE was operating within the law as the minister claims it did in response to my question on February 3. The commissioner stated:
| I had no concern with respect to the majority of the CSEC activities...However, a small number of records suggested the possibility that some activities may have been directed at Canadians, contrary to law...I was unable to reach a definitive conclusion about compliance or non-compliance with the law. |
It is interesting that the Minister of National Defence has failed to address this situation, which flatly contradicts the statement he made to the House on February 3. He said at that point, that report, meaning the 2012-13 report, referring to the commissioner, highlighted that all reviewed CSEC activities were authorized and carried out in accordance with the law. As I just quoted, the commissioner actually said “contrary to law”.
What the minister said is factually wrong. I hope the minister or the parliamentary secretary will correct that misleading statement this evening.
In testimony before the Senate National Security and Defence Committee on February 3, the chief of CSEC, John Foster, stated that CSEC was “specifically required to protect the privacy of Canadians”. However, he also stated that given the nature in the cyber and telecommunications environment, CSEC “may risk the incidental interception of private communications of Canadians”. How often that occurs was not elaborated on. However, Mr. Foster did make a statement that was of concern, and it goes to the heart of the question I asked the Minister of National Defence on February 3. Did the minister, under the provisions of section 273.65 of the National Defence Act, give any authorization to CSEC to conduct surveillance operations which could result in the monitoring of communications of Canadians within Canada or of individuals transiting our country?
Given these revelations and the fact the Minister of Public Safety just this week admitted that the agencies under his mandate were in fact involved in telecommunications surveillance in excess of 1.2 million times in a single year, I have to ask the minister to be clear. Did the minister authorize the surveillance of Canadians under section 273.65 of the National Defence Act?
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this opportunity to once again assure all Canadians who are concerned about the activities of the Communications Security Establishment Canada that CSEC's activities are lawful, they are independently reviewed, and they serve to protect Canadians from foreign threats.
The House has engaged in a full debate on this matter, including debating a motion tabled by the member for Malpeque for a full day back in February. The Minister of National Defence and the chief of CSEC have also appeared before the Senate committee and the House committee on national defence to outline how CSEC makes invaluable contributions to the safety of Canadians as well as a continued commitment to lawfulness and privacy.
The key facts continue to remain unchanged. CSEC operates within all Canadian laws, including the National Defence Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code, and the Privacy Act. CSEC is also subject to legislative measures to protect the privacy of Canadians and persons in Canada. By law, CSEC cannot direct its foreign intelligence activities at Canadians, whether they are at home or abroad, or at any person in Canada, and it cannot target Canadians indirectly if it is prohibited from doing it directly, which means it cannot use any of the Five Eyes partners to do any of that work.
CSEC may lawfully assist federal law enforcement and security agencies under their legal authorities, such as applicable court warrants.
CSEC has an effective and independent review body. The CSE Commissioner, an esteemed retired supernumerary judge, reviews all the agency's activities. The commissioner does not take direction from the government or from CSEC, and his office is independently funded by its own budgetary appropriation from Parliament. In order to review the agency's activities, the commissioner is supported by expert staff and external consultants and has full access to CSEC staff, records, and systems.
The commissioner has never found CSEC to have acted unlawfully. In fact, he has specifically noted CSEC's culture of lawful compliance and genuine concern for protecting the privacy of Canadians. Further, multiple commissioners now, all highly qualified judges, have reviewed CSEC's metadata activities. These reviews concluded that its activities are in compliance with the law and subject to comprehensive and satisfactory measures to protect the privacy of all Canadians.
As the current commissioner, Jean-Pierre Plouffe, has noted in his public statements, he is fully aware of CSEC's metadata activities and has the full co-operation of the agency in his review activities.
These are the basic facts, the same as they have been since the member's last request for an adjournment debate back in January. Once again, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight that CSEC's foreign intelligence activities are critical to the ongoing protection of Canadians and Canada's interests. CSEC plays an essential role in protecting our country and our citizens from threats such as terrorism, hostage takers, cyberthreats, and foreign espionage. The work of this agency has revealed plots to attack Canadians and allied personnel overseas before these plans could be executed. CSEC has also helped reveal foreign-led efforts to radicalize and train individuals to carry out attacks here in Canada.
In Afghanistan, CSEC's operations were critical in assisting in the protection of our brave men and women in uniform from insurgents. Each and every day, the dedicated men and women working in the Communications Security Establishment work in obscurity and silence to help ensure our nation's prosperity, security, and stability.
Mr. Speaker, there were not a lot of answers to the question I asked.
Nobody is questioning the need for CSEC in security matters. What we are questioning is whether Canadians are in effect being spied on. We have the issue of CSEC, which used metadata at airports, which we are talking about tonight. We have the admission now of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that the RCMP, CSIS, and the Canada Border Services Agency were, in fact, involved in the gathering of information in those 1.2 million requests that the Privacy Commissioner released. We also know that earlier in the year, the Canada Border Services Agency was involved in about 1,800 requests. Is it being done illegally?
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that it is not. I can tell the member for Malpeque and all Canadians who are watching that CSEC has to act within the law. Even when it is assisting the RCMP and CSIS with any of those activities, it has to go through the proper court orders in respect to legislation to ensure that Canadians' rights are protected.
Let me say it one more time: CSEC acts within the law. The commissioner and his staff are independent, and they do robust review and oversight of the commission.
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes related to Transport in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Business of Supply]
[English]
Business of Supply
Transport—Main Estimates, 2014–15
(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Transport in the main estimates, Mr. Bruce Stanton in the chair)
I would like to open this committee of the whole session by making a short statement on this evening's proceedings.
Tonight's debate is being held under Standing Order 81(4)(a), which provides for each of two sets of estimates selected by the Leader of the Opposition to be considered in committee of the whole for up to four hours.
The debate is also held under the provisions of the order made on Tuesday, May 6, 2014. Tonight's debate is a general one on all of the votes related to Transport. Each member will be allocated 15 minutes. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the Liberal Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.
As provided in an order made on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, parties may use each 15-minute slot for speeches or for questions and answers by one or more of their members. In the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allotted may speak one after the other. The Chair would appreciate it if the first member speaking in each slot would indicate how his or her time will be used, particularly if it is to be shared.
[Translation]
When the time is to be used for questions and answers, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the parties.
Though members may speak more than once, the Chair will generally try to ensure that all members wishing to speak are heard before inviting members to speak again, while respecting the proportional party rotations for speakers.
Members need not be in their own seats to be recognized.
[English]
Finally, I would remind hon. members that according to the order made May 6, during this evening's debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
As your Chair, I am guided by the rules of the committee of the whole and by the order made on Tuesday, May 6, 2014. However, in the interests of a full exchange, I am prepared to exercise discretion and flexibility in the application of these rules.
I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, ministers and members should be referred to by their titles or riding names, and of course, all remarks should addressed through the Chair.
I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language, and behaviour. At the