2010-11-05

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census).
Without commenting on the merits of the bill, it is my submission that the bill alters the conditions and qualifications for appropriations for Statistics Canada. The bill therefore requires a royal recommendation under Standing Order 79.
The Statistics Act sets out the duties and functions of Statistics Canada and the Chief Statistician of Canada. While this mandate is broad with respect to statistical matters, much of the activities are discretionary in nature and the act prescribes very few statutory obligations. 
In fact, there are only two specific surveys or censuses required by the Statistics Act, a census of population as required by subsection 19(1), and a census of agriculture as required by section 20.
Further, the act provides few requirements for these censuses. The only requirement is set out in subsection 19(2) which requires the census of population to include the population counts for each electoral district.
What is more, all of the activities contemplated by the Statistics Act are under the direction of either the minister or the Governor in Council.
For example, under subsection 21(1), the Governor in Council is authorized to prescribe the questions to be asked in the census of population or agriculture. Section 22 of the act states that the Chief Statistician shall collect and compile statistics under the direction of the minister.
Section 8 of the act states that the minister may, by order, authorize a voluntary survey. Section 7 of the act states that: 
 The Minister may, by order, prescribe such rules, instructions, schedules and forms as the Minister deems requisite for conducting the work and business of Statistics Canada, the collecting, compiling and publishing of statistics and other information and the taking of any census authorized by this Act. 
To sum up, the Statistics Act requires two censuses and says next to nothing about the nature of the questions to be asked in these censuses. The Governor in Council establishes the questions and the minister is responsible for the taking of the census.
I now turn to clause 1 of Bill C-568, which would amend the Statistics Act to provide two new requirements.
First, each population census must include a long form census questionnaire distributed to at least 20% of all households, or to whatever percentage the Chief Statistician has determined to be appropriate.
Second, the long form census questionnaire must conform substantially, in length and substantive scope, to the questions in the 1971 census.
This is a new obligation. While there has always been statutory authority to include a long form census, it has always been discretionary on the part of the Governor in Council. This is therefore a new obligation that alters the conditions and qualifications for the mandate of Statistics Canada.
This new obligation also requires expenditures. For example, Statistics Canada estimates that a long form census in 2011 would cost a minimum of $50 million. Under the current legal framework, the government has the discretion to decide whether or not to spend this $50 million. Under Bill C-568, the government would be obliged to appropriate the necessary funds to carry out its legal duties.
My point is not simply that Bill C-568 would require the expenditure of funds, but also that it does so in a way that alters the conditions and qualifications of Statistics Canada's existing mandate.
On page 834 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
 A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative. 
On February 11, 2008, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-474, Federal Sustainable Development Act, that:
 ...clause 13...would impose additional functions on the commissioner that are substantially different from those foreseen in the current mandate. In the Chair's view, clause 13 thus alters the conditions set out in the original bill to which a royal recommendation was attached. 
Other precedents clearly establish that a change in purpose requiring new expenditures must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
On October 20, 2006, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-286, the witness protection bill, that:
 ...the bill proposes to carry out an entirely new function. As a new function, such an activity is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation. As the House knows, funds are approved by Parliament only for purposes covered by the accompanying royal recommendation, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1). New functions or activities must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation. 
On November 8, 2006, the Speaker ruled on Bill C-279, the DNA identification bill, that:
 ...clause 2 amends the purpose clause of the DNA Identification Act to include the identifying of missing persons as one of the purposes for maintaining the data bank...the addition of this new purpose to the act would require significant new expenditures by the government. 
I recognize that not all changes to an organization's mandate will always require a royal recommendation and that departments have the ability to reallocate funds in order to meet their legislative requirements.
As you recently noted, Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2010, in your ruling on Bill C-300:
 Bill C-300 does require the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to examine bona fide complaints concerning possible contraventions of the guidelines to be established under clause 5, but the bill is silent with respect to the manner in which such examinations are to be conducted. The respective ministers appear to have entire discretion in this regard. 
In contrast, Bill C-568 removes all discretion from the minister and Governor in Council in deciding whether to include a long form census questionnaire with each census.
For this reason, Bill C-568 would add a new statutory obligation to the Statistics Act and would alter the mandate of Statistics Canada, thereby changing the conditions and qualifications of the royal recommendation that accompanied that act.
I submit, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the bill requires a royal recommendation.
Copyright Modernization Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to a legislative committee.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), as reported (without amendment) from the committee. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Hon. Diane Finley:  moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): (Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When will the bill be read the third time? By leave now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Diane Finley: moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Daniel Petit (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).
This bill has strong support from the government and the opposition parties, which just goes to show how important this bill is.
I will not discuss the bill in detail, since it has been thoroughly studied and I think it is time to move forward with this initiative and to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to better deal with auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime. 
In essence, this bill directly targets the very serious issue of property crimes and, more specifically, auto theft. The bill will add offences to the Criminal Code by creating a separate offence for motor vehicle theft, offences that provide for sanctions for trafficking in property obtained by crime, and also an offence for tampering with vehicle identification numbers.
Auto theft costs Canadians over $1 billion a year, and related cases of dangerous driving make Canadian roads unsafe. Furthermore, it is clear that auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime represent a huge source of revenue for organized crime groups.
With this bill, our government has taken measures to protect Canadians, their property and their communities. That is why I support this bill. I would like to conclude by thanking all the members of the House, including the members of the justice committee, for the work they have done on this important legislation, and I urge members to pass it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-9. This is not the first time we have debated this topic, which is a very serious challenge for the entire country. Many bills have already been introduced about this topic.
This is not the first time that we have stood and talked about doing something with respect to auto theft.
 First, before I get into criticizing the government for interrupting its own legislative agenda with the interruption of the sitting of Parliament, one of the most effective ways to battle auto theft and crime in general is to resource our police forces, our prosecutors, our court systems and to restore confidence, which has been diminished in our judicial system by the actions, the words and, in the case of funding, the inactions of the Conservative government.
 I met with some representatives of the policing community in Winnipeg. Winnipeg, as members know, once had the dubious distinction of being the auto theft capital of Canada. However, It does not anymore. Therefore, congratulations to the city council and the police forces of Winnipeg. However, another community now has that distinction. Whenever one community falls off the dubious mark, another leaps ahead.
Let us be clear on this. We compliment ourselves in passing laws. We think these great statements and declarations have an effect, and sometimes they do. I do not want to diminish the work of the justice committee, or the Minister of Justice or Parliament itself. However, let us face it, with prorogation, elections, debates and the slowly moving process involving our legislation in our bicameral system, whether it is a Liberal-dominated or now a Conservative-dominated holding up of legislation, the fact is we do not put out a great quantity of precise, surgical legislation for topics like auto theft.
We might ask ourselves, how Winnipeg did it if it did not have our help with this legislation or legislation like it. It did it with resources. It did it with smart tactical policing. It identified groups of what were most likely to be the perpetrators of auto theft and went after them. It also instituted programs outside the Criminal Code and outside strict policing with respect to electronic devices that determined where thefts occurred and where the vehicles would go.
I will take the blame for all of us in Parliament, but we are late at the game in getting to Bill S-9. I have said it before. I hope Bill S-9 does not follow the ill-fated path of its identical twins. We are now into triplets, of which Bill S-9 is a part. Sadly, if this were an obituary in a few months because of an election or something, it would read, “predeceased by identical twins Bill C-53 and Bill C-26” and maybe we would come back again, do another bill and then there would be quadruplets. 
The point is we have to get to this bill and we have to pass it. We worked very well at the justice committee, making suggestions, doing the due diligence with respect to Bill S-9, getting statistics and all those sorts of things.
There is no question we want this bill passed. It would give a lot of aid to police services and to communities suffering from epidemics of auto theft.
One thing we know, as the justice committee and parliamentarians in general, is police forces have their hands full, their resources are not necessarily growing and, overall, the criminal element in our country is getting leaner, sleeker, smarter, better resourced, more focused and more efficacious. This is the battle we are fighting on every front, not just auto theft. 
However, it particularly bears down on auto theft. The theft of an auto, whether it is for the purposes of committing another crime for temporary use, or committing some other crime of a violent nature so as to hide the identity of perpetrators or the cash value of vehicles, this is an epidemic in our larger communities, for sure. The intelligence of the criminal community in disassembling vehicles, obliterating vehicle identification numbers and transporting parts of cars or whole cars internationally is not in the decline; it is on the rise. Whatever we can do in a modest way to make that better, we should all be for it. 
Bill S-9 attempts to amend the Criminal Code. It was introduced, in this case, in the Senate and received first reading on May 4. As I mentioned, it is identical to Bill C-26 and targets motor vehicle theft. It also addresses trafficking in any other property obtained by crime in the exporting and importing of such property. 
The raw notion was that we should create a separate offence for auto theft. That, in itself, is a good thing. If we look at the intent of code to develop the importance or hierarchy of offences, one would be surprised perhaps that cattle theft is defined separately in the code, but auto theft is not. Therefore, it is probably time, since the book originates from 1892, that we put auto theft at least on par with cattle theft, with all due deference to ranchers. The auto is the new horse and a way of getting around the community since 1920. Therefore, we are getting in the game and modernizing, and good for us.
It fits very nicely just after section 333 of the code, at about the middle of the section called “PART IX OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY”. The code speaks first about offences against the person. It speaks mostly about offences against the rights of property. Then it is almost two-thirds caught up with specific offences, modes of trial and procedural aspects of the code, which are so important.
To get back to the very simple nature of the bill, creating the new offence of vehicle theft as punishable is a good thing. We can all support it. It takes it to a maximum sentence of 10 years, which shows that we feel that auto theft is important. It is a serious crime. In the case of a third or subsequent offence, it also provides a mandatory minimum of six months.
There has been a lot of discussion about mandatory minimum sentences in the House and in the newspapers. I think people must understand that this is nothing new, that mandatory minimum sentences in strategic tactical areas have been introduced since the 1980s, more particular under a former Liberal government with respect to specific violent crimes involving guns and organized crime. They were implemented in a very thorough way in 1995. Adding mandatory minimums to a number of offences in the Conservative government's regime has been somewhat scattered, but let us examine it in this case.
If a person steals an automobile with intent to commit another crime, to obliterate the VIN or just simply steals a vehicle three times, is it reasonable that a minimum sentence be applied of six months? We think it is. We think this is a reasonable balance which would meet the test. 
The overall test of sentencing in our country in section 718 is proportionality. It bears repeating that section 718 should be the start of any review of offences, any creation of offences, any change to offences because it sets out a scale of how we treat criminals once they have been convicted. Everyone should pay attention to the balance in section 718. 
I suppose some would say that we should make rehabilitation of the convicted person the only agenda. I understand and have sympathy for that because every criminal is somebody's son or daughter and every criminal has a very good chance of going back into the community, so we ought to do our best to rehabilitate the incarcerated person. There is no question about that. It is important. 
To make it overriding seeks to destroy the balance created within section 718. That balance must include denunciation of the act. In our country the strongest denunciation we give is to offences like murder. Murder in the first degree carries denunciation, meaning a person will be denounced by the judge or a jury of his or her peers by being given a sentence of life in prison with the eligibility for parole, which takes rehabilitation into account.
Therefore, there is a balance regarding deterrence, which is the third factor, suggesting that if the court gives a sentence, through following the laws of Parliament, of severity grave enough to stop someone else from doing the same thing is a good societal reason to up the sentence or consider it.
One of the final considerations in the big four is to remove the person from the public if there is harm.
Keeping all of those in mind, sentences must be proportionate to the offence created. Therefore, we feel that these mandatory minimums placed in this stand-alone section for auto theft are reasonable. They are not new in terms of sentencing and they are something with which we as lawmakers can live. 
The stand-alone aspect of the bill is needed. It is modernizing the code. The mandatory minimum that attaches with it is proportionate.
Also, we always have to be mindful of the other provisions in section 718, which specifically suggest that if an aboriginal person is convicted of such an offence, the court must find a way to take into account the special circumstances of the aboriginal community. As we know, aboriginals represent such a high proportion of incarcerated people in our country. There is something wrong that and that is why the section was brought in, under a previous Liberal government. The section suggests to judges that they must take into consideration alternative measures that would better suit the convicted aboriginal person.
I do not see this in any way interfering with the duty of a judge to take that into consideration because the mandatory minimum, frankly, is a short time. Through our committee hearings, we did not hear of the disproportionality of first nations and aboriginal offenders with respect to this proposed offence in auto theft.
That leaves us with the other aspects of the bill, which are quite innovative, and we must compliment the Department of Justice for crafting legislation which is pretty tricky. Those are aspects with respect to giving our Canada Border Services Agency more power with respect to the exporting of vehicles and with respect to the obliteration of the vehicle identification number, or VIN. Those are two topics on which I will spend the rest of my time.
 Let us tackle the VIN. I hesitate using the word tackle because it seems every Conservative bill tackles and solves a problem by its short title, when in fact it is a gradual evolution to the good of the Criminal Code. We would prefer the government to be less full of hyperbole and excitement with respect to its bills and concentrate on what is actually happening, which albeit is a good thing. It is evolving the Criminal Code to meet the needs of the changes in society. In this case, the vehicle identification number is something that is a bit tricky.
This is the numbered and lettered code on the dash of a vehicle, which identifies one's vehicle. However, members will know that in recent errors with multifaceted production methods, various parts of automobiles have various identification numbers. In any event, it is the manner in which vehicles are identified. The obliteration of that should be an offence on its own. 
If there is a reason to obliterate the number, it has to be a pretty good one. At committee, we could only think of people who were in the automotive repair business and might inadvertently obliterate a VIN in repairs effected in the restoration of vehicles that had been damaged. In the case where the part of the vehicle where the VIN had been damaged, there would have to be a lawful excuse. Therefore, we covered it off, with the help of the Department of Justice, by suggesting that without lawful excuse, the VIN should not be obliterated. However, we wanted to maintain that a VIN alteration was a very serious thing and was something new for the Criminal Code. Bravo for all of us agreeing that this should be the case.
 The obliteration of or tampering with the VIN is punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. This is in clause 4 of the bill. We thought that exemplified the seriousness with which we viewed tampering with the VIN. Remember that auto theft is a more serious provision because it is a maximum of 10 years. Tampering with the VIN is a maximum of five years. We think this is the right hierarchy.
Another offence that is created is the offence of trafficking in property obtained by crime and possession of property obtained by crime for the purpose of trafficking. This is punishable by a maximum of 14 years and is a very important part of the bill.
In the time that I have left, I will speak about CBSA and our borders. 
While this bill is about auto theft, I think we realize that from sea-to-sea-to-sea we have a long, undefended, porous border. We do our best, but it is a fantastically large task for the Canada Border Services Agency to patrol our borders with the same efficacy that smaller nations patrol theirs. One can imagine that the borders of Liechtenstein might be a lot easier to guard, because it is a much a smaller country. 
In our case, we have to admit that we have long stretches of border that are undefended and not monitored. For someone attempting to smuggle guns in, smuggle drugs out, or import or export cars or car parts, it must be easier for them to do that than it is for the RCMP, CSIS, the Canadian government, and the Canada Border Services Agency to plug the holes. With that in mind, we thought it was a great idea to allow the Canada Border Services Agency, by amendment, to prevent the cross-border movement of property obtained by crime, including stolen vehicles.
 It might come as quite a shock to people not on the justice committee that this was not an offence before. It will be now, if this bill passes. If the bill does not suffer the fate of its previous twins, it will be an offence to move property obtained by crime, like a stolen vehicle or vehicle parts, across the border. 
We had to have assurances from the justice department that there was no extraterritoriality provision in this. Really, it is saying that the vehicle that just left is a party to an offence, and the offence is the exportation. The vehicle might already be gone, might already be somewhere else, and there might be legal issues with respect to obtaining the evidence of the crime, which is the exportation.
We know that the Canada Border Services Agency does a good job. We know that it needs funding, law, and the tools to prevent exportation of vehicles and vehicle parts. 
I will segue into something that is controversial. 
We had a long debate, not so much in Parliament but certainly outside of Parliament, about gun control. I think all of us would agree that guns are often instrumental in the commission of crimes, and that many guns come into this country illegally through our border. I think we should stop and reflect on doing something about that. 
These illegal handguns come through a porous border, and we must give the Canada Border Services Agency the tools they need to prevent this traffic. In the case of auto theft, it is exportation, going the other way. But we want to give CBSA the tools and resources to prevent the intrusion of guns upon our sovereignty. The saying goes that “guns do not kill people, people kill people”, but guns are the objects that are used. 
When the Canada Border Services Agency appeared before us, it presented itself in a most professional and informed manner. I want to commend CBSA as an agency of the government. I want to make sure that the government understands that it is ready, willing, and able to take on the task of defending our border.
 This little part in this little act is a salute to the men and women of the Canada Border Services Agency for the fine job they do in all parts of our country, whether it is airports or borders, seaports or rail stations. The Canada Border Services Agency protects us and needs our help. Bill S-9 delivers that help.
 I am pleased to support the bill in general and the federal agencies that will be affected.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a slight disagreement with the member's initial analysis of why Manitoba has been able to achieve success. My colleague gives credit to city council, but in fact, it was the NDP government of Gary Doer that finally came to grips with the issue after 11 years of Conservative government inaction. 
We started dealing with this issue when Gary Doer became premier in 1999. The issue was two-pronged. One part was the gang-suppression approach, which was initiated 100% by the province. The second part was the immobilizer program for vehicles. It was run by the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, which is controlled 100% by the province of Manitoba.
Officials from the province of Manitoba came here on September 13, 2007. The federal government did not go to Manitoba with suggestions for change. Manitoba officials came here and demanded that the federal government take action. 
B.C. has a bait car program and other provinces have different initiatives.
The member should also know that it was the former Liberal government in July 2003 that mandated that anti-theft immobilizers be required after September 1, 2007 on all vehicles built for sale in Canada. 
The Insurance Bureau of Canada has indicated for years that if immobilizers had been put in at the factory 20 years ago, they could have been installed for $30 to $50 apiece, and we would have avoided much of the car theft carnage that has developed over the last 20 years.
I wonder if the member would like to make some comments on that. I also have a further question for him.
[Interjection]
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the member was in the House when I gave my first speech on that topic, and I was careful to give credit to Doer, Chomiak, and Katz. It sounds like a law firm, but it is actually the premier, the minister of justice, and the mayor, who has now been returned to office. It is an old habit of mine to give credit to municipal politicians. I am an old municipal politician myself.
 I met with some officials of the civic police force in Winnipeg. They were very interested in hunting down people committing auto theft, and they were helped by the provincial legislation on immobilizers. I thought I had covered that in my previous speech.
I am in total agreement with what the member says, particularly the part about the Liberal government and its amendments to the Criminal Code on interlock devices. 
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, when the delegation of the provincial government arrived in Ottawa in September 2007, as the member said, it included Attorney General Chomiak, the leader of the provincial Liberal Party, the leader of the opposition in Manitoba, and several people other with interest in this issue.
They were asking in 2007 that the government provide stronger penalties for youth involved in serious crimes, especially those involving auto theft. They wanted first degree murder charges for gang-related homicides. They wanted to eliminate the two-for-one remand credits that we are still dealing with. They wanted to classify auto theft as an indictable, violent offence. We are dealing with this today: making shooting at a building and drive-by shootings indictable offences.
This blows holes in the government's argument that the opposition is soft on crime. That is absolutely untrue. Some of these initiatives have come from the provinces, not from the federal government, so the government should be giving credit to the province of Manitoba for taking this initiative.
With respect to gang suppression, we looked at the immobilizer issue, because we thought that if we could immobilize the cars they could not be stolen in the first place. But that was only part of the problem. The other problem was identifying the 50-odd people who were stealing almost all of the cars. The police gang-suppression unit was formed, and officers monitored and followed these people. By the way, they used a bit of Nova Scotia technology in the process: they adopted a monitoring bracelet that was attached to the offenders' legs. They tested it for a year, and I believe it is still in use in Manitoba right now. But these are the reasons we have had a reduction in auto theft in Manitoba.
 I am wondering why this has not spread across the country, why other jurisdictions have not adopted this reasonable approach. Our program to bring more immigrants into the province was very successful. Officials from the province of Nova Scotia came to Manitoba to study it, and I think they implemented it, because it was very successful. I am wondering why other provinces have not stepped up to the plate and followed Manitoba's example in this area, because this is a very serious problem, and it is going to take a number of years for it to resolve itself. I would like to ask the member if he has any further comments on these matters.
[Interjection]
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, provincial laws vary across the country and it is a matter of provinces being the masters of their own domain. Another example is the coming bill on the reporting of child Internet pornography. Some provinces have laws on the protection of children that are more powerful than the federal law that is coming. 
We wondered why other provinces were not following suit. Certainly, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Justice, or one of the two parliamentary secretaries, or the department itself to talk to provinces about whether they wish to enter fields like child protection and auto theft.
I want to finish by saying that on the issue of mandatory minimums there ought not to be a divide. There ought to be a reasoned look at each offence to determine whether a mandatory minimum makes sense. In this case, it does. We agree that, after almost five years now, the Conservative government has learned to bring in reasonable measures. Perhaps Conservatives are actually listening to the people in the Department of Justice who have informed us about proportionality under section 718. We applaud them for listening after five years. 
However, there are other opposition members who never, ever, believe in mandatory minimum sentences and insist that they have never been in the Criminal Code. Actually, they have been in the code for a long time. There is a bit of unruffling to do here with respect to how the NDP treats crime and how the Liberal Party, which first introduced mandatory minimums, treats crime. I guess it is like this: the NDP has never met a mandatory minimum sentence they liked, and the Conservatives have never met one they did not like. As usual, we are the balance for the big red tent, and we effect meaningful legislation.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed my colleague's speech. It was very erudite and pointed. 
I would like to ask him a fairly simple and short question. The government talks a lot about crime and a lot of its bills are on crime, but if it really wants to reduce crime, one of the most effective ways to do that is to deal with the early learning years. From the prenatal stage to the first 10 years of a child's life, what the child is subjected to can dramatically change the trajectory of that child's life. Subject a child to abuse, poor nutrition, or poor parenting and there can be a poor outcome for the child.
Instead of abandoning early learning head start programs, should the government not be working with the provinces to implement this, which has been proven to reduce youth crime by over 50%?
[Interjection]
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in response to that question, I choose to render homage to my predecessor and a former colleague of my friend who asked the question, Claudette Bradshaw, who founded head start in the greater Moncton area, was the first minister responsible for homelessness, and obviously had a very keen interest in issues of early intervention.
It is where a new Liberal government will go, following in her footsteps, and hopefully soon, better than later.
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this bill is very late in coming to us for adoption. Parliament has been ready to adopt such a bill for at least six years. It follows Bill C-53, which, if I am not mistaken, was introduced by the Liberals in a parliament long ago. It was followed by Bill C-26, which died on the order paper because of the selfish use of prorogation for political reasons, thus putting an end to all the work done by Parliament up to that point. The auto theft situation has changed, and the law definitely needs to be adapted; more precise measures need to be introduced because this type of crime has evolved.
It should be said from the outset that there are two types of automobile thefts. First there are joyrides, meaning that young people steal automobiles because they enjoy driving them around. Then there are those who steal automobiles to sell them elsewhere or, often, to dismantle them and sell them for parts. That is a very organized form of crime and deserves harsher punishments. However, the law has certain ways of fighting this type of crime. 
With respect to young people who steal, anyone who has been through that age, anyone who has kids and talks about this knows that young men are really fascinated by cars. Most of the people involved are young men because young women typically consider cars to be just a way to get around. Young men are really eager to drive. This happens in both wealthy and disadvantaged areas, but in the poorer areas, they have fewer opportunities, so they are tempted when there is peer pressure to take a car for a spin. That is the usual way things happen, as we have come to realize over the years.
There was once a minimum sentence for auto theft, and because it seemed too harsh for joyrides, the government came up with a bizarre-sounding charge: taking a vehicle without the owner's permission with the intent to deprive the owner of it “temporarily or absolutely”. That is the definition of theft. It was bizarre to have this additional offence, but this oddity took into account the fact that, in the case of joyrides, police officers and the Crown found it extreme to charge these young people with auto theft and seek the minimum penalty, which was two years in jail at the time, I believe.
Anyway, that minimum sentence was removed a while ago, in 1985, I gather. I am still checking that, but it does not matter. That kind of opportunistic crime can be headed off with restorative measures and rehabilitation.
Then there is the other kind of theft. Nobody likes thieves of any kind, but some are truly despicable, such as those who belong to organizations that steal cars for parts or ship them abroad to sell and make a profit. The act also deals with trafficking in property obtained by crime.
When an individual is knowingly in possession of property obtained by crime, that is a criminal offence that is punishable by the same maximum penalty that applies to the theft offence.
When I was a young lawyer, it was often said in court that if there was no fence, there would be no thief. But that offence is often committed by people who normally live very honest lives otherwise. They could not be identified as having ties to organized crime, but they might be tempted to buy a television or other stolen property. That is the offence of possession of stolen property. Now I think it is safe to say that those who traffic in property obtained by crime are committing a more serious offence than the individual who takes advantage of a situation and buys stolen property.
We should use the opportunity provided by this proposed legislation to add this new offence of trafficking in, importing or exporting property obtained by crime. The new maximum penalty is 14 years, while the penalty for possession of stolen goods is normally two years.
The other advantage of creating the offence of trafficking in property obtained by crime is that customs officials can intervene by consulting the electronic records of stolen vehicles. As soon as they realize that someone is trying to get a stolen vehicle into or out of the country through customs, they can immediately seize the stolen property. They would thus find someone in possession of stolen property, which would be an offence. This would allow them to take action immediately, which they cannot do under current legislation. So this is another area that this bill improves.
The bill makes another improvement in that it finally creates the new offence of tampering with a vehicle identification number without lawful excuse. But why would someone want to tamper with the vehicle identification number? Obviously, because the vehicle was stolen or for some other illegal purpose. Clearly, by doing that, the individual is committing a crime or intending to commit one. The proposed legislation states that not only is this evidence that the individual intends to commit a crime, but it is evidence that a crime is being committed. Once again, I think the maximum sentence is reasonable under these circumstances. So this is another significant improvement brought about by this bill.
The bill also includes minimum sentences. The majority of parliamentarians in this House know that I have reservations about minimum sentences, but my position has never been cast in stone. We accept minimum sentences for the most serious offences, such as murder. However, we generally do not look favourably on minimum sentences because they serve no purpose, as all the research shows. 
The odd thing is that, before the government began manifesting this tendency or compulsion to add minimum sentences everywhere and to multiply the number of minimum sentences in the law, it commissioned a study of other studies. A vast number of studies have been carried out. The government asked Department of Justice officials to look at the research on the effectiveness of minimum sentences in Commonwealth countries.
There is always the temptation to establish minimum sentences.They are popular. That is why the government is imposing them. There is no other reason. When we hear them talking about minimum sentences and getting tough on crime, their clapping and their attitude proves that their goal is not to have measures that will effectively fight crime; they are excited by the thought that this will bring them more votes.
That is what happened in the United States.
Everybody wanted to institute minimum sentences for just about anything. As a result, many people are now being jailed in the United States whereas a generation ago, about 30 years ago, the U.S rate of incarceration was about the same as that in Canada and Europe. Today, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It is seven times that of Canada, and six to eight or ten times that of European countries. Is anyone prepared to say that the United States is seven times safer? No.
The first reason why minimum sentences do not work is that people ignore them. I could challenge my colleagues in this House to tell me how many minimum sentences there are in the Criminal Code and to name five. Most people cannot.
The second reason is that when criminals commit a crime they are not usually thinking about the sentence they will be given if they are caught. Instead, they focus on not getting caught and they take precautions to that end.
For minimum sentences to be a deterrent, people have to be aware of them. Here we have a minimum sentence, but for a third offence. Judges should warn people when they are sentenced for their first offence that if they commit a second offence a minimum sentence will apply. Judges did not do that as much as I would have liked when I was practising. I did it as a lawyer and they knew it. In this case, since we are talking about the third offence, I do not think it is justified and I do not believe this will really have an impact, but let us just say it is more acceptable. We will not vote against this because overall the bill is beneficial, but I do not really see the need for this aspect.
I hope that during sentencing, judges will warn people, especially young people, because they are the ones who matter here. Whether they have stolen cars for joyrides or they are getting into stealing because they are working for an organization that dismantles cars, they need to know that they risk getting a six-month prison sentence for a third offence. Frankly, if I were the judge and I had a young or not so young person standing before me whom I was sentencing for a third offence, I would consider giving him a sentence of at least six months and perhaps more. In these cases, people are warned.
Car theft in Canada has decreased since 1996, but it is still quite prevalent. There certainly are differences from one province to the next, but that has not really been elaborated on. It is not a bad idea to talk about that. In Quebec, we experience a specific phenomenon. From what I know about crime, I know that in Quebec our big ports have a lot to do with it. Organized crime works mainly in stealing luxury vehicles, and it is organized well enough to quickly load cars onto containers that are being shipped abroad. That is why in Quebec we have a rather high rate of automobile theft, but it is much lower than the rate in Manitoba. I understand why and I will leave it to people from that region to talk about the difficulties they encounter. They have come up with a smart approach to tracking car thieves.
Generally speaking, this bill is long overdue. It is scandalous that it was not brought before us when we were all in favour of passing it. We agree because it is—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin will have five minutes to finish his speech when the House resumes consideration of this bill.
We will now proceed with statements by members. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

Statements By Members
Parliamentary DebateMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians debate passionately. We debate along cultural lines, religious lines and social lines. A wise man knows passionate debates need to be resolved.
Who is responsible for finding resolution? It is the members of this Parliament who should be reconciling Canadians and who should be listening to one another.
 Canadians are debating noble issues. They are debating about issues of fundamental human rights. Does every human being deserve the protection of fundamental human rights? Is a child only a human being when fully born as our law says, or is a child a human being before that?
When rights conflict, how do we balance them? 
These are noble questions. My belief is that they deserve noble answers and a respectful dialogue among parliamentarians daring to reconcile, not divide, Canadians.
Citizenship and ImmigrationHon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government must establish stronger measures to protect Canadians against people who use a fraudulent marriage as a safe immigration passport to our country.
I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to take action in cases when fraud was perpetrated against the Canadian immigration system, including the ones affecting many victims in my constituency.
To prevent future cases in which marriages with Canadian citizens are entered into for the purposes of obtaining permanent residence status, I call upon the government to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to strengthen the conditional immigration marriage-based system.
Furthermore, the government should establish a period of three to five years of probation for marriage-based immigrants, including a requirement that couples have been living together and intend to continue living together in the future.
Moreover, the government should restrict the finalization of each citizenship application until the probation period is complete and there has been no criminal activity or offences under the immigration act.
I strongly urge the government to take concrete action to stop marriage fraud and protect its victims.
Soprema and Teknika HBAMr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Soprema recently won first prize in the category of companies with 200 to 499 employees in Quebec's Défi Meilleurs Employeurs.
The Défi Meilleurs Employeurs encourages Quebec companies to become better employers by measuring their employees’ productive engagement. It recognizes companies that provide a healthy and stimulating work environment. 
Soprema had its employees fill out a survey containing questions on several aspects of the company. According to managers, this award shows that the approximately 275 employees enjoy the work environment at Soprema, which has two factories in my riding in Quebec.
The first prize in the category of companies with more than 500 employees was won for the third time by Teknika HBA, a large engineering consulting firm that also has a branch in Drummondville. 
Congratulations to both of these companies, which are now among the best employers in Quebec.
Remembrance DayMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I personally wish to congratulate Mr. Andrew Cohen and the Historica-Dominion Institute for keeping the memory and history of all of Canada alive.
Recently, 34,000 Canadians signed an online petition asking that all Canadians, especially parliamentarians on this side of the House and in the Senate, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month observe two minutes of silence. As Terry Kelly once said, two minutes is “a pittance of time” to reflect, remember and show respect for the 118,000 that have gone before, as well as those who are currently serving and those who will serve in the future.
A tip of the salt and pepper cap to that great organization, the Historica-Dominion Institute, for the great job it does for all Canadians and all of Canada.
Cornwall Community Police ServiceMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on October 28, I had the pleasure of joining Chief of Police Dan Parkinson and Georges Levere, President of the Cornwall Police Association, for a retirement and recognition evening of the Cornwall Community Police Service.
Retirees Christopher Burley, Lucien Brunet, Scott Hanton, Rick Carter, Pierre Lalonde and Dianne Connors were honoured for their many years of service with the Cornwall Community Police Service.
Sergeant Wayne Holland and Staff Sergeant Gary Derochie received exemplary service bars for 40 years of dedicated service to the community of Cornwall.
Elaine Moquin was honoured with the Cornwall Police Association Award.
Shawn White, Derek Duchesne, Ryan Campeau and Stephen Whitehorne were presented with awards of excellence for investigation.
These brave men and women along with 40 others received awards for the great service they provide to the residents of Cornwall.
On behalf of the residents of Cornwall, I wish to extend my appreciation to these individuals and police officers throughout Canada for making our communities safer and better places in which to live.
Five Days in NovemberMr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to a very special book launch in my riding. Entitled Five Days in November, this book by Robert Catsburg recounts a battle fought by Canadian soldiers in 1944 to liberate Welberg, a small town in the Netherlands. 
Originally written in Dutch, the book has recently been translated into English by Ineke Hardy, thanks to the determination of Sandy O'Grady, a constituent whose father Major Keith Stirling fought and was captured in Holland during the war.
This book is more than simply an account of military history. It is a tale of Canadians fighting for the liberty of a faraway country and of civilians caught in the middle of a ferocious battle. With Remembrance Day fast approaching, Five Days in November is a fitting tribute to thousands of Canadian armed forces personnel who have sacrificed their lives serving our country.
On behalf of all hon. members, I would like to congratulate everyone involved in the publication of this very worthwhile book.
National Railway DayMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, author Pierre Berton always said the most pivotal day in Canadian history after July 1, 1867, was November 7, 1885. That is when the last spike was driven into the transcontinental main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Craigellachie, B.C., completing the world's first transcontinental railway under one management.
The importance of that date in the building of the Canadian nation has never been more eloquently summarized as on the plaque that marks the spot where the last spike was driven:
 A nebulous dream was a reality; an iron ribbon crossed Canada from sea to sea. Often following the footsteps of early explorers, nearly 3,000 miles of steel rail pushed across vast prairies, cleft lofty mountain passes, twisted through canyons and bridged a thousand streams. Here on November 7, 1885, a plain iron spike welded East to West. 
This Sunday marks the 125th anniversary of the last spike and I am proud the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages will recognize November 7 as National Railway Day. One hundred and twenty-five years ago an impossible dream became a reality, and a nation flourished and grew because it did.
Arts and CultureMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 20 months ago, I moved a motion to reinstate funding for the PromArt and Trade Routes international touring programs. My colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and I met with artists from all over Quebec who told us that these cuts would take a tremendous toll on culture and the economy. 
Two years later, a study by the International Exchange for the Performing Arts has confirmed their fears. The elimination of these programs resulted in the cancellation of over 175 tours and the loss of $15.8 million in revenues. The cuts hit particularly hard in Quebec, where organizations received the largest portion of the funding that was eliminated. Every dollar cut resulted in the loss of about $6.30 in revenue. 
The Conservative government is hurting Quebec's cultural industry. The government must act on Motion M-297, which was adopted on June 17, 2009, and invest once again in raising the international profile of Quebec and Canadian culture. That is what the Canadian Arts Coalition asked for yesterday on the Hill. The coalition also wants the government to increase the Canada Council's budget to $300 million.
DiwaliMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today is Diwali, also known as Deepawali. It is also known as the Festival of Lights celebrated by all Hindus, Sikhs and others around the world.
On this day, people light their homes to symbolize the dawning of light over darkness. They mark Diwali with religious blessings, or pooja, and celebrate in a festive mood with the exchange of sweets. It is the dawn of a new year.
I am proud to say that, in 1998, I spearheaded the celebration of Diwali on Parliament Hill, which has today blossomed into a national Diwali celebration. Over the years since then, Canadians have joined prime ministers and members of Parliament, including you, Mr. Speaker, to celebrate this event on Parliament Hill.
This year, the 10th national Diwali celebration will be held on November 16 at the Government Conference Centre in Ottawa, starting at 6:30 p.m. I cordially extend an invitation to all my colleagues to join community members from Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal to celebrate Diwali.
Happy Diwali to all my colleagues.
City of MonctonBrian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on October 16, 2010, 600 people gathered in Moncton for a march for linguistic equality. Bilingualism in Moncton is an important issue for all Acadians, for whom Moncton serves as a vital urban centre that brings people together.
Congratulations to George LeBlanc, the mayor, and to Jean-Marie Nadeau and Marc Chouinard for inspiring the people of Moncton to mobilize for bilingualism. Moncton has the good fortune of being able to rely on two dynamic linguistic communities that both contribute to the growth and vitality of the region. We must support the development of these communities.
I am very proud that the people of Moncton decided to mobilize in support of their own development. While Moncton continues to make progress, the government has eliminated the census and continues to ignore minority communities and the principles on which this country was founded.
The EconomyMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to data released by Statistics Canada this morning, there was job growth in October. The unemployment rate is now at 7.9%.
Nearly 50,000 full-time jobs were created last month, which again shows that Canada's economic action plan is keeping us on course. 
Nonetheless, global economic recovery remains fragile. That is why groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce are cautioning that the Liberals' plan to increase taxes is a disastrous idea that would stifle job creation and would not be the right way to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
Quebeckers and Canadians can count on our government to continue implementing our economic action plan.
Child CareMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, child care is essential in supporting families and shaping a healthy childhood. I want to congratulate the Halifax YWCA, which announced it will be opening a licensed non-profit child care in Spryfield. Until it is built, there remains no licensed child care in this area, an area with one of the highest proportions of single parents in all of Canada.
This project is a result of true community spirit and action. While it will not open until 2012, there is already a waiting list. The demand is evident in every part of Canada, and the NDP has a solution to ensure fairness for all families.
Our plan includes passing the NDP's national child care act and establishing a network of high-quality, licensed, not-for-profit child care spaces in every community in Canada.
We know that the early years of life are the most crucial in a child's development, and many families need help providing this, especially in tough economic times. 
We must make universal child care a priority and a reality. The time to act is now.
Remembrance DayMr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every year Remembrance Day gives us the opportunity to commemorate those who gave their lives in armed conflicts in the name of justice, freedom and peace.
The Bloc Québécois would like to commemorate in particular the members of the Régiment Royal Canadien-Français, the 22nd (French Canadian) Battalion, forerunner to the Royal 22e Régiment, which was established during the first world war and is still the only francophone regiment. Its members not only had to fight the enemy but they also had to work for recognition and respect from the other battalions. It earned 18 battle honours and roughly 4,000 to 6,000 members were injured or died at the front. 
We should also have a very special thought for the soldiers who have fought and continue to fight in other conflicts, particularly all those presently deployed in Afghanistan.
MulticulturalismMr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West asked a loaded and biased question regarding my support for Imam Zijad Delic, executive director of the Canadian Islamic Congress, in an attempt to mislead the House and to divide Canadians.
Statements made six years ago by a former president of the CIC were deplorable and utterly unacceptable. They have been completely disavowed by Dr. Delic. Under his leadership, the CIC is dedicated to building bridges between Muslims and other Canadians.
The Conservatives are attempting to depict me as someone who supports hatred, terrorism and anti-Semitism. I find this reprehensible and obviously untrue.
For 25 years I have worked with Jewish Canadians in the eradication of anti-Semitism, the promotion of Israel and interfaith co-operation.
More recently, I have brought a similar energy to the integration of Muslims into Canadian society. I relish my relationships with people in both communities and hope that I may play a small role in bringing these two worlds closer together.
Canadian ForcesMr. Greg Kerr (West Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today is the start of Veterans' Week. As we remember those who have travelled far and wide to fight for Canadian values, we also honour those who have protected those same values on Canadian soil.
Canadian Forces members continuously put their country first, and their record is exemplary. They sustain our national security by keeping watch against terrorist attacks and guarding international borders to maintain domestic stability.
They save lives during search and rescue missions in the raging seas off our coasts and everywhere in between. Their dedication and training are invaluable when natural disasters strike, at home and abroad.
Just recently, more than 1,000 Canadian Forces members rebuilt roads, bridges and communities in Newfoundland and Labrador after the devastation of Hurricane Igor.
Our Canadian Forces members do this to uphold our long-standing commitment to peace and freedom, one of Canada's defining qualities in the eyes of the world.
This Veterans' Week, we honour their legacy. This Veterans' Week, we remember and we thank them.
Mr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, next week Canadians across the country will mark Veterans' Week. As we remember our Canadian veterans, people like my grandpa, we also honour the members of the Canadian Forces who proudly wear the maple leaf on their uniform today.
Let us join Canadians from coast to coast to coast who support our men and women of the Canadian Forces. There are many places in the world that do not enjoy the peace and security we are accustomed to here in Canada. We honour those who selflessly face danger to bring peace and security to troubled areas such as Afghanistan. These men and women courageously put their lives on the line to protect the freedom and rights of others in need.
When the world calls, Canada answers. It is our proud tradition and it is a tradition that our service men and women continue to uphold.
This Veterans' Week we honour their legacy. This Veterans' Week, we remember.

Oral Questions
National DefenceHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's wasteful incompetence was on glaring display again yesterday in the growing fiasco around Canada's eviction from Camp Mirage and in new testimony about the bungled Conservative deal for stealth fighter jets.
Getting kicked out of Camp Mirage was sheer stupidity. We have had that staging facility from the United Arab Emirates free of charge for nine years, but now we get the boot because these Conservatives could not manage commercial airline landing rights.
How can they justify that complete and utter waste of $300 million?
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it should not come as any surprise to the member for Wascana, or indeed any member of the House, that the government does not normally talk about operational matters involving the deployment of Canadian Forces abroad.
The government always makes decisions and makes arrangements for what is in the best interests of Canada and what is the best value for the taxpayer.
What the United Arab Emirates was offering was not of net benefit to Canada, and this government always stands up for Canada.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, criticizing the government for bungling and waste is not an attack on Canada, it is a defence of Canada. 
This country deserves better than these Keystone Kops: $300 million for a complete screw-up, and the burden is now downloaded onto the Canadian Forces, scrambling to move from Camp Mirage to who knows where; longer flights, bigger fuel bills and paying rent for an airfield that we used to get for free. That is $300 million just flushed down the toilet.
How do the Conservatives explain that to the veterans who will be demonstrating tomorrow because they cannot get a decent pension? What do the Conservatives say to them?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this government has a strong track record when it comes to supporting Canada's veterans and supporting the men and women in uniform today with the huge investments that we have made to support the Canadian Forces.
I have a question, though. Why is it that every time Canada gets into a disagreement with another country, and in this case, we have a difference of opinion and a disagreement with the United Arab Emirates, the Liberal Party always lines up against Canadian interests?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the minister should not confuse Conservative interests with Canadian interests. They are not the same thing.
The government is also not telling the truth about fighter jets. Both Boeing and Dassault of France testified yesterday that they do, in fact, have aircraft equal to or better than the F-35s, at a lower price, with full regional industrial benefits and technology transfer.
So the government's non-competitive, sole-sourced rationale is shot full of holes.
Why did these Conservative bunglers not even bother to ask Boeing or Dassault?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it was started by the previous government. The previous Liberal government spent $170 million designing and developing this new aircraft. That is why we are continuing this process. The Liberals had a transparent, open competition and Lockheed Martin won. 
And it not just Canada; it is 10 of our closest allies that are acquiring this first-rate aircraft, because the men and women of the Canadian armed forces need the equipment required to fulfill the responsibilities that the Canadian people demand of them each and every day.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they spent $300 million because the Conservatives ministers were not able agree among themselves; they spent $300 million because the Prime Minister woke up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and decided to take competent ministers off the file.
The Prime Minister spent $300 million of public money just like that because he wanted to prove that he was right.
Who on the other side of the House thinks that wasting $300 million on the Prime Minister's whim was a good investment of tax payers' money? Stand up.
Hon. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while we do not comment on operational matters, the Government of Canada will always act in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.
The closure of Camp Mirage does not impact our mission in Afghanistan. We continue to support that mission through arrangements in Cyprus and Germany. None of these basing or logistical challenges change the fact that the Canadian Forces will continue to progress on the military mission right up until July 2011 and will redeploy from Kandahar in accordance with the 2008 parliamentary motion.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, they spent $300 million that could have been invested in veterans or the navy.
What is worse, all of our Afghanistan pullback operations have to be reviewed because of the Prime Minister's whim and his ministers' lack of backbone.
It is an irresponsible decision that was made on the backs of taxpayers and our military.
 Why did the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence give in to the Prime Minister?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in veterans and we will try to continue to do more. We have invested billions of dollars in the navy as part of the Canada first defence strategy. On this side of the House, we know how to take care of veterans. We know how to take care of the Canadian Forces.
 The simple fact is that the most important thing is the mission on the ground in Afghanistan. That mission continues with the full support of this government, and I just wish the opposition would get onside with it.
Member for Calgary Centre-NorthMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who promised to introduce the highest ethical standards, does not find it odd that one of his ministers negotiated his leap to the private sector while still in office. The problem is that a minister must put the public interest first, not the interests of the big banks.
Does the Prime Minister realize that it makes no sense for a minister to allow himself to be courted by CIBC between cabinet meetings and his various ministerial activities?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, all of us have had the opportunity to work with the member for Calgary Centre-North. We all know that he is an individual with incredibly high ethical standards and incredible competence and that he has contributed not just to his constituency but to all of Canada.
The member in question spoke yesterday that he had been in touch with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in September and indeed this week to get her guidance on conduct, her advice and counsel, which he followed.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, CIBC is constantly negotiating with the government. According to the registry of lobbyists, it is interested in fiscal policies, Labour Code reform, banking regulation and money laundering laws.
Does the government realize that CIBC, by laying its hands on the minister who was involved in all of these decisions because of his role on cabinet committees, is also laying its hands on government strategy, which puts the Conservative government in a vulnerable situation?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the minister at the time sought the advice and the counsel of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and followed that counsel.
 It was our government, as a matter of first priority when we were elected four and a half years ago, that brought in the Federal Accountability Act, brought in the toughest ethics reforms in Canadian history, with a strict five-year ban on lobbying, which the member in question will follow to the letter.
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have known for a long time that this government is under the influence of big business. There is a reason why CIBC, which has significant interests in the oil sands, did not hesitate to court an environment minister who was rather complacent about the industry.
Does the Prime Minister realize that when a business that invests in the oil sands rolls out the red carpet for an environment minister, it proves that his commitment to fighting climate change is not credible?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the government has an unprecedented commitment towards the environment. The former minister of the environment and his predecessor accomplished a great deal for the environment, including a 30% increase in the amount of protected areas in our national parks system, also including the Haida Gwaii marine protected area and a whale sanctuary in northern Canada.
We have a strong environmental record of which we can be proud.
Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, the comings and goings of government members between ministers' offices and the private sector prove that this government is controlled by private business. First, Onex generously lends the Prime Minister's Office a chief of staff for 18 months, and now CIBC has recruited a senior government minister just prior to the five-year review of the Bank Act.
How can the Conservative government say that it is not influenced by major private interests?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this government has consistently, over the past four and a half years, stood up for the best interests of Canada. We saw that this week with the actions taken by the Minister of Industry, a difficult decision that certainly, I am sure, was not welcomed in every corporate boardroom in the country, but this government will always be motivated by what is in the best interests of Canadians and the best interest of Canada.
TaxationMr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP): Mr. Speaker, CBC and Globe and Mail revelations about the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board are astounding. Apparently, some of the Conservative government's own people have been carrying out suspicious transactions involving tax havens. 
He approved transfers of funds from a Canadian account to a Swiss account for the purpose of tax evasion, pure and simple. As an experienced banker, he knew exactly what he was doing.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board step aside until the investigation is complete?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member would come to this place and ask that type of question. That type of question is worse than a drive-by smear. It is a hit and run.
This government has consistently worked to tackle tax evasion. The Prime Minister in the last few weeks was in Switzerland signing a new accord with Switzerland so that we could clamp down and ensure that every Canadian pays every single cent of tax that is required. That is the fair and right thing to do. 
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, this helps explain why the Conservative government is so notoriously lax when dealing with tax havens. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board simply cannot continue in his role while this is under investigation. He has to step aside.
A federal affidavit reads that Credit Suisse, for whom he made these transfers, is believed to have “facilitated the movement of funds offshore” for clients wanting to “hide their investments and other income from the CRA”, the Canada Revenue Agency. 
The parliamentary secretary authorized these transfers, and as an experienced banker, he knew exactly what he was doing and why. 
How often did he set up these money transfers to Switzerland and to other tax havens?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this government has been very clear. If Canadians are using Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying income taxes, we will use the full force of Canadian law and the new agreement that the Prime Minister successfully negotiated with the Swiss authorities in the last few weeks.
Every Canadian should be paying his or her fair share of taxes. Last year our government collected over $1 billion in uncovered and unpaid tax from hidden international accounts and assets. That shows we are not just talking, we are actually acting on ensuring that the Canadian tax system is fair.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, Mark Carney names one of his cronies from Goldman Sachs to rewrite the rules on derivatives and the Prime Minister sees no problem, even though there is no cooling-off period before the guy can go back to Bay Street. 
The Prime Minister's new chief of staff will be free to return to Onex once he has learned everything there is to learn about the government's plans. No problem there either. 
The chairman of the government operations committee negotiates a sweetheart deal for himself with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce while still in office. So what?
 The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is a fixer for tax havens. Who cares?
Those are the Conservatives' ethical standards. Canadians deserve more.
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is demonstrating his ethical standards by the content of that question.
National DefenceHon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, General Deschamps stated last night in an interview that the statement of requirements to replace the CF-18 was only finalized in the spring of 2010. General Deschamps even contradicted the defence minister, saying that the MOU in 2008 with Lockheed Martin was not an open competition or even a commitment.
Who is telling the truth, the minister or the general?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member once again is forgetting that while he and his colleagues were in government, they did the competitive process. There was a winner and it was Lockheed Martin. We are motivated to give the very best equipment to the members of our Canadian military so that they can do their job for Canada and Canadians.
The only question I have for the hon. member is, when is he going to stand up for Montreal's interest in the aerospace sector? When is he going to tell his own leader to get off the pot when it comes to this and realize that jobs and opportunities are going to be lost if the Liberals cancel the contract? That is if the Liberals ever get into power. Let us hope that never happens.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Montreal. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Minister of National Defence did not do his homework to find out whether another kind of plane would meet National Defence's needs. They wanted one particular plane, period. Yet, not only did companies like Boeing and Dassault have products with comparable specifications, but Dassault was also prepared to make a full technology transfer. That would better serve the aerospace industry in Quebec and Montreal. That would be better for the entire aerospace industry.
When will the Conservative government issue a true call for tenders, a real competitive process for those of us in Montreal, now that there is no longer any reason not to?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, what we would like to know on this side of the House is, what does the hon. member have against Pratt &amp; Whitney? Why does he not want that great company in the Mirabel area and Saint-Laurent to be more successful? 
It is part of the consortium. It is delivering its part of the JSF, the F-35. Why does he not care about Pratt &amp; Whitney? Why does he not care about Montreal workers? Why does he not do his job for Montreal instead of doing his job for the Liberal caucus and the ideas of the Liberal leader, which are out of sync with Canada and Canadians?
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, expert Alan Wiliams said that a competitive process would maximize economic spinoffs.
Competitors are telling anyone who will listen that they will guarantee more economic spinoffs for Canada.
This is not complicated. A competitive process means more jobs. The Conservative plan means fewer jobs, fewer spinoffs for our economy and planes that cost almost 20% more.
Why are they stubbornly refusing to launch a competitive process?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, that is not true at all.
What the Liberal leader and the Liberal caucus, including the Montreal MPs are advocating is that we scrap the deal and start again with a process when we already had a competitive process. That would mean lost jobs for Montreal companies because they will be in abeyance with their contracts until they get around to ordering planes. That is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Canadian military and it is certainly not good enough for the aerospace industry and the workers of Canada.
Alexandra Mendes: Mr. Speaker, it sounds as though he is reading a script that he no longer believes in.
Even the Pentagon has balked at the production costs for this plane.
Yesterday, we discovered that their selection process was bungled. They did not even take the time to study other options. Their choice is irresponsible, an insult to taxpayers and our soldiers.
Why are they so afraid to launch a competitive bidding process?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have no script. The hon. member is reading a script from the office of the Leader of the Opposition, but we do not have a script. We have passion: passion for Canada, passion for jobs and passion for the aerospace industry. 
They laugh on the other side of the House but I can tell them the Pratt &amp; Whitney worker is not laughing. The worker in Winnipeg in the aerospace sector is not laughing. The worker in Delta, B.C. is not laughing. They know they only have one choice on who is going to defend the interests of aerospace workers and the interests of the Canadian military and that is this government, the members on this side of the House.
TaxationMr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while he worked for Crédit Suisse, the member for North Vancouver approved the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Switzerland for a couple that was allegedly trying to hide money from Revenue Canada. This very serious information can be found in documents submitted to the Federal Court.
Will the Prime Minister relieve the member of his responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board until the proceedings are completed?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous.
The member has done his work with integrity. He has spoken out strongly against any form of tax evasion. Our government has tackled tax evasion. In fact, the Prime Minister was recently in Switzerland to sign an agreement that will crack down on tax fraud and tax evasion. We are a government that is getting things done to ensure tax fairness in this country.
Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing ridicule never killed anyone.
We have been calling on the Conservative government to be tougher on tax evasion and white collar crime, so it is shocking to see that the government has someone in its ranks who allegedly transferred funds to Switzerland to help a couple evade taxes.
Once again: will the Prime Minister relieve the member of his responsibilities with respect to the Treasury Board until the proceedings are completed?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. This government is working to tackle the problem of tax evasion. The member in question has spoken out strongly against any form of tax evasion. We will continue to work hard to ensure that every Canadian pays his or her fair share because it is the right thing to do and we are doing it.
Omar KhadrMr. Jean Dorion (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while CIDA is spending $18 million on the reintegration of child soldiers in Nepal, Sudan and Colombia, the government did not bother to lift a finger to offer Omar Khadr the same protection that he was entitled to expect from Canada, which is a signatory to the protocol on child soldiers.
What CIDA is doing in those countries is commendable, but does the government not believe that it should fulfill its responsibilities toward Canadian citizens before it tries to give lessons to others?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. Canada supports the rehabilitation of children in armed conflict who have been illegally recruited and used by fighting forces, particularly children who have been forced to commit crimes.
However, to conclude, I would say that if the hon. member took the time to read the optional protocol, he would see that it does not prohibit the prosecution of child soldiers.
Jean Dorion: Mr. Speaker, Canada's eagerness to help countries that are dealing with the painful reality of child soldiers is suspicious, considering the government's hypocrisy and cavalier attitude in its treatment of child soldier Omar Khadr.
Does the government's ambiguous attitude not suggest that perhaps Canada is using the protocol on child soldiers as a marketing tool on the international stage, while refusing to apply it to its own citizens?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was sufficiently clear in my response to the member's previous question. I repeat: the protocol in question in no way prohibits the prosecution of child soldiers. I would remind the House that Omar Khadr pleaded guilty to murders and conspiracy and admitted that he was a member of al-Qaeda. If my friends on the other side of the House would listen from time to time, maybe they would understand plain common sense.
Office of the Prime MinisterHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's judgment is seriously in question when he chooses a chief of staff who has one foot in Bay Street and the other in the cabinet room. 
Mr. Wright has millions of dollars of investments in steel, plastics, construction, automotives, insurance, electronics, cultural products, call centres and private health care, industries all under federal control.
How can the Conservatives seriously expect that he will recuse himself from all of these areas, or do they?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, if that member had had his way, someone as talented and as capable as Paul Martin would never have been able to come to Ottawa and serve Canadians, or the Hon. Belinda Stronach, which is much the same thing.
We think it is incredibly positive that someone would give up a lucrative career to come to the nation's capital and make a commitment to public service. I wish we had more Canadians like that.
Mr. Wright has sought and followed all of the advice and counsel of the independent Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. He will be making a great contribution to the people of Canada.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the government is in serious need of talent. The former environment minister is returning to Bay Street with no cooling off period. The Prime Minister's own code prohibits him from seeking employment with any company with which he has had dealings while in office. 
Three days ago, the former minister approved the Mount Milligan mine. CIBC has a significant interest in that mine. Yesterday, the former minister was overseeing the environmental process concerning Enbridge's northern gateway project. CIBC has $200 million invested in that project.
Why is there no cooling off period required for the former minister--
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the House will regret seeing the minister move on to a different career. He made an outstanding contribution to Canada and an outstanding contribution to his constituency.
We all know the member is a decent man with great ethical standards. He sought the advice and counsel of the independent Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner who approved his actions.
G8 and G20 SummitsMr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we continue to unearth more than a billion dollars in outrageous summit waste, the cost to Toronto is just starting to roll in.
Yesterday, it was revealed that businesses small and large paid a heavy price for the Conservative photo op. In the restaurant sector alone, 93% of downtown businesses saw significant losses over those two weeks. Average losses were 55% in what should have been the busiest week of the year. They have no compensation and no positive impact, only the pain of lost business and a government that does not seem to care.
 In the middle of a recession, with businesses already hard hit, why has the government left them to suffer?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, there is a compensation policy in place and it is the exact same policy used by previous governments for past summits. 
All claims must be submitted by November 18 of this year in order to be eligible.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, six months later and guess how many have been paid? Zero. Every business has been left out in the cold. Only the Conservative government could spend $1 billion and put people out of work. This is an absolutely outrageous situation. 
Businesses in the height of summer were counting on business. Those weeks were stolen from them. Six months later, is this the best the government can give them? 
People's jobs are on the line. Businesses are on the line. The minister had better stand and give a better answer than that.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the feigned rage by my colleague will certainly not help these people receive what they are normally in line to receive.
Once again, the assessments of all claims will be made in co-operation with Audit Services Canada and payments will be administered in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
The EconomyMr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while our Conservative government is focused on jobs and lowering taxes, the Liberals want to hike taxes, halting our recovery in its tracks and killing almost 400,000 jobs.
More and more Canadians are hearing how the Liberal plan will threaten jobs. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce warns that the Liberal tax hike plan is a “disastrous idea” that would “put the brakes on” job growth. Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said, “Canadian business investment needed to sustain an economic recovery is threatened by [the] Liberal Party”.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance inform the House of our government's record on job creation?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again in October more Canadians went back to work. This shows yet again that Canada's economic action plan is keeping us on the recovery track.
Most encouraging and the most important part of this is that nearly 50,000 net new full-time jobs were created this past month. In fact, since July 2009, that brings us to nearly 430,000 net new jobs in this country. That is good news for Canadians and good news for Canadian families.
Harmonized Sales TaxMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a very different picture in B.C. because the Conservatives' HST is damaging B.C. consumer confidence in this crucial holiday shopping season.
A poll this week shows that 73% of British Columbians believe the HST is having a negative impact on them, while 54% will spend less on decorations and two-thirds say that they will spend less on gifts all because of the HST.
When will the Conservatives finally take responsibility for the HST and the harm that it is creating to B.C.'s economy?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I encourage that hon. member to speak to those who make the decisions on the harmonization of sales tax and that would be her provincial colleagues.
However, I should not need to keep reminding everyone in the House how many times we have legislated tax cuts. Who voted against those cuts? It was the NDP. In fact, many of the coalition partners voted against those cuts. 
If we had not cut so many taxes for Canadians, they would not all be going back to work and we would not be seeing the high number of job increases. Canadians are happy that this government is reducing taxes.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, those decisions on the HST began in this House with that government, aided by the Liberals, who rammed it through in December 2009. No wonder they are scared to face the voters of B.C.
We know the government could call a byelection in Prince George--Peace River any time and yet it seems happy to let that seat sit empty. I do not think the people of Prince George are happy without federal representation.
 Is the government really so scared of the HST backlash that it is willing to delay democracy in Prince George? Will the government stand and announce that it will call the byelection today?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the only people in the House who should be scared of a backlash are the NDP, because every time we try to reduce taxes for Canadians, every time we try to put more money back in their pockets instead of the government's pockets, $3,000 per average family, those members vote against that.
If I were an NDP member, I would be very concerned about going back home this week and trying to explain that to my constituents.
AgricultureMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of State for Agriculture has been holding consultations for the past two years on the 98% standard for using the phrase “product of Canada”, the agriculture sector has been bearing the brunt of this labelling policy that the UPA describes as “incoherent, flawed and leaving the consumer unable to choose a Canadian product with complete certainty”.
Why does the minister not put a stop to this charade by immediately adopting an 85% standard, as all industry stakeholders, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and his own officials are calling for?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when Canadian families go grocery shopping, they look for Canadian products. The new guidelines for using the “Product of Canada” label provide Canadians with the information they need. There is nothing ambiguous about it; if it says “product of Canada” on the label, then the food it describes has to be Canadian. 
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the parliamentary secretary just said, except that Canadians and Quebeckers can no longer find labelled products of Canada on their grocery store shelves because of the Conservatives' policy. In addition to preventing our domestic products from being labelled as such, the Conservative government is letting in a growing number of foreign products that do not respect the same standards.
When will the minister take action against this unfair competition by giving the market access secretariat the mandate to ensure reciprocity of standards for imported products?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that it is illegal to use the phrase “product of Canada” when the product contains foreign ingredients. Canadians wanted to know the content of the food they eat and we have responded to their request. We are continuing to consult industry and consumers to ensure that the guidelines are working. The Liberal member for Malpeque said that the regulations will provide consumers with honest information on the content of the products they buy and that these changes could also end up increasing the consumption of Canadian products.
Status of WomenMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the nearly 600 missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls are victims of racialized, sexualized violence, and that demands a public inquiry. Without an inquiry we will never know why the number of missing and murdered first nations, Inuit and Métis women is so shockingly high.
Why can the government call an inquiry into missing salmon, but not when it comes to these 600 missing and murdered women and girls? Why is there no justice for these women?
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it particularly heartens me to hear a man ask about issues concerning women.
We all have a responsibility to protect vulnerable women in our community, which is why last week we made a $10 million investment commitment to create a new RCMP centre for missing persons and improve our law enforcement databases to investigate murdered and missing aboriginal women. We have also created new community and educational aboriginal safety plans and are creating a national website for public tips to help locate missing women.
Most important, we are working with and have the support of the Native Women's Association of Canada.
Todd Russell: Mr. Speaker, not only is the government not going to call a public inquiry, but now we find out that Sisters in Spirit, the group leading the charge for justice for 600 missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls and their families, is being told by the Conservative government to stop asking questions, to shut up and to shut down. It is a disgrace.
 Why is the government attacking the group that is speaking for the 600 missing and murdered women and girls who can no longer speak for themselves?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, that is entirely false. In fact, we have been working with the Native Women's Association of Canada for the last couple of years in order to implement these concrete actions I just spoke about.
We see the association as the leader on this issue. We have used its expertise and research to reach this point today. We expect its leadership and research to carry us in the years ahead through this important new $10 million initiative with justice and safety Canada.
Veterans AffairsPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, everybody in the House and in Canada knows that Canada's first veterans ombudsman, Colonel Pat Stogran, has done an outstanding job for veterans, RCMP members and their families. Unfortunately, his tenure is up on November 10. He has become a beacon of hope and light for countless thousands of those individuals, Canada's heroes.
Why will the government not renew Colonel Pat Stogran's tenure as Canada's veterans ombudsman?
Greg Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. The ombudsman's job is very careful. Later today we will have an announcement that will make it clear how important it is that we put in place a new individual in that position. We are very happy about that.
Also, later today I will be tabling a report from the ombudsman and that information is available to all members of the House.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, last night on national television, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said publicly to everybody in the country, that any veteran with a problem should just give him a call. The number is 613-947-2744.
Incredulously, why would a minister take all of that work on for himself? He has a department of 4,100 people with a 1-866 number. Is the Minister of Veterans Affairs saying to the House and all Canadians that he has no confidence in his Department of Veterans Affairs?
Greg Kerr: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the games the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore likes to play. The close shave he had recently reflects the fact that he has had many flip-flops in recent months. Probably that is indicative of the kind of character he is.
I am very proud that our minister is prepared to meet with all the veterans of Canada, because he cares.
G8 and G20 SummitsMr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to transparency, accountability and respect for taxpayers.
From introducing the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history, the Federal Accountability Act, to ensuring tax dollars are only spent on priorities of Canadians, we are committed to showing taxpayers the respect they deserve, a respect that was sorely lacking under the previous Liberal government.
Could the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tell the House the latest example of our strong commitment to transparency, accountability and respect for Canadian taxpayers?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to respecting taxpayers and providing transparent and accountable government. That is why today the government will table all costs, down to the penny, of the G8 and G20 summits. In fact, the level of transparency in disclosing all costs involved in hosting summits is unprecedented in Canada and internationally.
As we have said all along, the majority of the costs of these summits are security related. The Canadian taxpayers deserve no less.
In disclosing the full details of the costs to date of these summits is further proof of our government's commitment to transparency and accountability.
Correctional Service CanadaBrian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the tragic story of Ashley Smith, formerly of Moncton, who choked to death in a Kitchener jail is of grave concern to all Canadians. Her death was not only preventable, but the result of conscious neglect and disregard for her life.
Ashley's story sounds an alarm regarding treatment of the mentally ill in correctional facilities all across the country. 
We do not ask for the details of her court case, but has the government learned anything from her death? What is being done to prevent another Ashley Smith tragedy?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it really is a tragic incident and we do extend our sympathy to the family of Ashley Smith.
As the matter is before the court, it would be inappropriate to speak on specifics. However, in the 2008 federal budget, Correctional Service Canada received permanent funding of $16.6 million annually for institutional mental health services, commencing in the year 2009-10.
Public SafetySerge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Toronto's chief of police, Bill Blair, said, “we did not have the appropriate warrants on the day of the arrests”. Which means that the people arrested in the University of Toronto gymnasium during the G20 were arrested illegally.
Will the government set up an independent public inquiry to shed light on these unfortunate affronts to democracy?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my friend is totally wrong in what he suggested. What the chief said was the Crown attorney in the case decided not to proceed because of certain issues, one of which was the issue of a warrant. They were legally arrested. He made that point very clear at public safety meetings. I wish my friend had been there to hear the whole story.
Natural ResourcesMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after leaking millions of barrels of oil into Michigan's rivers, Enbridge is still planning to build a pipeline across northwest B.C. to carry raw bitumen to China. 
Last month's resolutions at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities were clear. The mayors of British Columbia say no. First nations from across the province made clear their opposition at the first nations summit. The first nations of British Columbia say no. The Alberta Federation of Labour warns that exporting raw bitumen by pipeline will cost the province thousands of jobs. The workers of Alberta say no.
What part of no does the government find it so difficult to understand?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to the safe, responsible and sustainable development of Canada's natural resources.
 However, I can say today why the member is not asking a question on forestry. The Forest Products Association of Canada sent out a letter today to his leader, commenting on the comments of Mr. Martin of Winnipeg Centre the other day in committee. It says: 
 [He] repeatedly showed a complete lack of understanding and appreciation for Canada's forest products...[His] opening comments would indicate that he believed he should be elsewhere performing more important duties than addressing the challenges facing Canada's forest products... 
It asks the member opposite's leader to state unequivocally that those views were not shared by the party. Would he stand up and say that?
Tourism IndustryMr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada was recognized as the number one country brand in the world by the Country Brand Index. “Canada: Keep Exploring” is now the most recognized tourism brand.
Could the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism please tell the House how our government's investments in the tourism industry have helped put Canada in the number one spot?
Hon. Rob Moore (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for sharing this wonderful news. This is truly an incredible achievement and shows that our government's investments are paying off. 
Since we took office in 2006, Canada has leapfrogged from 12th place to 1st place on the Country Brand Index. Our goal is to make Canada a top tourism destination, from hosting the 2010 Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games to approved destination status with China. This year has been Canada's year and our government is delivering strong results for tourism.
Correctional Service CanadaBrian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the former minister of public safety wrote in April 2009 that his focus was to “undertake effective response” to the Howard Sapers and Bernard Richard reports. Could the current minister act on those words and conduct a full public inquiry?
The public is horrified with the mistreatment of the mentally ill in correctional facilities in Canada. A public inquiry is needed now before the same thing that happened in the Ashley Smith case happens again. We need a public inquiry on the incarceration of the mentally ill in Canada.
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this incident truly was tragic and we do sympathize with the family.
My colleague across the floor should be aware that the public safety committee has taken this study. We have been involved. The report is not complete yet. I think it will be broad ranging.
 As I previously mentioned, this government did put additional funding in the area of mental health in Correctional Service Canada. We have moved a long way.
HealthMegan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, today 10 Canadians will die by suicide and tomorrow 10 more Canadians will die by suicide.
 Suicide is the leading cause of death for first nations youth and the second leading cause of death for youth ages 10 to 24. That is 10 years old. Countries that have a national suicide prevention strategy, like the U.K. and the U.S., have much lower suicide rates in Canada.
It is a national crisis and we need to act now. When will the government establish a national suicide prevention strategy for Canada?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, suicide is a tragic event and it affects far too many Canadian families. The minister is from the north and she understands how real and very tragic this issue is. Sixty-five million dollars has been spent to date to implement the national aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy, and there is more. We committed $285 million in budget 2010 to federal aboriginal health programs in the area of suicide prevention, maternal child health, health human resources and the aboriginal health transition fund.
Forestry IndustryMr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the president and CEO of the Quebec Forestry Industry Council, Guy Chevrette, says that the industry's main challenge is modernizing its products. He says the problem is “The lack of money. The banks are overly cautious”.
The federal government must help the forestry industry to make the transition by providing loan guarantees.
Will the government decide, once and for all, to help the forestry industry?
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), CPC): Mr. Speaker, as of October 31, 2010, Export Development Canada had helped Quebec's forestry industry by providing credit support, accounts receivable insurance and loan guarantees totalling $7.6 billion.
We are developing new products and new markets. We are very proud of what our government has done. However, the Bloc Québécois has voted against all the measures that have been put forward in recent years.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Steve Peters, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Points of OrderHon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during the course of today's question period, the member for Outremont's comments were completely reprehensible when he was asking about the member for North Vancouver. If he actually believes the comments are factual, he must make the comments outside of this House. We cannot use this chamber to say things that are factually inaccurate or slanderous. 
The comments that the member for Outremont made were absolutely slanderous toward the actual actions of the member for North Vancouver. He must make those statements outside this House.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, the revelations of the CBC and the Globe and Mail make it clear that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board simply cannot continue in his role while this is under investigation. He has to step aside.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is a federal affidavit that indicates that the Credit Suisse for whom he made these transfers is believed to have facilitated the movement of funds offshore, the clients wanting to hide their investments and other income from the Canada Revenue Agency.
The parliamentary secretary authorized these transfers and as an experienced banker he knew exactly what he was doing and why. He is so far refusing to say how many of these transfers he approved to Switzerland or other tax havens. 
Every time a government attacks the opposition instead of answering the questions, it is because it has no defence. I will be outside this House as requested. I want to know, is the member's colleague who is in question here going to be outside to say how many of these things he has approved and how many of these transfers to tax--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: It is apparent that we are into a debate on facts which is not a matter of procedure and therefore, in my view, not a point of order.
Is the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River rising on a point of order?
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, during question period, if my ears were not tricking me, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, the parliamentary secretary answering for the government, appeared to use the name of a member of the House in the answer. Sometimes this will happen inadvertently, but in this case on behalf of the government he was reading a scripted answer and the name was mentioned.
I think at the very least the member, on behalf of the government, because the answer was scripted should provide an apology, and Mr. Speaker, you should ask the member for that apology on behalf of the government, unless there is another explanation.
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, on behalf of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, I want to offer our sincere apology to the member for using his last name in this chamber.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I did not raise the matter because I thought the member realized his error when I looked at him, but hon. members know that using another member's name in the House is out of order. They must refer to members by either their title as minister, parliamentary secretary or whatever, or by their constituency name. I would urge hon. members to show proper restraint in that regard so that our rules are complied with in every respect.

Routine Proceedings
Veterans OmbudsmanGreg Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 2009-10 annual report of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, entitled “For Veterans and Good Governance”.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceDave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2009 annual report on the RCMP use of the law enforcement justification provisions. This report addresses the RCMP's use of specific provisions within the law enforcement justification regime, which is also set out in sections 25.(1) to 25.(4) of the Criminal Code. This report also documents the nature of the investigations in which these provisions were used.
Correctional InvestigatorDave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2009-10 annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator in accordance with section 192 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Government Response to PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
Committees of the HouseTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, for the information of all members, copies in both official languages of the government's responses to motions from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on G8 and G20 costs.
National Colorectal Cancer Month ActMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-590, An Act to designate the month of March as National Colorectal Cancer Month.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House to introduce a bill that would designate March of every year as national colorectal cancer month. I have introduced this bill in previous Parliaments. It is important to bring awareness to this disease, as it affects one in fourteen men and one in sixteen women. Too many Canadians die with this disease. If it is caught and treated early, people have a great chance of survival. 
I urge all my colleagues in this House to assist in recognizing this important cause.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Canada Elections ActMario Silva:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (home voting for seniors).
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce a bill that would allow voters over 65 years of age to vote at home. If requested by a senior who might not otherwise be able to leave the home to vote, an election officer could assist a senior citizen in performing his or her most treasured civic duty.
I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this bill, and in doing so, recognize the importance of senior Canadians to our civic fabric.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Former Canadian Forces Members ActPeter Stoffer:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-592, An Act respecting former Canadian Forces members.
Mr. Speaker, this being Veterans Week, it is an appropriate time to introduce one of the finest pieces of legislation the House has ever seen.
This enactment would require the Governor-in-Council to make regulations under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to extend the health care benefits authorized by the regulations under the act to the former members of the Canadian Forces who meet military occupational classification requirements and who have been honourably discharged.
Our heroes in Canada serve while wearing the brave uniform. When they leave the military, in many cases they are cut off from the medical care they receive at their home bases and across the country under the federal government. Just because the uniform comes off, they should not lose access to that quality medical care. I would like this bill to be passed as soon as possible.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
National Strategy for Suicide Prevention ActMegan Leslie:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-593, An Act respecting a National Strategy for Suicide Prevention.
Mr. Speaker, over 3,500 Canadians die by suicide every year. That means 10 people die by suicide every day. No community goes untouched by suicide, but we know that some communities are at higher risk, such as queer youth, Canada's elderly, teens and young adults, first nations, Inuit and remote communities.
I am proud to introduce this bill which calls for a pan-Canadian strategy for suicide prevention. I would like to thank our friend, Jack Hicks in Nunavut for his help in making this bill happen, and the member for Nickel Belt for offering to second the bill today.
 I look forward to discussions with my colleagues across party lines about how we can support this bill through the House, because suicide prevention is all of our responsibility.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseHon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you will find agreement for the following travel motions.
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study on the next generation of fighter aircraft, six members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Fort Worth, Texas, in November, 2010 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study on Search and Rescue Response times, twelve members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to St. John's and Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador and Greenwood and Halifax, Nova Scotia, in the Fall-Winter, 2010-2011 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study on free trade between Canada and the European Union, six members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to London, United Kingdom; Strasbourg, France and Rome, Italy, in November, 2010 and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study on free trade between Canada and the European Union, six members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to London, United Kingdom; Strasbourg, France and Budapest, Hungary, in November, 2010 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study of violence against Aboriginal women, six members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be authorized to travel to Vancouver and Williams Lake, British Columbia; Yellowknife, Northwest Territories and Edmonton, Alberta, in the Fall-Winter of 2010-2011, that the committee be authorized to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study of violence against Aboriginal women, six members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be authorized to travel to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Winnipeg, Manitoba and Sioux Lookout and Thunder Bay, Ontario, in the Fall-Winter of 2010-2011, that the committee be authorized to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study of aquaculture in the Pacific Region, eight members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Powell River, Campbell River and Brown's Bay, British Columbia and Rochester, Washington, in the Fall of 2010 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study of high speech rail in Canada, twelve members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be authorized to travel to La Pocatière, Quebec, in the Fall of 2010 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsLuc Malo: Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition signed by 145 people from the riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes on amending the provisions in paragraph 12(3)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act. These provisions concern benefits payable in case of illness.
Like tens of thousands of others who have signed petitions, they are asking the House of Commons to significantly extend these provisions to more realistically reflect the varying lengths of time claimants need to recover, depending on their disability.
The current provisions, which allow a maximum of 15 weeks of sickness benefits, have not been changed since 1971. This petition serves as concrete encouragement for Marie-Hélène Dubé, a cancer survivor who decided, because she was suffering the consequences, that the legislation should be changed so that people with a serious illness do not rush back to work at the end of 15 weeks of benefits.
I also invite the members to support Bill C-525, which responds to the concerns of the people who signed this petition and Marie-Hélène Dubé.
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition from many of my constituents and others who point out that Canada is a country that respects human rights and in fact has included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that everyone has the right to life, however that Canada has had no law to protect the human rights of children before birth since 1988.
Therefore these petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death. At the very least, Parliament owes it to Canadians to have a respectful dialogue on these serious issues.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to bring petitions to this House regarding EI pilot projects.
Back in 2005, under the Liberal government, Minister Lucienne Robillard brought in pilot projects that allowed people primarily engaged in seasonal work to get EI and greater benefits. The system had been created such that there was a disincentive for seasonal workers. What I mean by that is that the system was set up so that they would count the last 14 weeks. In other words, if they only worked two or three days per week, the average amount of benefit would be reduced because the average would come down. Therefore, the measures we introduced in 2005 allowed them to receive greater benefits because they used the best 14 weeks and the average would come up.
The other pilot projects, of course, included being able to make 40% income before being clawed back and other measures to be included.
These two petitions come from New World Island in my riding, including towns of Summerford, Pikes Arm, Cobbs Arm, Toogood Arm also, which a great little community, Parkview and Twillingate. Mr. Speaker, you have been in my riding; maybe you could include a couple of those towns that even I missed.
However, I want to congratulate these people for bringing these petitions to the House. Hopefully soon we will get these measures and not just an eight-month extension but a permanent extension to these EI pilot projects.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the woman who called my office yesterday, wanting to know why I was not presenting a petition on the reduction of passport fees, and I want to thank the Speaker for having similar thoughts yesterday.
This petition, signed by dozens of Canadians, is a call on the Canadian government to negotiate with the United States government to reduce the United States and Canadian passport fees. 
U.S. tourism to Canada is at its lowest since 1972. It has fallen by five million visits in the last seven years alone, from 16 million in 2002 to 11 million in 2009. 
Passport fees for a U.S. family of four can be over $500. In fact, 25% of Americans have passports, while 50% of Canadians have passports.
In terms of legislative action, the recent Midwest Legislative Conference, representing 11 border states, from Illinois to North Dakota, and 3 provinces, passed a unanimous resolution at the conference this summer, which I wish to read: 
 RESOLVED that the Midwestern Legislative Conference calls on President Barack Obama and...[the Canadian Prime Minister] to immediately examine a reduced fee for passports to facilitate cross-border tourism; and be it further 
 RESOLVED, that...[the Conference] encourage the governments to examine the idea of a limited-time two-for-one passport renewal or new application. 
 To be a fair process, these passport fees have to be reduced on both sides of the border. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to work with the American government to examine a mutual reduction in passport fees to facilitate tourism and, finally, promote a limited-time two-for-one passport renewal or new application fee on a mutual basis with the United States. 
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present wherein the petitioners are calling urgently for the Government of Canada to take immediate action to accelerate greater and broader participation of multiple sclerosis, or MS, sufferers in pilot testing and treatment by providing fast-track funding for surveillance, research and dissemination of findings, including providing urgent pre-screening imaging services for MS sufferers.
The petitioners are also asking that the government work immediately with the provinces and territories, through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to obtain advice and evidence-based information about the effectiveness of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency treatment, CCSVI as we know it, without delay.
Finally, the petitioners are asking the government to take a leading role on the basis of this evidence and encourage a swift adoption of the procedure in territories and provinces.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 82.
Ms. Jean Crowder:  With regard to the Post-Secondary Student Support Program (PSSSP) through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: (a) when was the contract awarded for the report “The Post-Secondary Student Support Program: An Examination of Alternative Delivery Mechanisms”; (b) how much was the contract; (c) how many other contracts have been awarded to this company in the last five years and what was their value; (d) how many other contracts have been awarded to study PSSSP or the Indian Studies Support Program in the last five years; and (e) what is the value of those contracts and who were they awarded to?
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the report was commissioned in March 2009 as part of the department’s review of its post-secondary education programs. 
In response to (b), the contract was valued up to $24,675 only $11,750 was paid out under the contract. 
In response to (c), in 2008, the Educational Policy Institute was contracted by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada’s Ontario region. The contract was valued at $103,110; however, the supplier was not able to complete the work, so the contract was cancelled.
 In response to (d), in the last five years, two contracts have been awarded to study the post-secondary student support program. 
 In response to (e), (i) Derek A. Sagima was awarded a contract to conduct a preliminary survey and audit of post-secondary education. The duration of this contract was from April 21, 2008 until November 28, 2008 and involved three phases. The total value of this contract was $330,619, including travel but not GST; $298,181 was paid out. 
In response to (e), (ii) In September 2008, Applied Research Centre was awarded a contract to prepare a gap analysis of aboriginal post-secondary education programming. The value of the contract was $14,973. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, a revised response to Questions Nos. 349 and 350 originally tabled on September 20 will be tabled today.
Furthermore, if Questions Nos. 375, 384 and 385 could be made orders for returns, these returns would also be tabled immediately. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Hon. Dan McTeague:  With regard to the G8 Summit in Muskoka, what are the details of all contracts for goods or services relating to the G8 meetings, providing for each contract (i) the name of the contractor, (ii) a description of the goods or services provided, (iii) the value of the contract, (iv) whether or not there was an open bidding process for the contract?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Dan McTeague:  With regard to the G20 Summit in Toronto, what are the details of all contracts for goods or services relating to the G20 meetings, providing for each contract (i) the name of the contractor, (ii) a description of the goods or services provided, (iii) the value of the contract, (iv) whether or not there was an open bidding process for the contract?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. John McCallum:  With regard to each sign for the government’s Economic Action Plan: (a) what project was the sign for; (b) what was the size of the sign; (c) on what date was the sign erected; (d) how did the government ensure the sign was erected; (e) did the sign need to be replaced for any reason (vandalism, theft, weather damage); and (f) who paid for the sign?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. David McGuinty:  With regard to security at the G8 and G20 summits: (a) when did the government solicit proposals for security services leading up to the summits; (b) what companies submitted proposals; (c) what companies were awarded contracts; (d) what security contracts were sole-sourced; and (e) what were the total security related expenditures for the G8 and G20 summits?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
David McGuinty:  With regard to the G8 and G20 security planning: (a) what was the chain of command for the Integrated Security Unit for these events; (b) what involvement or input did the Minister of Public Safety have in developing the G8 and G20 security plan; (c) what involvement or input did the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Privy Council Office (PCO) have in developing the G8 and G20 security plan; and (d) what interventions did the PMO, PCO or the Minister of Public Safety make during the execution of the G8 and G20 security plan?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
Tom Lukiwski:  Some hon. members: Agreed. 

Government Orders
Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), be read the third time and passed. 
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again to speak to Bill S-9, as it is now called. I have spoken on this bill under other numbers in the past.
I listened very intently to all of the speeches this morning. I want to begin by pointing out that auto theft is something that has been with us for a number of years. It goes back to the 1970s, but I do not think it became a public issue until sometime in the 1980s.
Essentially there was a long delay. I think governments of all political stripes were asleep at the switch for a considerable amount of time, when in fact they could have moved a little earlier than they did.
It is comforting to know that auto theft numbers are dropping because of efforts made by various governments, for example, the Government of Manitoba and the government in Ottawa as well. It was in 2003 that the federal government announced that, effective September 1, 2007, all new cars sold in Canada would have to have immobilizers.
So if we do the calculations and recognize that the average car is on the road for perhaps 15 years, it will be around 2021 before the problem actually solves itself. I do not think we should have to wait that long for the problem to solve itself.
The fact of the matter is that the federal government, as far back as Brian Mulroney but certainly under the 13 years of Jean Chrétien and the Liberals, in any one of those years could have acted and could have enforced the requirement for the mandatory installation of immobilizers, which they did effective September 1, 2007.
Just so members know how effective these immobilizers are and can be, for example, the Ford Motor Company in its 1996 version of the Ford Windstar, on sale in the fall of 1995, the higher end models of those vehicles had factory-installed immobilizers. That was sort of the beginning of immobilizers in mass-produced cars. There may have been some around previously in higher end vehicles.
Gradually over time more and more of these immobilizers became factory-installed. There was an after-market product available to be installed, but there were some problems with them. I checked several years later with the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, perhaps as little as two or three years ago, and was told that no vehicle with a factory-installed immobilizer had been successfully stolen.
Now, they are damaged because the thieves break into the vehicles and, when they cannot steal the car, of course there is still resulting damage to the vehicle. At least they are not running away with the vehicle, taking a potentially lethal object out on the road and perhaps running somebody down or being involved in accidents with the vehicle.
We knew early on that this was a very solid solution to the problem. The question is, Why did the government not act? When I checked back a few years ago with the Insurance Bureau of Canada data and information, I was not surprised but I did read that there was information available that immobilizers could have been factory-installed in vehicles for as little as $30, I believe I read, but it could be a little more than that. It is not a significant expense.
The United States government could have enforced these and made them mandatory. The Canadian government could have done this.
When police started to report rising theft rates of automobiles, and statistics started to show that people were being injured and killed because of auto theft, it would have been prudent for the government to take this issue more seriously and attempt to nip the problem in the bud by forcing immobilizers to be installed at the factories. But that was not done.
In the 1990s, the Conservative government of Gary Filmon in Manitoba attempted to tackle the problem by several means. It did not get to the point of dealing with immobilizers. It was looking at things that, in the end, proved not to work. It planned to sue the offenders and hold off giving them their driver's licences.
 Bear in mind that, at least in Manitoba, authorities had determined that level four offenders for car theft numbered around 50 people. In other words, 50 people were stealing most of the cars. The theory was that if we concentrated on those 50 people the numbers would be reduced.
 Most of those 50 people were very young. Some were as young as 13 or 14 years old. Trying to sue them would be an impossibility. Holding their driver's licences back did not mean much to them. Making the parents responsible was another attempt by the Filmon government. It passed legislation holding the parents responsible for these kids. 
In the end, I do not think the government was able to gain any significant restitution or result from these efforts. Nevertheless, it was an attempt to respond to the problem. The government of Manitoba was still not there in forming a gang suppression unit, immobilizers, or any of the best practices that seem to have helped to solve the problem.
When the NDP government of Gary Doer came into power in 1999, it had a lot of issues to deal with. It was not overly quick to deal with this one. I believe it was 2005 when the provincial government announced an immobilizer incentive program.
 I remember that the government was planning to theft-proof 90% of Winnepeg vehicles within five years. The government was going to guarantee a price of $280, taxes included, for the purchase and installation of immobilizers that met Canadian standards. The customer had to pay $140, half the installation cost, to the insurance corporation, which was a government-owned corporation in Manitoba. The government provided interest-free loans and was going to give an insurance reduction of $40 annually. 
Guess what? Almost nobody took up the program. After a while, six months to a year, we found that people were not participating. 
Finally, the government decided it had had enough and mandated the installation of the immobilizers free of cost, which was $200. The government made it a requirement that immobilizers had to be installed before vehicle registration and insurance could be renewed, thereby ensuring that it was going to be done. Also, there was a reduction in insurance.
One would think that people would be lined up by the hundreds to get this done, given that this program was free and there was going to be an insurance reduction. But the reality is that people complained. People did not want to get their free immobilizers installed in their vehicles. They felt it was their right to drive around without the fear of their car being stolen. 
There is this strange train of thought out there. Many people retain a more or less 1950s mentality, and think they should be able to leave their house doors and car doors unlocked and that no one should steal anything. These people are not dealing with reality. The majority of people realize that they are required to take some precautions and lock their vehicles and homes. 
Thieves target certain models of cars. Since September 1, 2007, all new vehicles have factory-installed immobilizers. That means that during the last three years of vehicle production all cars had immobilizers installed at the factory.
Manitoba has taken vehicles methodically, group by group, and worked its way down from the highest-theft vehicles to the lowest. Over time, there is a smaller pool of vehicles available for theft. That has been reflected in lower automobile theft rates. Manitoba had an immediate reduction in the first year. The province had a long way to go, because it was the auto theft capital of Canada by quite a long shot. In fact, Manitoba was almost double the national average in auto theft.
The province had a lot of work to do, but it had a good base to start from. Auto theft was cut down substantially. Once, a couple of years ago, no thefts occurred during a 24-hour period. One day in a month a couple of years ago, Winnipeg actually had zero car thefts. Manitoba has started to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
This problem should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. When governments see a problem, they should be proactive, not reactive. The problem should be studied early on. We should have started studying this problem in the eighties to determine how best to solve it. Putting an immobilizer in a vehicle is a simple solution.
The other part of the approach was to set up a gang suppression unit with the police department, and that has worked very well. The police know who these level four offenders are. They are roughly 50 people. The police targeted these 50 people, and most of them are now in jail, where they are unable to steal cars. 
A number of others who are out on bail wear a monitoring device obtained from Nova Scotia, where it evidently works well. There have been incidents of car thieves cutting off their ankle bracelets and escaping, but by and large it has been a decent program. Manitoba set up a pilot project for a year, and I believe it is still going on. So it appears that the pilot worked out okay and is achieving some results, in spite of the odd hiccup along the way. 
Manitoba also looked at the bait car program, which is an interesting program that works in some parts of the United States. It also works well in B.C. 
However, Manitoba, for one reason or another, decided not to proceed with the bait car program. It could be because we have very cold temperatures for a large part of the year. Vancouver has warmer temperatures to work with. However, to each his own. Evidently, the bait car program worked reasonably well in Vancouver, and that is fine if it is getting results.
The Manitoba government then decided to chase this tough on crime government for some action on crime. To that end, Premier Doer led a delegation to Ottawa on September 13, 2007, and he included in his delegation the attorney general, the opposition Conservative leader, the leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba, and the mayors of Winnipeg and Brandon. He also included a number of other people.
The province's approach to reducing auto theft and youth crime focuses on four broad areas. One is prevention, with programs like lighthouses, friendship centres, and education pilot projects as well as initiatives like vehicle immobilizers. Another is intervention, with the highly successful turnabout program and intense supervision for repeat offenders. A third is suppression, with more targeted funding for police officers, corrections, and crown attorneys dealing with auto theft. The final area is consequences, which includes lifetime suspensions of driver's licences for repeat offenders.
In addition, the premier cited the success of provincial initiatives dealing with drinking and driving, which helped reduce related fatalities and injuries by 25% from 1999 to 2003. There were also changes that Manitoba was asking the federal government to make. 
No other province, to my knowledge, was doing this at that time. The NDP government of Manitoba was actually getting tough on crime. It was coming to Ottawa to talk to the pretend tough on crime government, demanding that the federal government provide stronger penalties for youth involved in serious crimes, especially auto theft. The province wanted to allow first degree murder charges for gang-related homicides. It wanted to eliminate two-for-one remand credits, which the government, to its credit, is doing now. It wanted to classify auto theft as an indictable violent offence, and it wanted to make shooting at buildings and drive-by shootings indictable offences as well. In addition, Manitoba requested the federal government to examine the issue of drivers who refuse to take a breathalyzer test, with a view to strengthening existing laws.
I ask the member for Sudbury, my colleague, does that sound like a party and a government that is soft on crime? The Manitoba NDP government was asking for things that the tough on crime government here in Ottawa cannot seem to get done at all. It has accomplished only two of the five requests from the provincial government. It is clear that the government that is tough on crime is the NDP government of Manitoba. It is tough on crime, but it is also smart on crime, because it relies on best practices. We do not run off for whatever is politically popular at the time. We proceed with what works, what gets results. 
I have explained to the member about immobilizers, how we were able to pilot that program and get drastic results in auto theft reduction. I also explained the gang-suppression unit, which isolated and identified those 50 people. 
I have not started even one word of the notes I brought with me today. I am extremely disappointed about that, but I am sure that there will be questions.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand on my colleague's thoughts. He said that he had a lot of notes and perhaps he would like to continue that theme.
However, I do have a question. This is the third rendition of this particular type of legislation. It has been a long time coming. The member alluded to the fact that some of the measures are soft on crime and questioned whether they are tough on crime. It seems to me that this tough on crime, if we want to call it that, has been a long delayed process between the earlier versions of this bill, Bill C-53, as well as Bill C-26.
One of the things I do like is that auto theft is now a separate offence, which is certainly a step in the right direction, and many stakeholders have said as much. Insurance bureaus believe in that, as was expected, and I believe the people in his province of Manitoba are also supporters of this bill. In Winnipeg, where this is a big issue, the mayor may have had some comments about this. 
Now that we are into third reading, perhaps the member would like to comment on whether he was satisfied with the process by which it went through committee and on whether he would like to see this improved upon.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, it is a minority government situation and if it were not for the Prime Minister proroguing the House on two occasions and calling an election, this legislation probably would have been passed long ago. 
If the Manitoba government had waited for the federal government to act, auto theft rates would be even higher than they are right now. I do not see where the government has provided a very strong initiative or played a strong role in this whole debate about auto theft.
When the member talks about penalties, I think the penalties will be more important for the criminal elements. I did not get to that in my speech, but a large component of this bill involves professional auto thieves who are stealing for profit. If we take a city like Toronto or Montreal, the police know the cars that are stolen and never get recovered. Those cars are torn part and the parts are sold and shipped out of the country.
However, in Winnipeg, it is a little different. Some of that is happening but most of the thefts are for joyriding and for the commission of crimes. The reason we know that is because 80% of stolen cars in Manitoba are recovered within 24 or 48 hours. I believe in Montreal only about 20% of stolen cars are recovered. 
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as we all know, joyriding has been going on since the invention of the automobile, but it has taken an extremely long time to pass this bill. It first started out as Bill C-53, then it became Bill C-26 and now it is Bill S-9, a Senate bill.
I have two questions for the hon. member. First, why is it taking so long to pass this bill into law?Second, why does the crime prevention government seem to think that putting everybody in prison is the answer? I would like the hon. member to compare, if possible, incarceration to putting immobilizers in all vehicles.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, it has taken so long because the government, in the last few years, has gone through one needless election and two instances of proroguing the House which were both unnecessary. That is why these bills are having to be reintroduced and debated over and over.
I do want to observe that in Manitoba, now that we have the auto theft rates down, we are now finding that the thieves who are out there are, in some cases, commandeering taxis to get from point A to point B. We are in the process of solving one problem but we may now be creating another problem that needs a solution.
In fact, the Manitoba Taxicab Board is currently dealing with that whole issue of how it can install GPS systems and shields in the taxis, and deal with issues where people at 10 in the morning, and these are not only males but females too, are flagging down a taxi and commandeering it for a ride across the city. It is an issue that must be dealt with on a constant basis. We cannot just ignore it. However, we need to do what works and what is effective, as opposed to what gets us a bit of positive publicity at the end of the day.
As I indicated before, the government finally implemented the requirement that immobilizers had to be installed as of September 1, 2007 in all new vehicles in Manitoba. In fact, that was an edict of the former Liberal government from 2003. We can see how long it took. The Liberals announced it in 2003 and it took until 2007 to require the automobile manufacturers to install them in all the new vehicles. We missed four years there. This initiative could have been taken by the Chrétien government the day it came to office. It could have been taken by the Mulroney government before that. The Insurance Bureau of Canada indicated that it was only a $30 or $40 expense to install these in the factory.
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks about three aspects of the bill because I want to put on the record the fact that the House has considered and was aware of these things when we passed the bill.
 I first want to say that my party and I are supporting the bill. It is quite true that the provisions of the bill have been in the legislative hopper for a number of years now, it being recognized that automobile theft was a significant economic crime here in Canada, but realizing, of course, that throughout the Criminal Code offence of theft and the offence of joyriding were already on the books and being used to enforce the problems of car theft.
 However, some car theft rings now have turned this into a major international business, victimizing people in Canada and around the world. Therefore, it was necessary to take a broader and more comprehensive look at the issue of auto theft and this bill is the result.
One of the things I want to point out is the question of a shift of the burden of proof in relation to this offence. Most of us will understand that in the Criminal Code the burden is on the state to prove that the individual has committed a criminal offence and we do not criminalize somebody by saying, “Hey, Mr. Citizen, you prove you are not guilty”.
Clause 4 of the bill states that: 
 Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse...removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number.... 
That is saying that if people were to remove a vehicle identification number, it is a criminal offence unless they have a lawful excuse. What is a lawful excuse? I would have thought that people could simply say that they owned the automobile and that they were entitled to do with it whatever they would like to do in terms of how it is described, identified, painted or whatever. 
I cannot recall another instance where in setting up a criminal offence we have shifted the burden to citizens to provide a lawful excuse before they are convicted. This might have read a lot better if it had said that it is an offence to obliterate or remove a vehicle identification number with fraudulent intent. That would have been more consistent with the way we currently operate under the Criminal Code.
I am not at all sure that shifting the burden is fair or constitutional, but I did want the House to know that the House and the committee had an opportunity to discuss this. It is not clear that we have an answer, but it has been noted and it will be for others to determine the appropriateness of that innovation where we place upon the person charged with the offence the burden of showing a lawful excuse for something that would otherwise be pretty normal.
The second thing concerns the definition of vehicle identification numbers. It states that it is:
 ...any number or other mark placed on a motor vehicle for the purpose of distinguishing it from other similar motor vehicles. 
My first reading of that led me to think that included a licence plate. On reading it and discussing it with other colleagues, they felt differently. I am not fully convinced but I did want the House to know that a “number or other mark placed on a motor vehicle for the purpose of distinguishing it from other similar motor vehicles”, in the views of members but not me, does not include a licence plate.
So I will leave that resolved at least by the majority here in favour of the licence plate not being included in that definition.
Third, on the issue of mandatory minimum, the commercial for this offence says there is a mandatory minimum contained in the bill; and yes, there is. However, I want to point out that it is not in every third offence that a mandatory minimum will apply. That is because it is only where the third or subsequent offence is proceeded with by indictment that it involves a mandatory minimum sentence.
So there could be a third, fourth or fifth circumstance where, in the discretion of the crown attorney, the prosecutor, the Crown will not proceed by indictment, it will proceed by way of summary conviction, and therefore, by the wording of these new provisions, a mandatory minimum will not apply.
The last thing I want to point out is that there have been some references in the bill to the new automobile trafficking, export-import provisions of this bill. These trafficking provisions are actually quite important because they fill a void in the ability of the state to intercept, monitor, surveil and deal with the issue of exporting stolen cars, or even importing stolen cars. It is a lot tougher to import them.
We have referred to our enforcement mechanism as being the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA. I have to say that it is pretty easy to pass a new statute and say that we have an enforcement agency. In fact, the CBSA is not set up or resourced to be a border police agency. Maybe they should; maybe they should not.
It is a border service agency and its three functions are to do immigration processing and verification, food inspection, and tax collection, including dealing with smuggling. That is what CBSA was set up to deal with.
 Yet we are passing a bill that seems to be suggesting that the CBSA will now have what would otherwise be police enforcement objectives and goals to accomplish. At the justice committee, we did not look at resourcing or the mandate of CBSA. This is part of a bigger issue involving CBSA. That agency is going to need some scrutiny and some help from the policy-makers to make sure it is properly resourced for all of the functions we expect it to do.
In this case I have a feeling that we are passing a law and saying to CBSA, “Over to you”, when CBSA does not do police work. They do CBSA work in the three categories I mentioned. I should add that they also process goods leaving Canada where there are restrictions placed on the processing, which is why these trafficking provisions in the bill will enable CBSA to play a role in interdicting the export of stolen Canadian automobiles.
The last thing I want to say is that this bill passes another amendment to the Criminal Code. There must be half dozen to a dozen of them in the pipeline. Most of us around this House should by now recognize that the biggest bang for our buck, the most effective tool in dealing with crime, is investigation and enforcement.
We cannot just get rid of a crime problem by passing a law. Even if we pass the law, while it manifests denunciation of these anti-social acts, we only get the guy after the offence has been committed, and then there is the arrest, the investigation, the prosecution, the sentencing, et cetera.
We as a society have to get out in front of these things, and that is why investigation and enforcement is so important. It is the key element of all the many elements involved in crime prevention and reduction of crime.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I congratulate my colleague on a fine speech. I have just a quick point.
One of the issues here is to create this auto theft as a separate element to our Criminal Code, and I want to get his comments on that. 
Yesterday we had a private member's bill by the hon. member for Red Deer about impersonating a police officer, which I think is a great bill and will be voting for it. 
In this particular case, in his experience, could he comment on that? Has he seen that sort of practice before? Does he think this is fundamentally a good idea, to separate the idea of auto theft from it?
Could he also talk about how this bill has been so delayed? We have had Bill C-53 and Bill C-26, time and time again, delay after delay, and we finally get around to doing something, which everybody in this House agrees with.
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last question first. The delay described involves a delay over quite a few years, over quite a few Parliaments and sessions. The reason the government of the day, whether it was Liberal or Conservative, did not actually punch through on this quickly and immediately was that there were other Criminal Code offences being used for this purpose.
We could have gotten by with the existing Criminal Code provisions, but with something as thick as the Criminal Code, we can always find ways to add a section or amend a section. This will go on forever. I have to say that these new additions to the code will assist in police enforcement of the code. Will it produce reductions in crime? Only time will tell.
The earlier question that was asked was on this concept of continuing to legislate new criminal laws. I get the sense that some of us will, from time to time, present bills amending the Criminal Code for, let us just say, political purposes, as if we have all invented a new way to deal with the problems of crime. This will also go on for many years. I have probably done it myself once or twice.
Every new idea is welcome and I am happy to participate in those debates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Interjection]
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could seek unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 1:30?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Statistics ActHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.):  moved that Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill C-568. Because this bill would save the government $30 million, we on this side of the House do not believe it would require a royal recommendation. We hope that the Speaker will see it that way.
This bill would enshrine the taking of the mandatory long form census every five years, as well as remove the possibility of prison penalties for any violations.
The census goes back a long time. In fact, there is a phrase in the Bible that comes to me at this time:
 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. 
 I have to submit as a family doctor that if this had been a voluntary census, Jesus would have been born in Nazareth.
The mandatory nature of the census has been going on for 2,010 years. The government is a little remiss to try to change it at this point.
Canada's first census was initiated by Intendant Jean Talon in 1666. The census counted the colony's 3,215 inhabitants and recorded their age, sex, marital status and occupation. 
The first national census of Canada was taken in 1871. According to the Census Act of May 12, 1870, census-taking was to take place no later than May 1. Under section 8 of the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly the British North America Act, a census was to be taken in 1871 and every tenth year thereafter. This first census of the Dominion following Confederation in 1867 counted the population of the four original provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. Its main goal was to determine appropriate representation by population in the new Parliament. Since 1871, decennial census data have provided the cornerstone for representative government. 
In 1871 the questionnaire covered a variety of subjects, and asked 211 questions on area, land holdings, vital statistics, religion, education, administration, the military, justice, agriculture, commerce, industry and finance. Information was collected in tabular form on population, houses and other buildings, lands, industries and institutions. The population field included the age, sex, religion, education, race and occupation of each person. Not every household answered all 211 questions. 
In 1971, the Federal Bureau of Statistics became Statistics Canada.
That year also marked the 100th anniversary of the first national census of Canada. Under the new Statistics Act, it became a statutory requirement to hold censuses of population and agriculture every five years. 
Two questionnaires were used in 1971. The short form, distributed to two-thirds of Canadian households, covered the basic population questions and nine housing questions. The long form, distributed to the remaining third, contained the same questions as the short form with the addition of 20 housing questions and 30 socio-economic population questions. The Census of Agriculture questionnaire contained 199 questions, down from 251 in 1961. 
What has been problematic in the debate is the misinformation by the government that it was in 1971 that the long form census began. In fact, the long form census was the norm before 1971, and only in 1971 did the short form census begin. Before that, all of the information was collected from all of the citizens.
 On July 24, before the industry committee, Dr. Ivan Fellagi, a former chief statistician, said that the government had misinterpreted the imposition of this long form census in 1971, when before 1971 there was only a long form census. The short form census was introduced in 1971. It is clear that the government understand that both were mandatory and both are important.
 In fact, it was also the testimony of the former chief statistician, Munir Sheikh, and the Conservatives misrepresented the chief statistician as though he had given this advice. I will quote from Munir Sheikh's statement:
 I want to take this opportunity to comment on a technical statistical issue which has become the subject of media discussion. This relates to the question of whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census. It cannot. 
It was very clear from a lot of the testimony that a lot of people have rallied in favour of the long form census. 
Dr. David Mowat, the former deputy chief public health officer for Canada and now the medical officer of health for Peel, said this with respect to the problems of voluntary census:
 As for trying to elicit this detailed information from a voluntary rather than mandatory census form, we know from our own experience with voluntary research surveys, and we know from the experience of other countries, that certain categories of people will not respond proportionately to a voluntary census survey. In particular, we know that those least willing to provide information voluntarily will be those who tend to belong to socially and economically disadvantaged groups. We can debate why this is so, but the reality is this: if we go to a voluntary census, the groups whose health and living conditions are most in jeopardy will be underrepresented in the data. 
In fact, if we look at the short form census, it is quite clear that it would plunge Canada back into the dark ages and indeed, worse off than the days of Jesus Christ. It is impossible for the government to attack proper data. As Mel Cappe has said:
 For the last 35 years, people have been filling out this long-form of the census in one form or another. And we have been doing this for over 130 years. And now from 2011 forward, we will not have a data point. That means that all those people who filled out the form in the last 35 years did so for nought. Because we won’t have the next point on the series. 
 There has never been a case, in the history of Canada, in the history of Statistic Canada where someone’s personal census data has been released. All that is released are the aggregation by census track so they add them up. [...] Statistic Canada has an unblemished record of keeping to themselves – private – all of the returns of the census. 
 How much time would filling the mandatory census long-form questionnaire take? Cappe explained, “20 percent of the population get asked every five years to fill out this form. […] That means once every 25 years, you got to spend about 30 minutes in answering 41 questions.” 
We think it is egregious that the government has misrepresented this. Indeed, by the continuous use of words like “intrusive” and “coercive” it is has created fear, such that people think the government will know what religion they follow, and how many bedrooms they have in their homes. When people say they do not want the government to know, it is imperative that a government of any substance admit that the government will never know what religion one is or how many bedrooms are in one's house. It will only know the average number of bedrooms in the community and the number of people who live in that community. It will not know whether a person is a Roman Catholic or how many Roman Catholics live in the neighbourhood.
The most poignant testimony on July 21 was from Elisapee Sheutiapik, a board member of ITK: 
 You have to remember that in the long form there are questions such as how many bedrooms are in the house. In Arctic communities it's too cold to be homeless. There's hidden homelessness. We'll never get that data if that long form is not filled out. 
Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Peterborough should not think this is funny and should be listening.
Ms. Sheutiapik went on to say: 
 Actually, there is an amazing partnership that has been developed between Arctic communities and the government when it comes to Statistics Canada. There is a partnership there where they have trained bilingual Inuit people who can work with unilinguals on filling out these forms. It took a lot of time to educate people about how important this data is, because after all, we use those data to help us plan into the future. 
 Language is an issue in Arctic communities. Those are the kinds of information that are asked about as well in the long form. Moving forward, language and the use of it is a concern, so moving forward we need to know about and continue to keep tabs on where our language is at, not just housing but language as well. 
 [I]n northern communities, they're still very much intimidated by forms, especially the elders, because some of them still can't read English, so they're intimidated. But if you have someone who has been trained through Stats Canada going house to house, they would be very comfortable having the person come and help to fill out those forms. 
 In northern communities we wear many different hats. Today I can answer for all of the different hats I wear, be they as president of Pauktuutit, which automatically makes me a member of ITK; and as mayor of Iqaluit and president of our association, which also automatically makes me a member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. So it has an impact on all of the organizations I work with. 
 Firstly, I just want to state that to keep Canada strong, we need to know how the country is changing, where people live, work, and raise their families. This census helps us do that. 
 As Inuit, because of our small numbers within our great nation, sometimes we fall through the cracks, but this data brings real information that's needed in all levels of government and non-government organizations. 
She went on to say:
 I think it really is unreasonable to suggest that Inuit bear the cost of collecting data to measure the size and scope of their inequality. 
Last week the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories had a motion which began with, “WHEREAS the Government of Canada intends to eliminate the Statistics Canada 'long-form census'”, and further on states:
 AND WHEREAS It is estimated that it would cost the Government of the Northwest Territories approximately $500,000 to increase its data collection to replace the data no longer available from Statistics Canada; 
 NOW, THEREFORE I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Thebacha, that this Legislative Assembly urges the Government of Canada to reverse its decision to eliminate the mandatory “long-form” census questionnaire. 
In his letter, Ivan Fellagi has been very clear. I hope the government will read the UN fundamental principles of official statistics. We need to make sure that all of those principles are followed. As a physician, I will use the analogy that having the chief statistician explain that a voluntary census would be adequate is like asking the chief medical officer of health to go out and tell the people of Canada that smoking does not cause cancer. This is appalling. Even Andrew Coyne has said what was once the normal attack on elite experts is now an attack on the knowledge of this country. “The loss”, said Peggy Taillon, president and CEO of CCSD, “of the long form census is equal to the government actually shutting off Canada's navigation system”. 
We are calling on the government to change the questions, if it will, change the punishment, if it will, but to retain the long form census. This bill would put it into the Statistics Act so that no future government would ever be able to fool with this completely important essential data.
Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am delightfully surprised that the member brought faith into the conversation on the census. I would like to make sure for the record what she mentioned in history:
 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. 
I think that this possibly reveals a secret agenda of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition, where the Liberals want to force people to do the census in order to raise the GST, in order to raise corporate taxes. It is exactly why they want to compel people to do this. It was Caesar who first forced it, and forced people to travel miles and miles to do it. 
I would like to ask the member, is that what the Liberals are trying to do, actually make sure that they can tax people more efficiently?
[Interjection]
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the bill speaks to the fact that we want taxpayers' dollars spent wisely. Group after group, all users of the data, all cities and provinces feel that without the navigation system of a census we would not know whether taxpayers' dollars are paying for programs that are making things better or worse.
To turn off the navigation system allows ideologically-based governments to do what they want because they will not be accountable for the complete waste of money for programs that are not based on the facts.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, even Conservatives who I know are scratching their heads as to why the Prime Minister would make the long form census optional. We know that businesses in general are opposed to this. Professional people are opposed to this. Provincial governments are opposed to this, because transfers are based on the number of voters times a certain amount. For example, I believe the province of Manitoba gets $4,000 for every person identified and if enough people are not identified, it would mean substantial reductions in transfer payments for health and education.
It sounds like something from the Tea Party movement. It just does not make any sense at all, in terms of the conventional environment of politics in this country, that a government would basically turn its back on its own friends in business, its own friends in provincial governments and professional people who support the government. They cannot understand where the government is headed on this issue.
[Interjection]
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with any significant change in a policy such as this, it would be normal to consult the advisory council that is appointed for that. It would be normal to consult the end users.
What was shocking in what has turned up over the last while is this was a totally ideological fight against having good data. It is something the Prime Minister and Guy Giorno have been involved in since last Christmas. They have been bullying the staff at Statistics Canada. The Prime Minister's handwriting is on the documents themselves. This is an ongoing fight. This occurred during the G8 and G20 summits when Parliament was not sitting. The thinking was that no one would notice. According to the Globe and Mail:
 Don Drummond, a member of Statistics Canada’s advisory council, said “all of us were shocked” by the news that the mandatory long-form census was being abandoned. 
 ...the council unanimously believed that abandoning the mandatory long-form census would skew the 2011 results, causing a statistical break with previous surveys that would it make impossible to read and project trends accurately. 

Mike Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the national household survey, which will be conducted next year. This voluntary survey has very much been misconstrued by my colleagues across the floor. I believe that asking the long form census questions on a voluntary basis in the national household survey will provide a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy of Canadians. I am confident this new survey will establish a balance among the requirements of governments, businesses, municipalities and associations for good information and the willingness of Canadians to provide that information.
 This government is well aware that without good information, informed decisions are difficult to make. Nevertheless, the government is not willing to force Canadians, who may conscientiously object to giving private information to government officials, to do so.
 I would like to take a few minutes to ensure that there are no misconceptions in the House about the national household survey. 
The national household survey will collect information on the demographic, social and economic situation of people across Canada and the dwellings in which they live. Approximately one-third of all households across Canada will be selected to participate in the national household survey. Information will be used by governments, businesses, associations, community organizations and many others to make important decisions about the services in our communities. These services include child care, schooling, family services, housing, roads, public transportation and skills and training for the employment sector. 
The national household survey will provide information about the living arrangements of people in Canada: family size, number of children living with one parent or two parents and the number of people who live alone. This information is important for planning social programs. It is also used by communities to plan services such as daycare centres, schools, seniors centres and seniors residences.
The survey will also provide information on the number of people in Canada who have difficulties with daily activities and whose activities are reduced because of a physical or mental condition, or a health problem. This information is used to plan services relating to accessibility and to support health care for the communities that they serve. 
The national household survey will provide a social and cultural profile of Canada's population. This profile will tell us about the movements of people within Canada and from other countries other than Canada and for newcomers to Canada. It will collect information on the citizenship status of Canada's population, information that is used to plan citizenship classes and programs to help support those newcomers to Canada.
This new survey will also provide the number of immigrants and non-permanent residents in Canada and the year the people immigrated. This information is used to compare the situation of immigrants over time to provide immigration and employment policies and the programs which serve those individuals and to plan on education, health and other services much needed by these communities.
The national household survey will provide information about the ethnic and cultural diversity in Canada. This information is used by associations, agencies and researchers for activities such as health promotion, communications and marketing.
The survey will also collect language information which will be used to determine the need for language training and the services in English and in French. 
Another important aspect of the national household survey is the information collected about aboriginals, both on and off reserve. This information is used by governments, including aboriginal governments and organizations, to develop programs and services for our aboriginal peoples.
Another question on the survey will tell us about the visible minority population in Canada. This information is required for programs under the Employment Equity Act which promote equal opportunity for each and every Canadian.
There will also be a religion question. This question will be used to measure religious affiliation and diversity. It is for use to trace changes in Canadian society. The information will also be used to help plan facilities and services within our diverse communities across the country.
We will also know, when the results of the survey are released, where residents of Canada are moving to and where they are moving from. This information is used to look at the characteristics of people who move and to track the needs for housing, education, transportation and social services.
We will also know more about the social and economic conditions of the second generation of Canadians. This information helps us understand Canada's immigration history. 
The national household survey also has a series of questions on education. These questions will tell us about the education, training and recent school attendance of residents of Canada. Governments use this information to develop training and other programs to meet the changing needs of our workforce and of the education needs of specific groups such as immigrants, aboriginal peoples and youth.
The labour market questions provide information on paid work to plan education and training programs, assess language use at work and the forecast of job opportunities. Information on where people work, how they get to work tells us about commuting patterns, public transit needs and energy use. This helps identify locations for new schools, hospitals, daycare and recreational facilities and the need for roads and transit services. 
Income questions provide statistics on income from all sources. Governments use these statistics to develop income support programs such as old age security, provincial income supplements and social assistance payments. Businesses use income statistics to locate stores and to develop new products and services that are demanded by Canadians. Private and public sector researchers use information about earnings to study labour markets and industry patterns.
Information on expenses related to child care and support payments, along with information on income, provides more precise measures of disposable income.
Finally, questions on housing provide information to develop housing communities and projects. Information on the number of rooms and bedrooms in homes and on housing costs is used to assess the economic situation of Canadian families. Governments use this information to measure levels of crowding within households and to develop housing programs within their communities.
Information on the age of dwellings and the need for repairs is used by municipalities, for example, to develop neighbourhood improvement programs.
I would ask for the support of hon. colleagues for the national household survey. I trust they will encourage their constituents to complete the survey next May. This will ensure that all Canadians have the information they need for a better future.
Mario Laframboise:  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census).
This bill is a direct response to the government's desire to abolish the mandatory long form for the 2011 Census. Recently, Quebeckers and Canadians were very surprised to learn that the government had decided to change the long form questionnaire. In fact, it had been used for 35 years and, as a member, I had never received any complaints from my constituents. I have held office since 2000 and 20% of the population receives this form at some point according to the statistical requirements. People do not find it to be a problem. Otherwise, as they do in other circumstances, they would complain to their MP. Thus, it was very surprising. I asked my Bloc Québécois colleagues and none have received complaints about the mandatory long form questionnaire. It was a surprise.
When the Conservatives surprise us like this, we have to look at what is behind it all. I was listening to the Conservative member read the text prepared for him. It was all right. He concluded by stating that we must encourage Canadians to fill out the new short form. That is a fine idea. It has not gone well for them. People are unhappy that the Conservatives are making these changes. What the member did not talk about was the political strategy behind it. In fact, when the Conservatives announce this kind of surprise it is because there is a political strategy that masks the Conservative ideology. That is the reality. Once again, the Conservatives dare not openly state the reasons for this decision. That is the Conservative way: they always try to hide the reality and are never transparent.
I was very surprised by another fact as well. First of all, we are no longer hearing anything from the hon. member for Beauce, who spoke out saying that he had received thousands of emails, although that was not true. He is so embarrassed that he has not said another word about this issue since. That is true. We might try to understand what is behind this policy, which no one asked for. It was quite something to see. The Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada resigned because the minister had the nerve to say, during his first speech on the issue, that it was at the request of Statistics Canada. It has since been clearly proven that Statistics Canada definitely did not ask for the change.
Thus, it was a political decision based on Conservative ideology. The Conservatives probably realize that certain categories of people would rather not answer the questionnaire. This is even more serious. Indeed, the accuracy of the information requested, provided and compiled by Statistics Canada was recognized around the world.
In addition, some people might still believe that possible jail time was a problem, since jail time was included in the legislation. The Conservatives say they want to eliminate such sentences. So be it. We can agree easily, simply because no criminal charges have ever been brought against someone who did not fill out the form.
Quebeckers, Canadians and members of Parliament have to live with a government that pulls rabbits out of its political hat and thinks it will win votes by allowing people not to fill out the long form. That is what the government bill comes down to. The form is now shorter, but it is not mandatory. In keeping with its ideology, the government is telling people that it will not force them to fill out a form, despite the fact that many organizations want it.
I do not have much time, so I will list just a few of the organizations that have asked the government to keep the long form. First, the Province of Quebec needs these statistics, which are a very important tool with respect to language of work and language used at home, for example. The government shortened the five questions on the mandatory form and added others. The Government of Quebec, the homeland of francophones in North America, needs statistics about the language used by the people who live in Quebec.
Other provinces have opposed this move for other reasons. Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba have all asked Ottawa to maintain the mandatory long form. They are all important members of what my Conservative colleagues call the Canadian federation. Once again, the federation is not based on negotiation, particularly not with the current Conservative government, which negotiates nothing.
A number of major stakeholders have reacted. These include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Association francophone pour le savoir, the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the Canadian Association for Business Economics.
Many organizations do not understand the government's decision and are asking it to reconsider and not go ahead with this bad idea, which would change a good way of doing things. People respected the mandatory long form and filled it out. No charges were ever laid against anyone for failing to comply. The long form provided information of great importance to society.
The Conservatives have made a big deal in the House about asking why it would be necessary to know the number of rooms in a house. For a furniture retailer or a company selling renovation materials, it is important to know future trends in these areas. Do homes have fewer or more rooms?
The Conservatives do not get it. That is why we always come back to the question: what is the political reason behind the Conservatives' decision to change the census form? Again, they are trying to please a segment of the population that is not in Quebec. Quebeckers did not complain about having to fill out this form. If we ask, perhaps the Conservatives will tell us what category of people they were targeting when they decided to remove the mandatory nature of the long form.
I agree with them on replacing criminal sentences with a simple fine, given that such sentences have never been handed down. The Bloc Québécois would have gladly supported the government on that.
Because of all the important information that was being used by both Quebec's and Canada's civil society and corporations, we are supporting the bill before us to reinstate the mandatory long form census, as Quebec, Ontario and other provinces are calling for.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census).
The New Democratic Party is supportive of the bill because it seeks to reverse the ideological-based decision of the Conservative government to cancel the long form census. The bill would also removes the punishment of imprisonment for a person convicted of providing false or misleading information. 
While we are supportive of this bill, it is important to note that it does not go far enough.
Bill C-583, introduced by my colleague from Windsor West, goes one step further by enshrining into law the primacy of evidence-based decision-making over political maneuvering of the likes we have seen with the government.
To be clear, both elements of Bill C-568 are fully supported. For the record one more time: not a single Canadian has been imprisoned for failing to fill out the long form census. The imprisonment element should be removed right now.
However, we need to go further by removing political interference from Statistics Canada's ability to do its job and provide an accurate picture of our country. The Chief Statistician must be able to do his job in an environment free of political meddling by an ideological government intent on suppressing evidence and information that contradicts its narrow conservative agenda.
We can just imagine the outrage from the national and international community if the finance minister were to interfere with the independence of the Bank of Canada's governor to set monetary policy. Therefore, why should we accept the government's heavy-handedness in interfering with our Chief Statistician's capacity to do his or her job?
Hundreds of individuals, organizations, businesses and governments from coast to coast to coast raised the alarm bells because of the terrible decision to cancel the long form census. Despite the unsubstantiated claims by Conservative MPs about mythical complaints of the intrusiveness of the long form census, we know that the majority of citizens support and understand the need for the long form census.
As a francophone living in a predominantly English-speaking region in northern Ontario, I know that my community's capacity to access necessary federal services and funding for French cultural and educational initiatives is dependent on the availability of credible data on the size of our community in northern Ontario.
Losing the long form census will have a detrimental impact on our community and every other francophone community outside of Quebec.
Is it any wonder the government was taken to court on this issue? Our community is outraged by the government's relentless efforts to shut down any source of credible data that provides objective evidence necessary for developing good public policy.
Last night, right here on Parliament Hill, parliamentarians and members of Canada's very professional public service were invited to a special panel discussion on a timely topic: evidence versus ideology of Canadian public policy. This event was sponsored by the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, the Association of Canadian Financial Officers and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. 
The event aimed to launch a public debate regarding the current state and possible future of evidence-based policy making in Canada. A panel discussion featured three distinguished speakers: Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen columnist and author; Lawrence Martin, The Globe and Mail columnist and author; and Armine Yalnizyan, an economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The discussion was fascinating because panellists and participants acknowledged that there has always been a role for ideology in public policy. However, they noted that in the past two years we have seen the emergence of a worrisome pattern.
First, the government gagged public servants and fired others who dared to disagree with it or gave it policy recommendations that did not fit into its ideologically driven agenda.
Second, the government has cancelled surveys and the long form census to ensure statisticians, economists, academics and other professionals did not have access to objective data that provided damning evidence of the Conservative government's policy failures.
The Conservatives are dragging this country backward with their ideological agenda even though a clear majority of Canadians are saying no. The majority of parliamentarians in this House support restoring the long form census, protecting the professional role of Canada's Chief Statistician and removing the threat of imprisonment from the act. Yet, the minority government continues to thumb its nose at the majority will of Parliament. What an insult to this historic institution. What an insult to democracy itself. 
Bill C-568 is specific to the government's decision to cancel the long form census.
 I believe this House needs to have a wider debate about the government's treatment of public servants. It is setting a public policy based on belief, not public interest; its rejection of evidence-based public policy; its attempt to shut down public access to objective data; and its attempt to stop credible analysis of its failed policies. 
This will not work. We are on to the Conservatives and Canadians are on to them. When the next election is called, the Conservatives can be sure that we will remind them of every bad decision they have made. 
This is unsubstantiated, but I have been told that the government tried to cancel the long form census when the outgoing Minister of the Environment was the industry minister, but he said no to the PMO. Unfortunately, the current Minister of Industry did not have that fortitude when the PMO came calling again demanding the cancellation of the long form census. There he was this past summer having to make a terrible decision, but he tried to blame the professional public servants of Statistics Canada. 
The government keeps saying that the buck stops with the ministers, except, of course, when they make a bad decision, and then it wants to blame the public servants because it cannot defend itself.
This reminds me of when the current President of the Treasury Board was the Sea-Doo leader of the Canadian Alliance and did not know in which direction the Niagara River flowed. He blamed his staff. For the record, it flows north. The Conservatives have been blaming everybody but themselves ever since. It is a shame.
I offer my party's support for this bill and urge the House to bring other necessary changes to protect our professional public service from the kind of pervasive political interference by ministers and their political staff who have been known to interfere in every aspect of departmental decision-making, even stopping the flow of information through the Access to Information Act. We need to end this trend and we need to do it quickly before the Conservatives drag us decades backward.
Rob Oliphant: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege today to rise to contribute to the debate on Bill C-568. I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for St. Paul's for taking the time and using her expertise to draft this legislation for our consideration.
It is not just a noble exercise, however. This is an exercise in actually saving taxpayer money. This will not require a royal recommendation because it will not cost more money. In fact, we estimate it will save $30 million for the Canadian taxpayers. That is a noble gesture in this time of wasteful government, wasteful spending, that we are not only going to get better information, but we are going to get it more cheaply. That needs to be said in the House.
The particular concern I raise today has to do with the multicultural communities of Canada, the ethnic, national, religious and cultural communities of Canada, which have expressed a great deal of concern about future programs, future government spending and the way we will live together as a country if we do not have accurate data that looks at population trends, ethnic trends and the way language will be develop in many parts of the country.
I raised this concern particularly after a meeting with government officials. I met with government officials when I was named multiculturalism critic. I had a number of senior officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration come to help me in understanding the multicultural fabric of Canada. They presented a deck, as they call it these days, with information about all the cultural communities both in rural and urban Canada. We went through pages and pages of information about the nature and the changing nature of the ethnic communities of Canada. 
Toward the end of the presentation, I paused and I asked these officials where the information had come from. They said that information was collected in the census. I asked if the information was garnered from the short form census or from the long form of the census. They said that it came from the long form census. I asked them how they would get that information in the next census if we did not have a long form census. There was a long pause and finally, the officials acknowledged that they would not have the information to do the kind of programming they wanted to do. The director who was there stopped and said that they would have the information, but the officials corrected him and said that they would get information, but it would not be accurate.
Information that is not accurate is not information. In fact, it is dangerous because the wrong decisions can be made if we do not have the right information that we can look at the veracity of the information. It is more dangerous to have wrong information than no information.
Luckily the minister had a special assistant in the meeting who was monitoring the officials and the information they would give the critic for the official opposition. I asked the minister's staff member how the minister felt about this. Again there was a pause, and the minister's staff person said that I would have to ask the Minister of Industry that question.
This indicates to me that there is concern among cabinet members about this decision as well. Not only do the officials worry about it, not only do over 350 community groups worry about it, not only does every provincial government and municipal government in the country worry about it, not only do school boards worry about it, not only do service agencies worry about it and the United Way and the various other organizations across the country, but there seems to be concern in the government itself about this.
When a political staffer is worried that we might actually ask his minister about this and ensures that we talk to the minister responsible for this one program, there has been some dissension. I am glad there is some dissension because that shows there might actually be a spark of life on that side. There might actually be a spark of somebody thinking that what is happening is wrong. It is narrowly defined. It is ideologically based and it is just plain stupid. 
We need the census data. We need the data that will inform Canadians about our future. Census is not about the past. It is not even really about the present. However, when it is scientifically gathered and scientifically analyzed, it is about the future. We extrapolate and we interpolate from that information so we can do planning.
In my riding of Don Valley West there is a neighbourhood called Thorncliffe Park, which is one of the largest areas for newcomers who come to this city. Thirty-five thousand people live in Thorncliffe Park. Right now Thorncliffe Park Public School has 1,900 children in kindergarten to grade 5. It is the largest elementary school in North America with 54 languages and kids from every part of the world. We want to know where those kids live, the languages spoken in their homes and how many live in apartments.
The Toronto Community House Corporation is responsible for ensuring we have appropriate housing for people in the city of Toronto. TCHC wants to know the information that is on the long form census. It has appealed to us. The Toronto District School Board has appealed to us. We are trying to decide if it is better to have a school that will be split into two or into three or whether we should build one in another area. The decision is probably firm that we will have a kindergarten school with 800 children in kindergarten in one school.
We would not know that if it were not for the 2006 census that gave us a projection so we can start to track. We do not build a new school unless we have the right information. We do not get the right information unless we have a long form census.
One of the reasons this is critical for newer Canadians is because some of them have come from regimes where they are nervous about giving information. They are nervous about government interference. We respect that, but they also know that if it is mandatory they will fill it out.
Newer Canadians will be grossly under represented in the government's planning if there is no mandatory long form census. They will not be counted.
In previous governments, Statistics Canada had the motto, “Count Yourself In”. The present government is saying “Count Yourself Out”. No Canadian deserves to hear that from their government. We cannot count ourselves out. We will be spending more money but getting less information. We will be spending more but every statistician around the world has said that it will not be valuable information.
I cannot believe that members opposite are not hearing from their constituents the same thing I am hearing from mine. I am not convinced at all that they have not heard from their school boards, their city and municipal councils and their provincial governments about the folly that is going on in this decision.
This is critical to the people of Don Valley West and to the people of Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park where newcomers live. These people want to participate in this country and they want to know that schools will be built for their kids and hospitals will be built. Everything that government money is spent on needs to be spent wisely, carefully and effectively. It is based on information.
The plural of anecdote is not information. We cannot just take anecdotes and decide government policy. We cannot take information that is unreliable and think that it will actually have an effect. What we need to do is stop. 
We need to support this private member's bill and we need to thank the member forSt. Paul's. We need to press the pause button on this. It is never too late to do the right thing. It is never too late to honour the commitment to the future. It is never too late to build a government program that will actually work and save taxpayer money.
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, in the time I have left I will highlight a few technical pieces around the sections that the bill seeks to amend, sections 19 and 31.
The proposed amendment under section 19 would provide that the census of population include a long form questionnaire. This questionnaire would be distributed to 20% of the households or the percentage determined by the Chief Statistician to ensure an accurate statistical representation of the Canadian population.
The proposed amendment under section 31 would provide for the removal of the penalty of imprisonment.
By virtue of section 8 of the Statistics Act, all census are mandatory. It is the government's responsibility to determine the content of that census. For the 2011 census, the government decided that the census would have 10 questions on demographic and language information such as birth, gender, marital status, mother tongue, home language and knowledge of official languages, obviously placing a real priority in those regards, as well as a question on the consent to release personal census information after 92 years.
It is the government's duty to examine the options presented by Statistics Canada as well as to listen to Canadians and other concerned groups and organizations.
Based on all the available information, the government decided that asking the long form census questions on a voluntary basis in the national household survey would provide a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy of Canadians.
The government does not believe that citizens who may have a conscientious objection to giving private information to government representatives should be forced to do so in the long form census. This reflects the government's strong commitment to protecting privacy.
We need to ask ourselves if a mandatory long form census questionnaire is the best way to obtain this information. While there is undeniably great value attached to census data, we must also consider the important principle of privacy protection. Is it right to force people to provide personal information under the threat of jail or fines?
I believe that asking the long form census questions on a voluntary basis in the national household survey provides a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy of Canadians. We do not believe that citizens, who may conscientiously object to giving private information to government officials, should be forced to do so in the long form census.
We understand that the national household survey will have an impact on data quality. Nevertheless, I am confident that this new survey will establish a balance between the requirement of governments, businesses, municipalities and associations for good information and the willingness of Canadians to provide that information. This government is also well aware that without good information, informed decisions are difficult to make.
The national household survey will produce accurate estimates for a wide variety of geographic areas and populations of sub-groups. These areas range from very large, such as provinces and census metropolitan areas, to small, such as municipalities. It will also include groups such as aboriginals and immigrants.
Statistics Canada will monitor the results closely by applying the same thorough methods and standards for the national household survey as it does for all of its voluntary surveys.
As I close, I would like to inform my colleagues that the government intends to introduce legislation this fall to remove the threat of jail time in section 31 for persons refusing to fill out the census and all mandatory surveys administered by Statistics Canada. The government bill would remove the threat of jail in section 32 for persons refusing or neglecting to grant access to information or wilfully obstructing or seeking to obstruct Statistics Canada officials. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 15 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:10 p.m.)